If a dog can have a blog, why not an academic?
None of my peers blog. I have never asked what they think of my commitment to the activity. Perhaps our lack of interaction on this activity is for the best. We obviously see professionalism in different ways.
I do get excited when anyone of note seems in agreement with my perspective. Janet Napolitano, now president of the Univesity of California, makes the argument that academics (she focuses on sciences, but I see no reason not to broaden the argument) need to do more to bring their expertise to the public. She uses programs she has supported as examples. Napolitano argues that important issues often lack the input of those who study topics at a deep level. Part of her focus concerns issues which have been influenced by political positions, but she also makes the argument that interest in STEM careers would be easier to promote should scholars be more open and social when it comes to their work. She cites the popularity of Neil DeGrasse Tyson. (I would add Bill Nye)
I have given some thought to why scholars write so frequently, but spend so little time writing for the public. This would make a great survey topic for some graduate student, but I would be hard pressed to identify the program that might find this an important issue. Perhaps it would fit within the general mission of Communications.
Here are some personal thoughts. It seems academic peers may look down on public scholarship. In other words (administrators such as Napolitano aside) content offered for this audience counts little or even negatively in the very competItive world academics populate. I have always proposed that senior academics having proven themselves as a function of achieving tenure should be obligated to produce some work suited to public consumption. However, I also believe the work of academics is not well received. Academics tend to be conservative (not a political label) in what they claim and the public wants simple, decisive answers. Hedging is partly the result of the combative nature of reporting conclusions to peers who are quick to attack positions that cannot be substantiated. The public might learn from this perspective. A willingness to recognize modifiers, special conditions, and probabilistic outcomes is often the best way to understand reality.
