By: Amanda
In Chapter 12 of Engaging Contradictions: Theory, Politics and Methods of Activist Scholarship, Davydd J. Greenwood provides an overview of the historical trajectory of applied and action research and how those fields of study have been systemically culled from academia at various points in history; in favor of theoretical research. Greenwood’s Chapter, “Theoretical Research, Applied Research, and Action Research: The Deinstitutionalization of Activist Research” goes on to argue that action research is actually able and perhaps better able, to produce the scientific and methodologically rigorous results that scholars are pushed to produce within the academic silos of sociology, economics, psychology, anthropology and political science (Hale ed. pg. 320. In exemplifying the exclusion of activist researchers, Greenwood explains,
To the extent that some few social scientists failed to toe the line and retain an interest in social reform, they were punished by being fired from tenured positions, denigrated in the academic professional societies to which they belonged, and later systematically purged by the FBI and CIA…Through experience, most social scientists internalized the lesson that they should focus on building theory, being “objective,” writing mainly for each other in a language of their own creation, building professional associations, and staying away from political controversies (Hale ed. pg. 321).
Unfortunately, the quote above is not one that can only be relegated to historical examples. In fact, as recently as November 30th 2016 professor of Philosophy, George Yancy, published an article in the New York Times entitled “I am a Dangerous Professor.” The article explains that his name has been put on a “Professor Watchlist” which is a website published by a conservative youth group, effectively revealing professors that have expressed anti-republican values. According to Yancy, “The new ‘watchlist’ is essentially a new species of McCarthyism, especially in terms of its overtones of ‘disloyalty’ to the American republic. And it is reminiscent of Cointelpro, the secret F.B.I. program that spied on, infiltrated and discredited American political organizations in the ’50s and ’60s. Its goal of ‘outing’ professors for their views helps to create the appearance of something secretly subversive. It is a form of exposure designed to mark, shame and silence” (NYT 2016). According to the website, published by the group Turning Point USA, the mission of Professor Watchlist is to “expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.” The group claims to also recognize the right to free speech of these professors and it seems the stated goal is to reveal these “incidents” to other students and parents yet, if history is a guide; it seems the outcomes of “outing” these professors could be much more sinister. In terms of outcomes within academia, Yancy makes a connection to Greenwood’s historical analysis of scholars in academia who promote social reform and refuse to refrain from “political controversies” being systematically silenced and their free thinking and pedagogy eliminated from the higher education system—in favor of a more “pure” theoretical approach.
As a doctoral student who does not plan to enter academia, I had not given the politicized and institutionalized rules, norms and silos of scholarship much thought. I certainly was unaware, perhaps naively, that social reform and social activism was frowned upon. For me, I don’t quite understand the point of studying (either theoretically or empirically) a subject like public policy without having the drive or ability to apply it to create social change or reform in a cross disciplinary and inclusive manner. Furthermore, I don’t understand the utility of theories and models when left in their “purest” form. If this research isn’t meant to be applied and galvanized for change, then it is relegated to an existence of being discussed and debated by the elite in academia and ultimately lacks application for the real world. While I do feel that information and activism started “from the ground” is often most effective and often encompasses most of the real world knowledge of a phenomena; as we have seen in this class, models and theories (especially those that can be applied empirically) can lend themselves to understanding and/or driving policy change. Furthermore, watch lists and purges of certain politicized views within academia can ultimately hinder both academic freedom and constrain the rights of those being “purged.” It seems that academics should be challenging systemic and institutionalized norms rather than threatened into submission.
Additional Sources
Yancy, George. November 30, 2016. “I Am A Dangerous Professor.” The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/opinion/i-am-a-dangerous-professor.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share
In Chapter 12 of Engaging Contradictions: Theory, Politics and Methods of Activist Scholarship, Davydd J. Greenwood provides an overview of the historical trajectory of applied and action research and how those fields of study have been systemically culled from academia at various points in history; in favor of theoretical research. Greenwood’s Chapter, “Theoretical Research, Applied Research, and Action Research: The Deinstitutionalization of Activist Research” goes on to argue that action research is actually able and perhaps better able, to produce the scientific and methodologically rigorous results that scholars are pushed to produce within the academic silos of sociology, economics, psychology, anthropology and political science (Hale ed. pg. 320. In exemplifying the exclusion of activist researchers, Greenwood explains,
To the extent that some few social scientists failed to toe the line and retain an interest in social reform, they were punished by being fired from tenured positions, denigrated in the academic professional societies to which they belonged, and later systematically purged by the FBI and CIA…Through experience, most social scientists internalized the lesson that they should focus on building theory, being “objective,” writing mainly for each other in a language of their own creation, building professional associations, and staying away from political controversies (Hale ed. pg. 321).
Unfortunately, the quote above is not one that can only be relegated to historical examples. In fact, as recently as November 30th 2016 professor of Philosophy, George Yancy, published an article in the New York Times entitled “I am a Dangerous Professor.” The article explains that his name has been put on a “Professor Watchlist” which is a website published by a conservative youth group, effectively revealing professors that have expressed anti-republican values. According to Yancy, “The new ‘watchlist’ is essentially a new species of McCarthyism, especially in terms of its overtones of ‘disloyalty’ to the American republic. And it is reminiscent of Cointelpro, the secret F.B.I. program that spied on, infiltrated and discredited American political organizations in the ’50s and ’60s. Its goal of ‘outing’ professors for their views helps to create the appearance of something secretly subversive. It is a form of exposure designed to mark, shame and silence” (NYT 2016). According to the website, published by the group Turning Point USA, the mission of Professor Watchlist is to “expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.” The group claims to also recognize the right to free speech of these professors and it seems the stated goal is to reveal these “incidents” to other students and parents yet, if history is a guide; it seems the outcomes of “outing” these professors could be much more sinister. In terms of outcomes within academia, Yancy makes a connection to Greenwood’s historical analysis of scholars in academia who promote social reform and refuse to refrain from “political controversies” being systematically silenced and their free thinking and pedagogy eliminated from the higher education system—in favor of a more “pure” theoretical approach.
As a doctoral student who does not plan to enter academia, I had not given the politicized and institutionalized rules, norms and silos of scholarship much thought. I certainly was unaware, perhaps naively, that social reform and social activism was frowned upon. For me, I don’t quite understand the point of studying (either theoretically or empirically) a subject like public policy without having the drive or ability to apply it to create social change or reform in a cross disciplinary and inclusive manner. Furthermore, I don’t understand the utility of theories and models when left in their “purest” form. If this research isn’t meant to be applied and galvanized for change, then it is relegated to an existence of being discussed and debated by the elite in academia and ultimately lacks application for the real world. While I do feel that information and activism started “from the ground” is often most effective and often encompasses most of the real world knowledge of a phenomena; as we have seen in this class, models and theories (especially those that can be applied empirically) can lend themselves to understanding and/or driving policy change. Furthermore, watch lists and purges of certain politicized views within academia can ultimately hinder both academic freedom and constrain the rights of those being “purged.” It seems that academics should be challenging systemic and institutionalized norms rather than threatened into submission.
Additional Sources
Yancy, George. November 30, 2016. “I Am A Dangerous Professor.” The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/opinion/i-am-a-dangerous-professor.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share