In the past week, there has been a heap of controversy here over a post that many folks found to be offensive. In reaction, the blogger is ceasing to blog, Charli discuss the challenges of blogging, and others still are drawing lessons, such as Christopher Zorn who posted on his FB page “the vast majority of academic political scientists are just not cut out to be bloggers, and probably shouldn’t do so.”
My reaction to this is:
blogger is a label that describes a whole lot of activity, so saying people should not blog might mean that they should not write on the internet. Or it might mean that they should be far more limited in what they write. What I mean by this is that bloggers vary in the scope of the stuff they address and in the style they write. Some folks restrict themselves to a rather narrow area and write with little snark. Some folks are willing to write about pretty much everything (that would be me, see next para) and either use heaps of satire or vary widely in the tone they use. I would agree with my anonymous facebook friend that not everyone should try to address the profession or to engage in satire or be extremely snarky. Not all of us are good at it. I am not saying that I am, just that I think I am ok at blogging widely and varying my tone based on the issue. I am willing to take the hits that come with having a wide array of interests and the risks that come with using humor.
To be clear, I do tend to be more careful in what I write about and the tone I use when I am writing in other places than the Semi-Spew. I do not blog that often for Duck of Minerva, for instance, because I have always been concerned about whether my posts are up to snuff for that wider audience and to be associated with that label. Same for Political Violence at a Glance and for my weekly columns at Canadian International Council. I can pump out two or four posts a day at the Spew because I am less concerned here about writing something that is too snarky or too far from my expertise, like my obsession with #voterfraudfraud.
But I do think that anyone who is an expert on an issue, and all publishing academics should feel that they are an expert on the stuff that they study, can and SHOULD write on the internet about the stuff that falls within their area of expertise. Otherwise, we are just talking to ourselves and hoping that our students someday become policy-relevant or that some policy type explores an issue of the APSR or International Studies Quarterly. Phil Arena, W. Winecoff, and Erica Chenoweth (most of her newer stuff is at Political Violence at a Glance) are good examples of young political scientists who focus almost entirely on the implications of their research for events going on in the world today. Scholars like these folks are getting their ideas out so that people outside of the academy can learn from their expertise. Just as we have argued about doing media work, my stance here is the same–we have some obligations to disseminate our work both as part of the service component of our jobs (teaching/research/service) and as the responsibilities that come with grant money.
The funny thing is that this discussion started with the question of whether and how people should network, and the danger is that it might cripple one key means by which the less powerful, the less privileged can have a voice and engage in networking–via social media. Indeed, people are asking why there are so few female bloggers and why so few non-white male bloggers out there. I would hate to think that one of the consequences of the discourse over the past week or so would be to discourage new, less well represented voices.
Thanks, Steve. I really liked this, especially the last sentence.
Thanks for this post. I am an IR scholar who in the last couple of weeks decided to try blogging in earnest as a counterbalance to the isolation of dissertation writing. When I read Brian’s post yesterday, I definitely started to have second thoughts. I know I will make mistakes. I am still trying to find my voice and focus. I would like to write about politics more broadly, but should I only write about issues where my qualifications are stronger? Even if I stick to IR, do the potential negatives for job searches in the future outweigh the more immediate benefits now? I am really unsure of my answers to these questions at present.
I cannot provide you with a heap of certainty, Anita. I think the best way for a junior faculty member to start blogging is to focus on what they know best and see how that goes. As you develop your voice and a following, you can play with ideas that are further out from your expertise, I would suggest.
In terms of the job market, I do not really know. I did start blogging in earnest before my recent move, so it clearly did not hurt me. Nor did any troubles I had in my previous job have anything to do with blogging.
But, and here is the big but, when you have given a job talk, and then the department is trying to figure out who to hire, it may matter that you said something in a blog that upset one person. That one person could be all that it takes to tip the balance in a contested job search. Sorry, but I cannot ignore this possibility. So, that is why I recommend that junior folks stay focused at first on their stuff. A blog might help them get an interview since good posts do raise the visibility of people. I know several excellent junior faculty folks because of their blogs, which led me to their scholarship.
So, that is an answer that probably provides little certainty. Sorry.
I recognize that there isn’t certainty to be had with respect to these questions. Your response is thoughtful and has actually helped clarify my thinking on this issue. Thank you!
I have to agree with Steve. I think the risks, as well as opportunity costs may outweigh the benefits for grad students who have yet to land their first tenure-track job. It’s one of the reasons why we generally don’t invite guest bloggers below the Assistant Professor level and then usually those who are a couple of years out and have a solid professional foothold already. The benefits of blogging are to me more intellectual than self-promotional; what will matter early in your career is your publishing record, teaching skills, collegiality and yes your professional social network.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I love writing in different mediums, but both you and Steve have made a compelling case to keep any public writing narrowly focused and professional.
For purely selfish reasons, having spent the morning reading your blog and just rssed it (how come my rss feeds are still working, anyone?) itd be a crying shame if you were driven off line..keep it, up I say! (but I dont have a proper argument just a desire to free ride off other peoples expertise : ) )
Thanks for the compliment. I am glad someone has enjoyed it :)