Dear Mark,

In our work in progress, we write:

“[E]engaging in collaboration across institutions is a privilege reserved for upper administration…. It seems clear to us that the solution is not to make our work more popular per se, as commentators across the humanities often claim. Rather, what humanities scholars lack is a means of relating their specialized work to forms of expertise outside the humanities. Although historians and social scientists certainly worry about whether they are talking to themselves, they may be better positioned to make their work relatable because they never equated discipline with the effort to specify a media object. English scholars are just catching up to their social scientific brethren when they exploit the notion of Digital Humanities to conceive of various publics and to consider ways of addressing them. To whit, opening access is important less for how it remakes our standard forms of publication than for how it might make us rethink the relationship between our scholarship and expert writing more generally. This is so whether one considers what happens to expertise and authorship after using ‘crowd review’ of the sort employed by journals like Postmedieval or when aggregating textual and visual projects like those compiled by Media Commons and its sister site #alt Academy, which focuses on alternate careers for humanities scholars.”

Today I ran across this “Editor’s Letter” by Eric Klinenberg, who is taking over the editorial reins at Public Culture, a self-described “interdisciplinary journal of transnational cultural studies” that I happen to like a lot. Among the matters that he promises to take on as editor is precisely the problem of relating expert research to its various publics that we (and obviously not only we) think of as a sizable concern. Here’s his version of the situation:

“Today an abundance of smart and serious research on all of these topics is being done by scholars of culture in a variety of disciplines. Too often, however, this research is published in arcane language that communicates to a narrow set of specialists but not to a broader public, or even to intellectuals in other fields who are exploring similar themes. In recent years, mounting frustration with such highly specialized forms of academic production in the social sciences and humanities has led to calls for more rigorous, publicly engaged scholarship in anthropology, communications, cultural studies, history, literature, political science, and sociology. But we lack a venue that welcomes important contributions on cultural questions from all of these fields, a place where strong writing and clear argumentation are recognized as craft virtues, where the public dissemination of specialized research is an overriding goal. Public Culture aims to fill that void.”

Now, I ask you to bookmark that “mounting frustration” with jargon and highly specialized forms of academic production. Hold that thought as you read the approach he recommends for the journal, namely, interviews with influential scholars:

“Full-length articles based on original research will remain the core of Public Culture, and short, timely essays will continue to run at the front of each issue, in a section that we call the Forum. But, with this issue, we are also introducing new features: Public Culture Interviews will be in-depth discussions with contemporary thinkers who have influenced and inspired us. Typically, we are familiar only with scholarly labor’s final results, published books and articles or occasional lectures. We are all interested in what goes into this final product, which is often the result of many years spent grappling with empirical materials, posing new questions, interpreting existing scholarship, and conversing with colleagues.

Our conversations will call attention to the backstage of intellectual practice. How do scholars search for and identify compelling problems? How do they find their way into and out of complex and difficult material? How do they conceive of their audiences and of their relation to existing disciplines? How do they engage different publics? How do they remain self-critical, open to updating their knowledge, even changing perspectives and ideas? Public Culture Interviews will be open-ended explorations of how intellectual creativity works. We want them to provide insight into each particular subject’s way of working and, in so doing, give us all a chance to reflect on our craft.”

A couple of things leap out at me here.

First, despite “mounting frustration,” there appears to be no problem with specialized research work per se. That can remain untouched. Public Culture will still publish it and scholars will still do it. You don’t have to be Michel Callon to think that maybe there’s more to say on that topic. And probably we should begin with a spirited debate about whether we want to call what we do “our craft.”

Second, professor as auteur? Really? The first interviews are with Mary Poovey and Ian Hacking (the full version of the Hacking interview is behind the pay wall). I think it’s fair to say that we both rely on their work. And I’m not at all adverse to learning about their practice. But in the spirit of our arguments about how important thinking about collaborative practice in the humanities, I am skeptical about whether interviewing famous scholars model gets us very far. When Public Culture starts interviewing research clusters, then I’ll think they are onto something.

Now, an “Editor’s Letter” is pretty much defined as a puff piece, so maybe we shouldn’t take it too seriously. And yet, I found this all a little lamely self-congratulatory.

John

Dear Mark,

Just took a look at “If You’re So Smart, Why Are You under Surveillance? Universities, Neoliberalism, and New
Public Management” by Chris Lorenz in the Spring 2012 Critical Inquiry. This may be useful as big picture stuff for us, since Lorenz offers a global narrative of the way neoliberal policy and New Public Management (NPM) has reshaped universities. I find much of this persuasive.

I wonder, however, about the opposition he establishes between management and professionalism. On these grounds:

“Professions, unlike ordinary occupations, are defined by the following characteristics:
1. Mastery of specialist theoretical knowledge. The professional has to
acquire specialist knowledge through extended education and training.
2. Autonomy and control over the work and how the work is done.
This is the most important characteristic of a profession.
3. Being motivated by intrinsic rewards and the interests of clients,
which take priority over the professional’s own interests. This, of
course, does not mean that professionals have no interests.
4. Being committed to a professional career and the objectives of the
service provided by the organization the professional works for. For
professionals their identity is mainly bound to the profession, not to
management aims geared to profit and efficiency.
5. A sense of commitment and collegiality in the professional group
and a sense of responsibility to colleagues. The professional body operates
as an internal control both for admitting people to the profession
and for maintaining professional standards.” (610-11)

Lorenz draws his contrasting definition of management, which he sees as inherently bureaucratic, from Keith Roberts and Karen Donahue, “Professing Professionalism: Bureaucratization and Deprofessionalization in the Academy,” Sociological Focus 33 (Oct. 2000): 365–83.

“First, bureaucracy expects its members to promote and represent the
interests of the organization: the professional expects the interests of
the client to be supreme. . . . Second, bureaucracy sees authority as
residing in legal contracts that are backed by legal sanctions. As utilitarian
and goal-driven formal organizations, bureaucracies focus on
contractual arrangements and formal structures. By contrast, professionals
tend to think of authority being rooted in expertise of the person
holding the position rather than in the power of the status itself.
Along these same lines, bureaucracies expect their members to comply
with directives of the organization; professionals, by contrast, expect to
be guided by the ethical standards of their field as spelled out by professional
associations. Because professionals develop a reference system focussing
on professional colleagues, they are typically more concerned
with maintaining a reputation with peers in their field than they are with
pleasing organizational superiors.” (368)

The upshot for Lorenz is:

“The formal rationalism of bureaucracies—and managerialism in the public
sector is just a modernized version of bureaucracy—is therefore incompatible
with the fundamental motives and the mindset governing the work
of professionals.” (611)

Thus, a division of labor and class warfare between the professionals and the managers.

And, stupid professors who behave as if the rise of quantitative measures within their universities have no bearing on their standing within their fields.

“Remarkably most professors, especially in the humanities, seem stuck in individualistic
ideologies that suggest a direct meritocratic connection between quality
and individual success in academia.” (625)

Where to start. The professionals, in this characterization, look like neanderthals and the managers like little Hitlers (or little Communists; there’s an interesting thread running through the essay in which current university bureaucracy resembles the Communist state). Although I’m persuaded that a good deal of management-speak is bullshit and, further, that it relies on terms of excellence and the like that are tied primarily if not exclusively to quantitative measures, I’m not sure that we are unable to discern good and bad versions of this rhetoric and the outcomes it helps produce.

I find this kind of “to the barricades” argument bracing, and that’s helpful but only goes so far. I agree with Lorenz (how could one not?) that what happens in humanities departments is not always (not usually, perhaps) amenable to quantitative measures. Some things can be counted (numbers of majors) and that tells you something. Some things cannot. But we already know this. Is the right response to recall a day when the numbers didn’t matter more than qualitative measures? Or to find ways to exploit the numbers for disciplinary cum political ends? If the latter, that sounds more managerial than professional, according to Lorenz’s definitions. But I’m tempted to call it good managerial. Good neoliberal too? Shiver.

John

You asked me some questions about how we should use this blog. I thought that I’d go ahead and answer here.

Q: What audiences are we hoping to reach with this?

A: I think it would be great if Obama tweeted a link to one of our posts, but short of that I’m content for the audience to range from you and me to anyone who finds us. I think we should talk to one another, but that we should try to frame what we’re saying in ways that a general audience can grasp. No private jokes, in other words. Or not many private jokes.

Q: What kinds of comments are we hoping to attract?

A: I hope as we get polemical that people who care task us with proving / solidifying our claims. Along the lines of getting people who might care to read us, it would be great if we could compile the requisite blog role. I’ll see about starting that up. I would include some theory blogs, some DH stuff, and some new and old media stuff. Agreed?

Q: Are we going to conduct a dialog by means of comments or only via posts?

A: I think we should stick to posts. I like the model of the Becker-Posner blog, for instance.

Q: Will we ever jointly author posts?

A: I think we should rewrite / edit each other rather than jointly author. That way we can see revisions and take back a move if necessary. I’d like a record of the process that is a little different than the way we’ve been writing / sharing docs to this point.

Q: How often are we expecting to post?

A: We are very busy people. I think 20-25 posts per day should suffice.

Q: How should we link this blog in with our other activities? Do we need pages that describe who we are?

A: I’m happy to link to other activities, but would suggest for now that we just provide a link to our web pages and such.

John