So, why do I try to write for Substack now? Well, as has been expressed elsewhere, it offers an alternative to more traditional publishing models (particularly for academics), thus extending different opportunities to connect directly with audiences that matter. This is not to say that academics should stop publishing in journals and books, or that they should somehow ‘dumb down’ the results of their research into a form of ‘chat show logic’ for easy public consumption. Rather, that their existence and influence need to be made increasingly visible, and their social value reclaimed. Currently, we appear to have a situation where universities, unless coming up very obvious and immediate groundbreaking research findings (as in the development of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine), exist as almost invisible detached entities within and apart from everyday society (as often reflected in the common retort of ‘ah yes, but in the real world’…)
The call here is not to merely to provide high-quality research in a clear form so practitioners (from whatever field) can readily apply it. Nor is it to ‘package’ such work in ever more attractive, digital ways so that it can compete with other slick, easily understood products. It has been argued that considerable effort has already focused on both initiatives, with limited success (see Tseng, 2012). Relatedly, it appears that over the past decades, academics have been increasingly side-lined from public discourse, thus losing much of their authority (Brahimi et al., 2020). Subsequently, they have become ever confined to their offices teaching and advising only their students. Although this is the principal way that most universities actually hope to shape society (that is, through graduating critically thinking, creative, civically responsible young people), this wider acknowledgment is missing (if they actually do this consciously is a subject for another post!) As a result, other more media-savvy actors, including (not very well informed) celebrities, pundits and some journalists have flooded in to fill the vacuum.
The purpose of this Substack then is to hopefully engage those who create policy (and ultimate practice) with more considered views than has been evidenced in current public ‘debates’. It is to highlight that complex social (or sporting) issues can’t be dealt with or solved by three-word soundbites or the politics of division. In this respect, I return to the opening posting, in making a call to think less in terms of binary considerations, and more in terms of ‘shades of grey’. Having said, I don’t intend to be an ‘it depends merchant’, as one should be encouraged to take a stand on important issues of the day (be it a mainstream or marginal one). However, and here’s the crux of the message, only after careful consideration of related evidence. The word ‘related’ is important here, as it gives credence to decisions and positions always being in relation to something or other; that is, in relation to particular ideas, given knowledge, to purposes and intentions, to other people, as well as to global and local concerns.
The purpose of my posts then, are to highlight and discuss leadership and coaching’s malaise, tendencies and enabling features in light of their occurrence. This will hopefully be not only with the wider public, but more so with those working in close connection with active public bodies. Hence, it is to re-make the case for the public academic and, in so doing, re-claim the role of universities as considered guides to a more socially responsible, critically informed and progressive society.
References
Brahimi, M. A., Hernando, M. G., Morgan, M., & Pérez, A. (2020). Strategies of public intellectual engagement. The Sociological Review, 68(5), 982-998. Available; https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120931422.
Tseng, V. (2012). Social policy report: The uses of research in policy and practice, Sharing child and youth development knowledge, 26(2). Available; https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2379-3988.2012.tb00071.x
Diddorol iawn, Prof!