The “Academic-Policy” divide and the role of the citizen

Earlier this morning, the Duck of Minerva linked to a CNN commentary by UCSD’s Stephen Haggard who argues that Kim Jong-Un is not crazy, citing clues that the recent blustering is “ritualized escalation” for domestic political purposes. This isn’t exactly a mind-blowing argument, as most academics in social science would likely agree of the importance of understanding the domestic constraints to a political actor’s actions. Indeed, it is rare for a political leader to be “crazy”; my personal impression is that the young leader must act especially bellicose to consolidate his power among the military leaders.

But scroll a bit down to the article’s comments, and witness the overwhelming amount of disagreement to Haggard’s comments. Here are some of my favorite comments:

• “This professor, in my opinion, has spent to way too much time in suspended academic animation, San Diego style. Maybe the professor is the one who is crazy. Maybe it’s the intoxicating sunset views of the pacific at UCSD that renders him unable to escape from that dream-induced world of his.”
• “You are the problem.”
• “I suppose that the same argument could be made that going into a party store with an exposed semi-automatic rifle and wearing a ski mask doesn’t mean you intend to rob it or hurt anyone. I know that argument works great with the police right?”

So on and so forth, rare was the voice that agreed with Kelly’s analysis.

It is naturally elitist of academics to dismiss the voices of the online mob; winning arguments on the Youtube comments section is often times a lost cause. I wouldn’t blame any reasonable person in academia with giving up entirely on communicating their ideas to the masses, it’s much more rational for an academic to cater their arguments to the policy community.

However, I do wonder. Policymakers, politicians, and bureaucrats are tied (indirectly and directly) to the concerns of the greater citizen public, for all its good and bad.

Conventions and conferences like the recent ISA 2013 at San Francisco are often ripe with discussions about the “theory-practice” divide, where academics lament the lack of attention policymakers give to their ideas. At a thought-provoking panel about Rio +20 and the future of sustainable development, we wondered why there was virtually zero representation of UN/State Dept/think tank’ish/CSO/NGO delegates in the room. I’m sure this scene is replicated in nearly every panel, where are all the policy wonks and activists who may benefit from academic knowledge?

While the “theory-practice” divide is given much attention by various academics and bloggers, I’ll pose a different question instead. What are the implications of academia ignoring the conversation with the greater public audience (especially the people misinformed about China holding all our money)?

My hypothesis follows that, IF citizens can significantly influence the agenda of policymakers (ideally so in a representative democracy!), and IF academics want to influence the agenda of policymakers (strong disconnect between what academics and policymakers are most concerned about), it would follow that academics need to be better at engaging the citizen public at large.

(of course, this is contingent upon policymakers caring about their constituents, whether or not citizens even disagree with most policymakers, etc etc)

I’m not suggesting it’s the academics’ fault for the public’s many misconceptions. 37% of Americans believe global warming is a hoax, 28% believe Saddam was involved in 9/11, etc etc (but at least only 5% believe Paul McCartney is dead!). The media is heavily complicit in spreading false assumptions too, perhaps the most culpable of all.

But academics seem to cede the battle entirely, with most of their work being directed towards each other, policymakers, and civil society elites. While this is perfectly understandable, considering the day-to-day incentives and constraints of an academic scholar, I wonder what we lose by ignoring the public sphere completely. There must be some cost, when academics cannot communicate their ideas and perspectives to the larger community as well.

I do believe that there are inherent limits to telling somebody the truth about something, the rational actor does not exist in the collective sphere. I would hope that academics continue to explore more creative mediums to teach the greater public, such as film documentaries and interviews that may connect with people on a more emotive perspective.

That’s why Stephen Colbert’s whole “truthiness” gag is peculiar to me. While the whole Colbert bit is obviously sarcastic, I do feel that people can’t experience truth through knowledge alone. Though we’re living in the big data/information age, let’s not forget that people will instinctively trust their gut when confronted with counter-intuitive knowledge.

What are your thoughts?