Reviewing these articles and relating the ideas to each other and to journalism/research itself is like that Facebook relationship status: it is complicated...
Throughout almost my entire higher education life, I have struggled with coming across some professors who have been so removed from the practical field that they have been teaching. A lot of times, it would be near impossible to relate the courses with what I should be doing, which would be a lot of hands on work. With that in mind, I kept telling myself that there had to be a way of connecting the academia with the field. There had to be a way of having them feed off each other. Because of that, it was very intriguing to read these.
As working journalists, we report on stories that "we think" that the audience is or would be interested in. "We think" that what we think would be important to them. And as journalism researchers, "we think" that we conduct research that is relevant to the current state of the field, reality of the world outside the academia. "We believe" or hope at best that what we spend our lives on can find its path to some sort of application in the highly practical field of journalism. (A lot of "WE", a lot of self-centered talk) But do we really know that? Is it really possible to know these in our life times for a single piece of story or research? (Yes I realize sometimes it is sometimes not) But does that even matter in the long run?
I think in the big picture, it all comes down to being able to answer the question:"so what?" Both journalists and journalism scholars, it would be ideal to explain why what we are focusing on should/will potentially matter to our audience. So on that note, I guess while I agree with Knight Foundation's blog post and some of what Prof. Jensen's opinions, I also have to disagree with some of the arguments over relevance.We still need some room for creativity. We still need to use the luxury of having some space to roam around and tackle different topics of interests, and basically see what happens. Thus, I am not so sure whether we are completely wasting the resources on "irrelevant studies". In other words, research not getting cited or read by professional journalists or not getting published at a "popular" journal doesn't mean it is unimportant. Maybe the professional journalists should start paying some attention to what academia has got to offer for them.
I also felt like all three articles were representing extreme ends of the spectrum. Day-to-day life (or real world so to speak) is not as black and white as it is argued here. I might be completely misinterpreting it but I found Prof. Jensen's criticism toward scholars who might wanna climb up the career ladder and such slightly harsh. In the end we are all human beings with basic needs and a lot of weaknesses. Though most of us have an idea of what is right/ideal to do, it is also incredibly easy to fall into our weaknesses. Yes, it is extremely important to be able to discuss the virtues that the humanity should be practicing. But it also is crucial not to fall far from the reality.
Finally, I could see a relation between the article Shane posted last week about the tweets of the prof and Prof. Jensen's piece where he talked about how academia should not loose the sight of its original mission. That incident is a clear example, which also ties back to the clash between reality and the ideal world. Yes what happened in that university makes no sense but it also brings up the reality factor that the university needs the funds coming from that source. So they just played it with their rules. For some reason, power usually end up in the wrong hand.
Throughout almost my entire higher education life, I have struggled with coming across some professors who have been so removed from the practical field that they have been teaching. A lot of times, it would be near impossible to relate the courses with what I should be doing, which would be a lot of hands on work. With that in mind, I kept telling myself that there had to be a way of connecting the academia with the field. There had to be a way of having them feed off each other. Because of that, it was very intriguing to read these.
As working journalists, we report on stories that "we think" that the audience is or would be interested in. "We think" that what we think would be important to them. And as journalism researchers, "we think" that we conduct research that is relevant to the current state of the field, reality of the world outside the academia. "We believe" or hope at best that what we spend our lives on can find its path to some sort of application in the highly practical field of journalism. (A lot of "WE", a lot of self-centered talk) But do we really know that? Is it really possible to know these in our life times for a single piece of story or research? (Yes I realize sometimes it is sometimes not) But does that even matter in the long run?
I think in the big picture, it all comes down to being able to answer the question:"so what?" Both journalists and journalism scholars, it would be ideal to explain why what we are focusing on should/will potentially matter to our audience. So on that note, I guess while I agree with Knight Foundation's blog post and some of what Prof. Jensen's opinions, I also have to disagree with some of the arguments over relevance.We still need some room for creativity. We still need to use the luxury of having some space to roam around and tackle different topics of interests, and basically see what happens. Thus, I am not so sure whether we are completely wasting the resources on "irrelevant studies". In other words, research not getting cited or read by professional journalists or not getting published at a "popular" journal doesn't mean it is unimportant. Maybe the professional journalists should start paying some attention to what academia has got to offer for them.
I also felt like all three articles were representing extreme ends of the spectrum. Day-to-day life (or real world so to speak) is not as black and white as it is argued here. I might be completely misinterpreting it but I found Prof. Jensen's criticism toward scholars who might wanna climb up the career ladder and such slightly harsh. In the end we are all human beings with basic needs and a lot of weaknesses. Though most of us have an idea of what is right/ideal to do, it is also incredibly easy to fall into our weaknesses. Yes, it is extremely important to be able to discuss the virtues that the humanity should be practicing. But it also is crucial not to fall far from the reality.
Finally, I could see a relation between the article Shane posted last week about the tweets of the prof and Prof. Jensen's piece where he talked about how academia should not loose the sight of its original mission. That incident is a clear example, which also ties back to the clash between reality and the ideal world. Yes what happened in that university makes no sense but it also brings up the reality factor that the university needs the funds coming from that source. So they just played it with their rules. For some reason, power usually end up in the wrong hand.
I think Pinar takes a very bold and refreshing position here—The Middle Ground. I’m quite serious about this. It’s easy for us in our academic bubble to take one extreme side or the other. The literature defending both research for research’s sake and advocacy research are quite extensive. But should one without the other be our aim?
ReplyDeletePinar said, “I found Prof. Jensen's criticism toward scholars who might wanna climb up the career ladder and such slightly harsh.” Dr. Jensen is one of the reasons I decided to come to the University of Texas. But on this position, I disagree (for now, at least. Next week I might change my mind, which, I’d argue, is a good thing). Dr. Jensen is, after all, a tenured professor. He couldn’t have climbed his own personal academic ladder by bucking entirely the academy’s norms. His advice might be helpful to established scholars with job security. But I don’t see the immediate application for us.
I’ll stop piggy-backing on Pinar’s post and say more in my own. Thanks, Pinar.