The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Arc Of The "Public Intellectual"
I've long been fascinated by the concept of the "public intellectual." I view this person as embodying two characteristics: first, an intellectual, as measured by scholarship; second, a public-facing scholar, as measured by media exposure. Generally, the press will not give an opportunity to a scholar unless she has already achieved a threshold level of scholarship. However, a person who achieves "public intellectual" status will invariably see a dip in scholarship, even if the media machine continues to churn.
The arc of a public intellectual's career can be represented on a graph. On the y-axis is scholarship. On the x-axis is media exposure.
The overwhelming majority of scholars never even make it onto the curve. Their work, while important for the literature, may not have resonance in public discourse. And for good reason. The best scholarship focuses on ideas for the sake of ideas, not based on what gets the most clicks. Moreover, most professors choose not to do media. It is time-consuming, and seldom contributes to a scholarly agenda. Professors can choose many other forms of service.
Some professors will gravitate--by chance or by choice--towards scholarship that touches on the zeitgeist. And if their publications meet some threshold of quality, the media calls will begin. I refer to this area as Zone I. Here, a professor's greatest contribution is still to the literature, but she is increasingly called upon to speak to the press. Scholars may spend their entire careers in Zone I: publishing quality scholarship, and talking to the media on occasion. This is a career well-spent. But other scholars may ride up the curve.
In Zone II, professors continue to publish important scholarship, as they become fixtures in the press. At some threshold, they become the coveted public intellectual. The academic community reads and respects their scholarship, while elite institutions of media routinely call on them. The professors may choose to publish books with a popular press, rather than an academic press. And invariably, popular presses will push authors to be more edgy, and less scholarly. Footnotes do not sell books. On a book tour, they'll give lectures to academic and non-academic audiences. Perhaps they will receive a regular column in a magazine or newspaper, that blends their academic curiosities with the news of the day. Or they'll become a paid contributor on TV or radio. Media producers, like editors, also demand edginess. But at least for a time, as their media profile grows, they can maintain their scholarly output, as well as teaching and other service obligations. Perhaps some public intellectuals can spend their entire careers in Zone II. Alas, for everyone else, all good things come to an end.
Zone III represents the decline. Public intellectuals will spend more and more time on the "public" part of their job, and less time on the "intellectual" work. Dedicating hours to writing op-eds, popular books, recording podcasts, and (gasp) tweeting will necessarily take away time from academic scholarship. Often this decline can be masked. Public intellectuals can hire an army of super-smart research assistants who can prop up their scholarship. Or they will co-author with junior scholars who do the bulk of the work, but list their name second on the author block. But these scholars will seldom have the devoted time and space that allowed them to develop their intellectual bona fides in the first place. Alas, the press doesn't actually care if a person's scholarship slips. Public intellectuals can tread on their work from decades earlier, as the media continues to call. Thus, in Zone III, even as a professor's scholarship drops, the media exposure increases. There is a vicious cycle: the more a public intellectual seeks the public spotlight, the scholarly community regards her work less. And eventually, even Zone III comes to an end.
Zone IV represents the final chapter of a public intellectual's career. After many years of declining scholarship, the professor is almost exclusively a media figure. Sure, she may publish things from time-to-time. Professors with high profiles can leverage their reputations to secure publications, such as invited pieces and symposium essays. But the professor becomes something of a has-been in scholarly debates. Yet, remarkably, the media keeps calling! Reporters are more interested in punchy lines than citable papers. Moreover, in this zone, the public intellectual may become more strident. Rather than using a scholarly tone, she will will sound not much different than a pundit on cable news who lacks an endowed chair. And often, due to aging, judgment and discretion begin to slip. These professors will cross lines they would have never crossed years earlier. At some point, the cycle concludes.
***
I have been very careful not to identify any scholars in particular, and where they fall on the curve--myself included. I'm sure readers will try to plot me and others on the graph.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"My Talking Head Career" has a punchier ring to it!
"On the x-axis is scholarship. On the y-axis is media exposure."
You have your axes (plural of axis) backwards.
The horizontal axis (Media in your chart), is the x-axis and the vertical axis (Scholarship) is the y-axis.
That's the least of his problems.
Like Justice Ke-grungy Jackson Brown, Josh doesn't know his X's from his Y's.
I think what he really is trying to do -- without realizing it -- is apply the Bell Curve to research productivity relative to age, which he could theoretically do were he to first establish a whole lot of things that he hasn't established yet. AND to plot similar curves for (a) researchers who publish stuff no one ever reads *and* (b) media figures who are not scholars -- except that all the good ones *are*.
You are really searching for a way to give him some credit.
"On the y-axis is scholarship. On the x-axis is media exposure."
YAAAAY!
Prof. Blackman corrected that part.
Good lord, this is bad.
You're not graphing the relationship between variables - you're trying to encode time information on the horizontal access as well as um, 'media' and you've created a mess.
Delete the chart.
It's an interesting hypothesis but I think you're conflating two entirely different processes to result in a chart that creates more confusion than help.
You have postulated a plausible causal explanation for the decline in scholarship as media attention increases. Because there is an intuitively strong causal connection for the right half of the chart, it implies that the left half of the chart is equally causal. Yet that is not the case. Scholarship increases for reasons entirely separate from media exposure.
A better chart might be to show scholarship and media attention as two independent variables correlated to time. Scholarship is generally thought to follow a poisson curve (steep increase, peak early in your career, steady decline) while media would follow something like a cumulative S curve. Of course, to have any explanatory power, you'd need a control scholarship curve for the scholar who remains undistracted by media - which would presumably only be different by having a slower decline.
What is his null hypothesis?
Does he even know what a null hypothesis *is*?
He does not state it clearly but my inference from the article above is that his null hypothesis would be 'media interaction does not affect scholarship'.
it implies that the left half of the chart is equally causal. Yet that is not the case. Scholarship increases for reasons entirely separate from media exposure.
Yes. And media exposure increases for reasons entirely separate from scholarship. Those might include obsessive self-promotion, for example. Plus the exposure itself has positive feedback, in that those who appear get asked to appear again, because of convenience, availability, etc.
A brilliant scholar might not get any exposure, because the media, TV especially, are not welcoming to a law professor, say, whose answers don't fit a predictable narrative, or are too thorough.
So, Josh ...
This post is really about Josh himself.
Which of his posts isn't?
John Wooden famously said, "Worry about your character, not your reputation". Anyone "fascinated" by the topics voluminously discussed in this post is wondering why they are not a celebrity yet.
Does anybody ever get the feeling that Prof B is posting these things from a van covered in fake dog hair, being driven by Jeff Daniels?
ETA: it is the van that is covered in fake dog hair, not Prof B.
Why you going to the airport? Flying somewhere?
Jeff Daniels is the modern incarnation of Roger Taney, and every bit as dangerous.
Excuse me. Could you tell me how to get to the medical school? I'm supposed to be giving a lecture in 20 minutes, and my driver's a bit lost.
I was with Jeff Daniels last week. He seemed fine . . . harmless.
You presume there is an inherent value in scholarship — I don’t. I don’t think there is a benefit from journal articles that no one will ever read, and do not forget why the land grant colleges were established.
Scholarship is only valuable if it benefits the public at large.
And I don’t see anything wrong with someone who is established hiring a bunch of young people to help with the research — that’s how “think tanks” get founded. It's also called "mentoring."
I don't know if that is his assumption. I think he is saying value of scholarship is not measured by media exposure. There is lots of very valuable research and scholarship being done that the general media is oblivious to.
There is also an awful lot of utter garbage.
The Sokal Hoax was nearly 30 years ago -- and it's since been duplicated. But what is not possible to duplicate is an incredible amount of published peer-reviewed research. It started with psychology where it's relatively easy & cheap to attempt to duplicate research (i.e. do exactly what the researcher said he/she/it did and see if you get similar results) and we're finding the same problem in other fields.
Then there is the stuff which may actually be done correctly but is so esoteric that absolutely no one will *ever* read it. DeSantis refers to it as "Zombie Studies" because people can understand that -- and a lot of it essentially is the intellectual equivalent of that.
Take my field -- Education -- between the mandated political dogma and the influence of the teacher's unions (NEA & AFT), there's almost nothing being published that I consider worth reading. There are some states quietly doing stuff (Florida's been at it for 15 years now -- long before DeSantis) but they're not publishing much of it because they don't want to draw fire from the "experts."
So you're saying a lot of research no one cares about it.
Well, you're wrong again.
Researchers want to be highly cited, so they're incentivized not to do anything no one will read.
Grant-making institutions as well as peer review panels are going to give a grant to a project that has no chance to advance the field (of course a priori knowing it will is not how basic research works)
And then publishers are another layer of peer review.
Your field of education is not a research discipline. If you mean education research, what you consider worth reading is not really the criterion, even if you weren't who you are.
There are some states quietly doing stuff (but they’re not publishing much of it because they don’t want to draw fire from the “experts.”
I have no idea what nonsense you're into, but 'doing stuff' but avoiding sharing it is not science, it's just fucking around.
I’d say it’s true that something like 90% of papers (and patents) could disappear and the world wouldn’t notice, 9% are important to specialists and impact how they work, and something less than 1% are important in a way a layman could directly appreciate.
That’s not conspiracy or incompetence, it is just built into doing research. Most ideas and projects don’t pan out but it’s not possible to predict them ahead of time. The ones that don’t work still had people getting paid and they have a job responsibility to report their admittedly uninteresting findings.
The little details that make your smart phone work mainly came from that 9% category.
Not two, just one; parrots the left wing propaganda.
Seems like a plausible explanation of an observed phenomenon....So, who is in stage IV, currently in legal academia? Taking nominations. 🙂
Anthony Fauci
A professor I worked with had a graph on his wall. The horizontal axis was career stage and the vertical axis showed time spent in various activities. It was divided by two diagonal lines into four triangles. Left triangle (early career), learning. Top triangle, teaching. Bottom triangle, research. Right triangle (late career), meetings. He is now at the meeting-dominated stage of his career. Better than being at the talking-head dominated stage of one's career.
Josh Blackman talking about this issue reminds me of this classic moment from a Dean Martin roast, where a relatively young Don Rickles was declaiming about what makes a great comedian, in front of a bunch of comedy legends most of whom were quite a bit older than he was.
Rickles: "It takes many years to be a great comedian."
Martin (interrupting him): "It sure does, and you ain't reached that year yet."
https://youtu.be/kQCo5WrChuQ?t=2442
I always heard a “public intellectual” described as someone highly knowledgeable who chooses to speak solely on subjects outside his field of expertise.
In which stage does the "public intellectual" resort to passive aggressive blog posts?
Blackman’s work achieves completeness of a rare and self-sufficient kind. To a genuine Blackman utterance, nothing can be added; from Blackman’s work, subtraction remains always an impossibility.
In fairness, some positions have also been difficult to square with the facts. But they multiply--they multiply.
Mr. D.
So Josh says that if you do a lot of research on current hot topics you will start to get media exposure, and then at some point your research output will start to decline, as media takes up more of your time.
Is that about it?
I don't agree that decline in scholarship leads to decline in popularity. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and Bill Nye come to mind.
Jordan Peterson is a good case study for your hypothesis. He is in phase 3. But Peterson seems to have succumbed to the other temptation of YouTube influencers. He makes so much money from YouTube, that he has started making daily videos commenting on the news of the day having no connection to his expertise. Peterson for example made a video about AI. Numerous other YouTubers have declined for that same reason. Only Steve Lehto seems to retain and even grow in popularity in Phase 4.
The unintended subtext is the public embarrassment chart.
I can just picture poor Josh, unable to sleep, sitting by the light of his fancy new monitor, hitting F5 over and over in the hopes that one of his readers posts a comment suggesting that he, little old Professor Josh Blackman, is in fact a bona fide Class III media celebrity... or *gasp* maybe even a IV!
Oh dear, dear Josh. Before you can be a public intellectual, you have to be an intellectual.
He's just trying to get you to point out where Larry Tribe is.
Simple category mistake. A public intellectual isn't a subject-matter expert whom the university's PR office introduces to journalists looking for a quote. A public intellectual is a generalist who contextualizes subject matter questions within the broader horizon. There are no public intellectuals in American law schools, with the possible exception of Tribe, the exception that proves the rule.
Incidentally, the traction that subject matter experts get isn't necessarily a tradeoff between credibility in the press and credibility in the faculty lounge. Often, you lose both, but you gain a foothold. Larry Sabato, for example, in the early days was known as "Dr. Dial-a-Quote" in the newsrooms of the Virginia dailies. Subsequently, though like Alexander, Trump, and that pillow guy, he won his empire.
Mr. D.
cf: https://youtu.be/HVQrpok9KPA?t=80