links to David M Howie BSc BA (Hons) PPE (open)
Introduction
The title of this post, I acknowledge causes a little confusion, as any academic, is aware university libraries are full of educational textbooks written by professional academics. This post has no interest in scholarly texts. The inquiry this post is interested in is why do academics such as Richard Wilkinson write books such as 'The Inner Level'? So why do academics write commercial books? I have pondered this question for about a year or so. With the help of the societal triangle, I believe I have developed a working theory. In this post, I will provide the reader with an understanding of my thinking. However, the societal triangle is not a requirement for comprehension. Accepting society requires another route to prosperity is all that is needed. You can read my story 'Every citizen's voice must be on the record' regarding this issue on The Alliance website – click here.
If my word and the words of my colleagues is not good enough, I can inform you the academics have concluded their books with the same thinking. For example "the Spirit level" ends.
"The culture of the last decades has reduced us to closet egalitarians: it is time we came out of the woodwork and set a course for sanity."
Wilkinson and Pickett (2009)
The price of inequality concludes:
"Trends [in politics & economics] more than a quarter of the century in the making might have been reversed. Instead, [inequalities] have worsened…"
Stiglitz (2012)
And good economics for hard times concludes:
The call to action is not just for academic economists -It is for all of us who want a better, saner, more humane world. Economics is too important to be left [alone] to economists.
Banerjee & Duflo (2019)
For clarification, the importance of the quotations is to highlight academics would never receive publication in academic journals with conclusions such as above. Therefore the argument this post puts to the reader is academics write books to say what is not practical in academic journals.
What we can learn from the societal triangle
As the reader will know from previous posts, the societal triangle has three lenses from which to understand society. First-time readers see figure 1 and my blog post societal triangle people place and practice- click here.
Why cannot, academics, no, all citizens, get an article published in an academic journal if the conclusion was as above? It comes down to 'legislation'. Someone or institution decided hundreds of years ago an academic paper should have a specific layout and must meet these criteria. In contemporary scholarly circles, there is now a 'social norm' that articulates the standards of writing from undergraduate to a professor, the requirements of academic text. The objective of a career academic is to get published in a journal not to publish a book. After all who would read the "three lenses to see inequality" by postgraduate student David Howie? Legislation and social norm provide legitimacy. Legitimacy improves professional identity. Therefore if an academic wants a highly thought after professional identity. The academic writes a high-quality academic paper which follows legislation and social norms.
Why books are too late
The primary takeaway from the Health and Social care Alliance Scotland week-long conference for me is pilot studies, or RCTs now carry the label pilotism. Citizens frankly are exhausted of policies promising so much but delivering so little. Andrew Mawson makes a similar point in The Social Entrepreneur when he talks about 'fund shrinkage' [added by the author]. To clarify to the reader, what am saying here is the grants available at each funding round is too congested. Mainly for three reasons (1), there are too many charities with too great scopes. (2) Grants require government bureaucracy and funds. (3) academics receive too much public money to do pilots, known academically as RCTs.
Mawson makes another interesting intervention when he states
"The environments we live, work and play profoundly affect who we are as human beings and how we relate to each other.
(Mawson, 2014)
I had highlighted the quote from Mawson as necessary for understanding the role of Social Entrepreneurs in society. I do not, however, remember using the selection in any of my academic papers. The point which I wish to convey and I hope the reader understands. There is a negligible difference between literary text for journal publication—and linguistics used in published commercial books. However, that minor difference can be significant in receiving journal publication. For example, I would not write in an academic paper Mawson suggests:
"The environments we live, work and play profoundly affect who we are as human beings and how we relate to each other."
I could, however, write Individual and group Identity becomes shaped by social constructivism, and from this identity, the world becomes shaped around them (Ross, 2019; Smith, 2010a; Smith, 2010b). The point here which this post is conveying to the reader. Academic text is viewable as legit only when the author provides evidence from previous journal articles from other scholars which supports the argument presented in the academic paper. For complete clarity, what this post is suggesting is that even if an academic whished to challenge the social norms of society. The possibility has limitations given the social construction of the academic's societal triangle.
Am going to suggest something, you do not have to agree with me. If you do not, please let me know in the comments below. If you do, a thumbs up would be nice. My thinking is this. I believe the academics see the system to be at fault. That is why once academics hit retirement age, they provide a common good by writing an academically informed commercial book. The problem is it is too late.
Discussion
The argument I have put forward in this blog post, is academics write books, because, they understand journal articles are inefficient in bringing about social change. What the books do not say is the academics themselves are part of the social norms which prevent social change. The discussion which follows is detailed. However, it is a requirement for bringing the reader over to the blog's thinking. Recall from figure 1 that "the self" and the self's wellbeing is at the centre of the triangle. Figure 2 reproduces figure 1 but places the academic in the centre of the triangle. Recalling the argument above, that discourse in legislation in academic journals', publication standards, results in social norms. Also, recognising that identity is socially constructed. The academic, therefore at whatever level of study has an enigma to resist. The argument this post is suggesting is If academics conform with legislation and go with the flow of the social norms. Then their contribution to the river (wider society) shall be a teardrop. However, the academics professional identity, also socially constructed and maintained, will have an equality equilibrium with their colleagues which maintains wellbeing and the balance of the triangle.
The best way to understand this thinking is with the use of game theory, see figure 3. This post will not go into detail of what game theory is. Hopefully, the reader can follow and understand the basic of the idea from the post's argument.
Looking firstly at the academic, the reader can see the academic is playing the "game of society" from left to right. From the game theory grid, the reader should notice that when the individual academic agrees to follow the social norms set out by academia. They receive 10 points which provide good wellbeing and a socially constructed professional identity highly thought after within their social group.
Alternatively, if the academic disagrees with the social norms set out by academia. They receive 5 points, reduced wellbeing and a reduction in professional identity. In the long run if the individual academic does not return to "agree". The likely outcome shall see the academic will become an outlier within the socially constructed system of society.
To recap and to give the reader an understanding of thoughts forward. This post has suggested academics write commercial books at the end of their career because there is a desire to give more than a teardrop to the river. The academic gets to a point in their life where their legacy must be more than one hundred failed attempts to get published. Look at the quotes in the introduction. They confirm this posts theory.
I say to the reader. What is inscribed in this post is my subjective understanding of an academics position within society. I could have used any professional career as an example. As citizens of a constructed community humans agree to follow the social norms of that community. Humans are egotistical like that. Yet at the same time, humans also want to be more altruistic.
What is next?
The final argument put forward by this post was human beings are egotistical due to been socially constructed by social norms. However, this post suggests human beings are more altruistic than egotistical. The next post will look at the role of the third sector in society. Note this post will follow after a review of the first month and an interface improvement.
To the observant reader that noticed this post did not cover game theory from right to left, the reason is this. The next post on the role of the third sector starts with the right to left game theory position. One final thought, if Economics is too important to entrust to economists. Then indeed, the survival of good wellbeing is also similarly too essential to be empowered only to the free market.
Book recommendation
Finding Political Identities: Young people in a changing Europe by Alistair Ross
societal triangle people place and practice < back
No comments:
Post a Comment