Ferguson, ethics, and the public intellectual

Originally published at www.21stcenturyscholar.org

During the 1890s, newspaper publishers Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst competed against each other to sell more papers. They printed sensationalist stories accompanied with fear-inducing headlines and vivid, provocative pictures. Journalists eschewed facts for melodrama. At the height of yellow journalism, the two newspaper tycoons published stories that contributed to the United States’ involvement in the Spanish-American War. 

Fast-forward 120 years. In Ferguson, Missouri, a 28-year-old white police officer shoots an 18-year-old black man. Residents protest. Droves of reporters travel to Ferguson. Over three months later, following months of unrest and anticipating even more, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon declares a state of emergency. One week afterwards, a grand jury decides not to indict the police officer with criminal charges. Violent and nonviolent protests escalate. Journalists chase and film rioters. They flood newspapers, television channels, and social media with panic-inducing stories and images. Cable channels cut from out-of-breath reporters in the field to argumentative talking heads in the studio.

---

The media has largely influenced the ways in which the public talks and thinks about Michael Brown’s death and the subsequent protests. Rather than facilitating civil, fact-based exchanges, they encourage vehement, opinion-based disagreement. Their actions starkly differ from the ethics of journalism, which include pursuing truth, reporting accurately, and limiting harm. If there is such a thing as a 21st century public sphere—a place where we can intellectually discuss important social issues—the media is corrupting it.

What, then, is the role of academics? Consider some of the ethical concerns of researchers: beneficence, respect, and justice. While we typically discuss those ideals in terms of the conduct of research, we may also consider them in relation to when and how scholars participate in public forums. 

Stated more simply, while talking heads whip up racist antagonism and blame individuals, research is resolute. Young men of color disproportionately experience gun violence. A discriminatory police state surveils low-income neighborhoods. We have established clearer pathways from school to prison than school to college. And, due to a lack of opportunities, concentrated and generational poverty has spread among individuals of color.

While sitting in Birmingham Jail, Dr. King wrote, “Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.” We have few forums to thoughtfully and critically discuss the pursuit of social justice and the existence of injustice in the United States. Scholars have an ethical responsibility to assume an increased role in public discourse, to illuminate the pressing causes and consequences of injustice, and to help imagine opportunities for social justice in the 21st century.

How do scholars produce policy relevant research?

As I mentioned in my last post, I was named as an Emerging Education Policy Scholar (EEPS). The program, a collaboration between The Thomas B. Fordham Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, provides the opportunity for young, policy-minded scholars to collaborate with and learn from a range of key policy players.

Our first meeting took place a few weeks ago. The long list of impressive participants included advisors on Capital Hill and in the White House, representatives from large foundations, researchers working in think tanks and the government, and reporters from a variety of publications. 

The conversations were always candid, often refreshing, and sometimes daunting. We discussed the relationship between research and policy. Yes, research influences policy. However, the path from research question to legislation is often circuitous and involves a mixture of concerted effort and unpredictable chance.

The meeting was enlightening and rewarding. Here are a few themes—many of which complement the emerging criteria Bill and I present in our article “Qualitative Research and Public Policy: The Challenges of Relevance and Trustworthiness”:

Relevance

How do scholars engage with the most pressing policy issues? Policy windows open and close quickly. During those times, politicians use relevant research to either shape or support policy decisions. Importantly, individuals during the meeting frequently cited the need for research to both address contemporary issues and also say something specific about policy implications. For instance, while a study may find that more low-income students need to obtain postsecondary degrees, such a finding will likely not guide legislation. Policy makers want to know about the effectiveness of specific interventions; they worry about what to do and how to fund it. There was a heavy premium on experimental and quasi-experimental studies. I will discuss the role of qualitative research in another blog.

Audience

How do scholars appeal to multiple audiences? Several participants stated the need for scholars to produce dual publications. If you publish in an academic journal, translate the findings for a blog at Huffington Post or Edweek. Why? Policymakers receive stacks and stacks of research. They rarely read studies, but they do read blogs.

Visibility

How visible are scholars among multiple channels? Especially due to social media, academics have the opportunity to engage multiple audiences. The tenure process still relies on publications. However, when thinking about a scholar’s ability to influence policy, publicity (or “klout points,” using Rick Hess’s term) matters.

Relationships

With whom do scholars engage? Academics who influence policy often have connections with key change agents. Get to know policymakers. Talk to reporters. Engage funders. Informal networks provide predictable and unpredictable opportunities.

These four interrelated themes—relevance, audience, visibility, and relationships—often undergirded our discussions. We will reconvene in June; I’ll keep you updated.