Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Taking time to think … again

By Mark Bahnisch - posted Friday, 24 June 2005


In On Line Opinion recently, Deakin Law academic James McConvill wrote an article arguing that intellectuals should be celebrated, and that furore and criticism in the public arena would discourage academics from doing research. There's some terminological confusion going on here, and probably a bit of confusion about the different protocols for public and academic debate, as well as what exactly constitutes research.

McConvill's hook for his piece was the criticism of the views of fellow Deakin Law scholars Marko Bagaric and Julie Clarke's op-ed article advocating the legalisation of torture. McConvill wrote:

The elementary attack on Bagaric and Clarke’s heavily researched piece by a wide range of individuals and groups, including a prominent law professor and a former prime minister, leads one to ask whether we have forgotten about the proper role for a university, and academics working in universities.

Advertisement

We once understood the role of academics in society was to raise ideas in a critical manner - to foster discourse, engender debate and enrich the community. The great academics fit the role of a classical intellectual. They were individuals with a genuine love of learning, knowledge on a wide range of matters, and an interest in the direction of public policy. In his book, Furedi contends that in the halls of academia, such intellectuals have become an endangered species.

If indeed, intellectuals are an endangered species, it's not for the reasons McConvill advances.

I don't want to rebut the Bagaric and Clarke arguments here, something I've done elsewhere, except to make two points. The first is that Bagaric and Clarke, by publishing in a student edited law review, and a fairly obscure one at that, avoided the sort of scrutiny through peer review that is fundamental to the testing of academic arguments.

Second, Bagaric and Clarke's article is not in fact based on what most academics would understand as research. It does not engage seriously with previous research and the philosophical, ethical and socio-political issues raised. Rather, in the style of legal academics, Bagaric and Clarke trace a number of legal conventions, rules and court decisions, which act as a platform for the construction of what (unsurprisingly) is a rather legalistic argument.

There have actually been multiple controversies in Australia about the way research should be conducted in schools and faculties of law. The current manner in which DEST (Department of Education, Science and Training) financially rewards research is geared towards a scientific and social-scientific model of what research is, and the manner in which it's published (that is, conducting a study or making a theoretical intervention and publishing in a refereed journal is the paradigm). Law as a discipline has traditionally viewed scholarship as the writing of case notes, commentaries on the evolution of common law principles and the compilation of case books or the authorship of textbooks. The definition of research in the DEST scheme of things denies these activities the status of research for funding purposes.

Law schools, under pressure to secure funding like other university departments, are increasingly trying to conform to a more social-scientific model of research. I've taught philosophy of social science and research methods to postgraduate research law students, and it's evident that these principles are - to date - little understood in the discipline (which is not to be critical - I'd argue for a recognition of traditional legal scholarship by DEST).

Advertisement

McConvill, in his article, refers to the pressures on academics to publish. There's much truth in this analysis, but the reasons why academics might be discouraged from pursuing research are not the ones he cites. What the French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard calls a "culture of performativity" has taken over universities. Outputs must be measurable. Productivity must be maximised.

This conflicts in large degree to what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu referred to as the different cycle of time involved in doing traditional academic research. Universities in the past were largely insulated from the pace of the modern world, to provide a space and time to think seriously. Thus, some of the great works of philosophy and social theory which still dominate our thought today took decades to write.

The public sphere of journalism and debate works on a different time cycle. The trick for an op-ed is often to make a highly controversial argument. It stirs up debate, but is soon forgotten. But pulling in readers establishes a saleability for further articles by the author in the market. Messrs Bagaric and McConvill seem to know this, as they've been highly prolific and near ubiquitous in the op-ed pages since the initial Bagaric "furore", with McConvill publishing three op-eds in two weeks - some fairly reactionary musings on the role of women, a call for the return of Paul Keating, and a version of his On Line Opinion article, which perhaps significantly, omits the defence of Bagaric and Clarke in the piece published on these pages.

None of these articles, on my reading, draws on any academic research. That's not to disparage McConvill - if he can carve out a space for himself in the marketplace of ideas, good luck to him. But it does call into question his understanding of academic research and the different styles of debate and discussion proper to journalistic op-ed and academic papers.

It's there that I have trouble with some of McConvill's key arguments. His defence of Bagaric and Clarke, and implicitly, his own claims that he might be discouraged from doing research, seem to presume that a special privilege should be given to academics publishing in the press. It should not.

Academics need to defend their position just as any other participant in public debate does, and an appeal to status is a recognised logical fallacy - the argument from authority. When I began my doctoral training, we students were required to give seminars, and questioners were incited to be as hard on us as possible. That's a recognition of the fact - known in Western universities since the scholastic disputandio which founded their tradition of debate - that your arguments can be sharpened (and refuted) by strong challenge.

Presumably McConvill would accept this as part of the academic environment. It seems precious to suggest that such criticism should not be directed against academics in the public sphere, and in fact I think a lot of the criticism of Bagaric and Clarke engaged with their ideas, rather than disparaged them as McConvill claims. That's as it should be.

The real pressures against being the sort of intellectual that Furedi hails - and it's a good picture of the sort of humanist intellectual that has been a lodestone in the past - are built into the environment of modern scholarship. They are the pressures to publish without regard for the quality of the work and its outlet; pressures to publish before you're ready; pressures to conform research subjects or results to what the market wants; and the incredible pressure on time driven more by “administrivia” and over-regulation of universities by DEST than by the demands of teaching.

A classic intellectual is characterised by an intense knowledge of a particular subject matched with a broad humanistic understanding and an ability to contextualise and communicate clearly. That's something to which academics can aspire, but it's no use saying that intellectuals shouldn't be criticised in public, lest they retreat from research altogether. Nor is it particularly helpful to assimilate controversy for the sake of op-ed publication to careful research results or theorising which might take readers where they don't want to go. McConvill should take some time to think again - about the broader culture of speed and performance which actually prevents the formation of genuine intellectuals in our universities.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Mark Bahnisch is a sociologist and a Fellow of the Centre for Policy Development. He founded the leading public affairs blog, Larvatus Prodeo.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mark Bahnisch

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy