Blogging and Scholarship

My blogging buddy Jeff suggested I comment on this article about Daniel Drezner, a University of Chicago professor who blogs about international relations and politics. Drezner recently was denied tenure, and he apparently believes his blogging may have been a factor, particularly because he blogs from a libertarian-Republican perspective.

It’s impossible to know whether Drezner’s blogging was a factor in the decision at Chicago regarding his tenure. My limited experience with tenure decisions suggests that it resembles other “lifetime appointments”: the process sometimes works well but sometimes is arbitrary and unfair. I experienced the same thing when I was up for partner at my former law firm. I had worked long and hard and had generally done a good job, but the key factors in my election to partner were my relationships with power brokers who supported my candidacy. My perception is that, very often, tenure requires the same kind of personal support, particularly from one’s department chair. If you tick off the wrong person, things will get tough.

Maybe Drezner’s blogging upset the wrong person; or, maybe he’s irascible and unfriendly in person and the Chair or some other power broker wanted him gone; or maybe his academic publications, which look very impressive when listed on his c.v., aren’t really that substantial; or maybe there’s a combination of various problems. Who knows.

I’m skeptical, though, that his blogging was the straw that broke the camel’s back. If you get along with people on a personal level, and your academic publications are strong in quality, placement and quantity, I don’t think the fact that you blog is in itself a negative. The argument that a scholar shouldn’t post unpolished “blog thoughts” seems particularly specious and elitist to me. Scholars post unpolished drafts on sites like SSRN all the time, and we regularly exchange unfinished ideas at meetings and conferences. By now, everyone knows that a blog is not the equivalent of a refereed scholarly journal, and no responsible blogger would make any such claim of equivalence. Maybe this is particularly true for law faculty, who seem to be prolific in writing and reading blogs.

At the same time, there is a measure of caution any academic — or anyone else with a public profile — must exercise when blogging. There are certain “hot button” topics that I will not touch in any recordable public forum for fear that my comments might be taken out of context and used against me by a tenure committee, prospective employer, or in some other future context that I haven’t even yet anticipated. That is, of course, a pathetic shame if the first amendment and the idea of “academic freedom” mean anything. But that’s life.

On the other hand, I unabashedly maintain this explicitly Christian-themed blog at a time when Christianity in itself can be a “hot button” topic. I wouldn’t doubt that my expressed Christianity has cost me in the academic job market, perhaps by some folks who’ve Googled me after recieving my c.v. Perhaps it will cost me in some future tenure consideration. I hope that’s not the case, and it shouldn’t be, but I feel that I’m trying to be faithful to my calling by keeping this blog, and that any objective reader would have to acknowledge that my writing here strives for authenticity, balance and thoughtfulness; any unfair consequences will have to be what they will be. At the end of the day, our goal as serious followers of Jesus is that expressed in Phillipians 3:10: “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings. . . .” (Hat tip to the Philthreeten blog, the proprietor of which sometimes comments here, and which I only realized a day ago probably refers to “Phillipians 3:10” and not to a guy named Phil Threeten!)