Some variant of this is line comes up from time to time, and it’s always irritating, but I think it’s something that strikes me as dumber the more time goes by. Whether it’s stated implicitly or explicitly, this remark is almost always uttered in the context of dismissing academic expertise or research. The logic here is never clearly stated, but presumably it has something to do with academics not being able to understand the things they study because they haven’t “lived it”. Insert appropriate hand-waving here.
First, it’s just descriptively wrong. There are a lot of academics who get into academia after working in other fields, including private “business” (broadly defined), finance (more narrowly), public sector service at the local, state, or federal levels, non-profits and non-governmental organizations, the military, inter-governmental organizations, etc. Part of what motivates people to get into academia is often the fact that they observe things in the “real world” that lead them to ask questions for which they can’t find satisfying answers.
Second, it’s not at all clear that there is a meaningful divide between academic research and the “real world”. I mean, the basic gatekeeping mechanisms for entering academia require would-be researchers to work extensive hours for very, very low pay only to subsequently spend years searching for a job in their field. Oh, and try asking for a raise as an academic researcher—for most of us, this is a process that takes at least a year to even attempt, and the odds of securing an external job offer to use as leverage are…*checks notes*…nearly non-existent. But overall these things sound suspiciously similar to things people in the “real world” complain about.
Third, the type of work that academics do is often very similar to the kind of work done in other sectors. Is there really a difference between sitting in front of a spreadsheet analyzing data in a campus office and sitting in front of a spreadsheet analyzing data (but probably doing a worse job) while working for a private firm or some government agency? I don’t think so. In some ways this is a gross oversimplification. The topics that academics research often have a lot of real, substantive importance for “real world” issues, like war, defense, medicine, workplace safety, mental health, substance abuse treatments, engineering, communications technology, etc. Maybe the work that some academics do sounds really obscure, but most people get into this line of work because they care about something substantive, and the substantive importance is often due to the outsider’s ignorance—not the triviality of the research.
Fourth, the research skills and expertise that academics develop are often in demand by people living in the “real world”. I’ve learned a lot talking to folks working in government and the military. One of the things that I’ve learned is that these people have day jobs, and they’re often so busy doing their day-to-day work that they don’t have time to ask and answer the kinds of questions that might arise as a result of that work. They might also lack the research skills necessary to do these things. Multiple military officials have talked about how their job has required them to perform tasks for which they are ill-equipped to monitor or track progress and effectiveness—this includes people working in literal war zones.
These folks try their best, and often in difficult circumstances, but working in “real world” environments/roles does not automatically endow someone with the knowledge and expertise they need to tackle all the problems they face. For a lot of academics, a huge part of their job is going out and talking to people from all sorts of different backgrounds, learning how things work, and synthesizing information from these different sources. And for many people in many different fields this means extensive, and repeated, bouts of international travel away from friends and family. Sometimes this may involve traveling to high-risk locations for long periods of time. Collecting insights and knowledge from practitioners in different fields, and then stepping back to analyze the “big picture”, is something that most practitioners are not always able to do, regardless of whether they’re working in the private sector, for the government, the military, or a non-profit.
Fifth, there’s all the other trivial stuff that academics must have to worry about, like bosses, coworkers, deadlines, “customer” feedback (re students), budgeting issues, funding shortfalls, childcare expenses, sickness, and so on. Oh yeah, and academics have to worry about getting fired. And if that happens, or if their contract simply expires, they may have to move across the country (or world) to find another job.
Finally, this last point may be a little more abstract, but it also suggests that the only way to acquire any sort of knowledge or expertise is to work in to have some sort of direct, first-person, hands-on experience with the underlying subject matter. It’s not that this kind of experience can’t be valuable (it certainly can be), but it’s very often unnecessary to learn about underlying phenomena of interest. Basically, all human knowledge and scientific achievement would be impossible if we couldn’t transmit knowledge and expertise to others, who can then use this knowledge to make their own advancements. And it also represents a fundamental misunderstanding of where many of the tools used in the “real world” come from. How many of the mathematical and statistical tools used in modern finance come out of academic research? Engineering? Insurance? Medicine? Epidemiology?
The “real world” argument is a dumb, simplistic, and lazy “argument”. Portraying the divide between academic researchers and people working in other fields as one of the “real world” versus not is only useful insofar as it’s a quick and dirty tool with which to dismiss arguments, ideas, and findings that you don’t like. Imagine how much better off we’d be if, rather than denigrating academic research, we came to better appreciate the ways in which research and practice can inform one another? Academics don’t have all the answers, but neither do practitioners.
This is written by an academic…..imagine that. Academia certainly does provide expertise. That expertise however is limited to academia if that is all one has ever done. While some fields do require real world experience to get in….others do not (like philosophy and “gender studies” ).
I do not think it is mutually exclusive they way one can be informed or educated. I think we can read and study a subject as well as go off of experience.
The only times have have heard anyone really use the argument against academia you outline is when some professor has spent years in a position and says something that goes against what a massive amount of people involved in said subject have experienced.
You are correct when you say that experience along does not trump research and synthesis of information to get a “Big picture” , but your assumption that the right conclusion is reached 100% of the time by academia….is flawed. The fact is being in Academia does not does not mean you get it right 100% of the time. That is where I think most people who use the real world argument are coming from. A degree on the wall is not the end all be all of knowledge. Experience and study can both play a role in learning.
And if you can not understand that…..you are you clearly part of the problem.
This entire comment is written in a prose, most people need time for, to decipher. To me, this alone indicates, that you don’t realise, how the mainstream wants to be talked to: straightforward and easily understandable. We want to have clear facts and not endlessly having to ruminate and decipher, what has been said.
Unfortunately, I can understand the anger, and frustration many people feel towards some “dictate” from the “academic elite” which condescending tell them, how to talk and what to do. You’ve surely read more, than the average citizen, you surely know more on an intellectual level, but do you know how it feels to work 8 hours a day and simply not having the TIME to think?
Some people just want clear statements about what is happening and not complicated theories on things. I wish academics would sometimes consider this aspect more.