Speak Your Piece: Ph.D.s, Do the J.O.B.
Boston Globe It's okay to get out of the ivory tower, but make sure your work results in something real. Over the last twenty or thirty years or so, studying rural America has become trendy in academe.
New professional organizations and journals have popped up to “fill the gap,” and researchers are jumping all over rural areas poking at everything from cemeteries and heritage tourism to the expression of religious beliefs. Now rural studies have been around a long time, but these days if you say you are interested in, or actually doing research on issues in a rural area (no matter what your discipline) people actually pay attention because it’s “real world.”
This kind of work has become popular and some of the work is very good. But while academics may be stepping out of the Ivory Tower to get their feet muddy on rural roads, I have to wonder about their motivations. Do they have a connection to what they are doing, or is it some kind of tenure-fodder-harvesting expedition? What is their attitude towards the people they are studying?
Are they smugly secure in their endeavors, convinced they are doing a great service by bringing their expertise to the unwashed masses? Are they in it for the long term or just here until the grant money runs out? Are they willing to invest in a people and community and roll up their sleeves and really get involved? How many of them are willing to live the experience (and I don’t mean in a Peace Corps or VISTA way) and really come to understand what the issues are?
I am suspicious, and for good reason. Most of the academics I know talk a good line about rural studies but have never lived in a rural area (unless you count the exurbs where high-end housing developments, country estates and hobby farms are built over once-productive fields). They don’t have the faintest idea what it is like to live without reliable broadband (or for that matter reliable electricity), a local Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, or a Whole Foods. And given the opportunity to trade their metro-university life for a rural one, although many say it is their “dream,” most will politely decline the offer for whatever reason is convenient at the time.
(My favorite is the excuse that rural school districts just don’t offer the opportunities that urban ones do, and they want the best for their kids. That’s true; most rural districts don’t offer opportunities like gang fights, shootings, and pervasive drug problems. Neither do they have as many Advanced Placement programs. But if these parents enrolled their kids in a rural district and got busy, could they help bring about some real changes, making rural schools better for all students? Nah, never mind.)
From what I have observed, there is a palpable disconnect between academia and the “real world,” including rural America. Partly to blame is our system of higher education and what we have traditionally valued in academia (we are “doctors of philosophy” not technicians or engineers, and certainly not farmers). Part of it is, yes, our system of tenure, which forces many into a frenzy to publish or perish. This pushes many academics to jump from topic to topic, going with whatever is trendy at the time so they can say they made a “contribution,” the whole time making their vitas longer and heavier but producing very little of use to those of us on the ground.
However, rural America has finally been noticed (well, sort of) and that’s a good thing, but it doesn’t necessarily mean we are going to benefit from the notice. I challenge those in academe who study rural areas to show me precisely why I should value their work and how it is going to improve my life as someone who lives and works in a rural area. I want to see real results and real impact. I want to be able to shake your hand and say, “Thanks,” not just, “Well isn’t that interesting.”
I shouldn’t have to challenge you to do this – you should be doing it already. You want to make a difference, make one, and not just in the length of your vitae.
Until you can convince me that you really do have something to offer, I’m keeping that “No Trespassing” sign up and my shotgun by the door. My front porch is not for the faint at heart, so if you show up you’d better have something to show me to help me solve my “real world” problems. Until then, enjoy hanging out at Starbucks with your buddies talking about “rural America.” Meanwhile, I’ve got cattle to vaccinate and a pigpen to clean. Save one of those White Chocolate Mochas for me – I’ll pick it up after my chores are done.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version


Comments
A well-deserved shot across the bow
Thanks, Kelley, for this wonderfully provocative piece. Reading it, I almost felt like you were writing directly to me.
I grew up in rural western Massachusetts, but I went to college in Boston and got the idea that I wanted to do ethnographic research on the rural Great Plains. I guess I figured that no one would ever take me seriously (including myself) if I had never lived on the Plains, so I moved to southeast Kansas and took a job at a rural community college. I'd like to say that I've had a positive impact in the two years that I've been here, but last week I told my boss that I would be going off to graduate school this fall. Believe me, I'm conflicted about that. Am I just running back to the ivory tower, instead of staying in a community where I can actually make a difference?
So I'm grateful for your piece, because I want to hold myself and the scholarship that I produce to the standard that you're proposing. I want to be sure that I'm not just packaging up rural America for consumption by an urban elite, either as a quaint, romanticized backwater or as an Object of Liberal Pity. I want to be working with rural people on the issues that matter to them, to be an advocate for them but also to make sure that their voices are the ones that are being heard, not just mine.
Thanks for keeping me and other aspiring scholars of rural America like me honest about what we do. If we let you down, please tell us. We need to hear it.
An academic's viewpoint
I am a PhD student at the University of Calgary, studying nineteenth century American history with an emphasis on the South. While I am not a student of "Rural Studies," this post struck me as containing the all-to-trendy critique of academia that remains popular outside universities: namely a mild to explicit disdain for the perceived aloofness and "elitism" of academics by the provincial, more "authentic" masses that don't need "pointy-headed" coastal elitists telling them how to run their lives.
Let me clarify that this is NOT the tone your post takes, and I have been reading your blog for a while now and enjoying your perspectives; I am very interested in rural issues, and being a Rust-Belt-Bred Ohio Yankee, I think this is what influenced me in my decision to study southern history. That said, your post does ECHO the familiar common critique of academia. Of course, you make some good points: I am a firm believer that especially regarding historical studies, academics need to do a better job of reaching non-academic readers.
There is some very exciting and compelling research going on now that many non-academics will never read because it is not made available to the general public thanks to jargon-laced prose and the generally insulated nature of academic publishers. So in a sense, I agree with you that academia should offer practical critiques, the utility of which should extend outside the Ivory Towers. That said, you might do well to understand that acceptance is a two-way street: much of the public, especially in rural communities, tends to be reactionary and disdainful of academia for cultural and political reasons that have little to do with what is actually published in academic journals.
The rigor of peer-reviewed research and the very complicated nature of human existence demands that academics of all disciplines approach their research with crucial attention to empirical evidence. Needless to say, this often leads to conclusions that do not sit comfortably with reactionary, conservative-minded folks. In my field the best example of this is the continued popular believe that the Southern states seceded from the Union over "States' Rights," and not slavery, despite the fact that the overwhelming historical evidence points to slavery as the single great cause of the Civil War. Academics did not arrive at this conclusion because they wanted to "suppress the truth," rather, that is where the evidence leads us.
My point is that while academics studying rural America should present worthy, useful findings that can help aid rural communities in practice, rural communities should also agree to at least respect the scholarly process, even if it offends some cherished beliefs. After all, elitism can run both ways; viewing academics as aloof elitists, especially if you never had to go through the rigorous process that is doctoral-level graduate studies, is no less arrogant a position that those academics who dismiss those outside the Ivory Tower as unwashed rubes. I would never claim any expertise or experience in farming, as I have never lived or worked on a farm, and those rural folks who have never experienced the scholarly process should not pretend that some vague notions of “authenticity” can make them experts in scholarship. Keep up the great blogging.
- Jarret Ruminski, University of Calgary
A Clarification
Thanks for the comment, Alivegarden. However, when Alivegarden wrties about "those rural folks who have never experienced the scholarly process" Kelley Snowden (the author of the original article) is not among them. Kelley has a doctorate in geography and teaches college students in Texas.
Hey Jarret
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments. I truly wish you well in your graduate studies. It's very interesting to me that you are studying 19th century America in Canada, as for my doctorate I studied 19th century Canada in America. Yes, I found the process of doctoral level graduate studies very rigorous, but it was also great fun. I hope you are enjoying your work as much as I did mine! For you see, I too am an "academic," I just happen to live in a rural area and be up to my knees in cattle, sheep, goats, horses and pigs which gives me something of a different perspective on the "Ivory Tower."
The Ivory Tower is Crumbling...
I am an academic at the University of Toronto (with PhD in hand), and I was moved by your article. I think you raise some very good points, all of which, as academics we are trying to listen and incorporate. There is a knowledge translation/transfer movement going on in Canada and the US (and the person from Calgary should know about this movement, especially if you plan a career in the academy). Science and knowledge should be Democratic and accessible to the general public, after all, those folks in rural places are in a way funding you to be at your university, etc...I do not believe that the academic process itself has to mystical or is it too complicated to understand by Joe Q Public. The scholarly process is not rocket science (and some weight has to be given to lay knowledge), and the time for academics to publish in obscure journals that no one has heard of, has well, come and gone. I have seen too many aloof academics, and many in the community are right in thinking and characterizing many that way...the tide is changing, and for many of the larger granting agencies (i.e. NIH, CIHR, and even SHHRC), a knowledge translation plan is important, community members need to be a part of the research process, and publishing in in-accessible journals is no longer tolerated (i.e. NIH). Science and knowledge need to be more Democratic and accessible, otherwise, I fear, the larger question in a horrible economy will be, what's the point? (And especially for those in the humanities and social sciences).
Good article and I personally would like to see more discussions around this issue. Research has to make a difference and not just go off into a black box and never help anyone. On the clinical side, less than 9% of research makes it to the bedside...that has to change.