I believe sincerely that an academic view on social, economic and political issues is potentially valuable. However this value is not that high in reality. What we communicate is something that many people already know, or the ones which compel them to ask `so what’. 

This is not a mere communication issue. The way we communicate shapes the academic products we produce. We communicate primarily with other academics. How do we conceptualise these `other academics’. In my view, we can do it in three ways. 

First is to see academics as a hierarchy. Those who do research in a specific discipline like economics or sociology can be viewed as part of a hierarchy with different levels in terms seniority, reputation of universities, the number of publications, and so on. Those who are at the lower level have a desire to go up in the hierarchy. There may be different hierarchies for different disciplines. But there can be different hierarchies even within the same discipline based on ideology, methodology, schools of thought, etc. By and large, each academic is part of an identifiable hierarchy. 

The communication with other academics is shaped by the loyalty/allegiance to this hierarchy. Moreover it is carried out with certain internal protocols. These can be formal or informal. For example, attempts to publish in journals which are valued by each hierarchy are part of following formal protocol. But there are many informal ways and channels of communication which may manifest in email exchanges, invitation and participation in conferences/meetings and research programs, tea-time discussions, references for scholarships and job recruitments, and so on. Not only outsiders but also those who are failing to stick to these informal and formal protocols may not be able to communicate with this hierarchy, and hence cannot aspire to go up within it. (Needless to mention that this hierarchy is different from that of the organisation – university or college – in which they work.)

The second way to conceptualise `other academics’ is to view them as potential collaborators. This collaboration is likely to take place with a sub-set (of academics), and here too loyalty to a specific ideological and methodological framework matters. However when we use the term `collaborator’, it may give an impression of equitable exchange but that is not true. People who know joint ventures can understand that collaboration is more efficient and hence happens between those who can provide complementary contributions or inputs. This is true in academic collaborations too. X may have a theory, but then he may be interested in collaborating with an academic in the developing world to generate (and probably analyse) data to provide the empirical support. Y may have money from a global funding program, but then she may collaborate with academics from different (possibly poorer) parts of the world to develop an international research program. An academic from a developing country may get a paid invitation to a conference in the developed world if his paper can add value to a conceptual framework that is shaped by conference organisers. 

All these indicate that certain collaborations are more likely to happen. Academics from developed world or reputed universities have little incentive to collaborate with an academic from a developing country, if her focus is on developing original theoretical insights from or based on her own context.  

The third way to conceptualise “other academics’ is to treat them as competitors. This too has important ramifications for communication. For example, many academics have very little incentive to read other people’s work, or they read only what their own sub-set of peers (actual or potential collaborators) write. Each one is producing a product but it is not `sold’ to the public at large. The target is one’s own academic hierarchy or collaborators. Hence even those who operate within the same hierarchy has an incentive only to demonstrate how their product is superior to that of others. Competitors have very little incentive to test and highlight the merits of competing products. 

Hence this real or perceived `competition’ also shapes the communication between academics. There may be very little communication between many academics, there may be a need to neglect what others are doing; and there may be a compulsion to `project’ the merits of one’s own product. 

Those who have a superficial understanding of academics may have a view that they are in the business of producing truthful knowledge which are reviewed by peers in a dispassionate and neutral manner, and the one which passes the test is communicated to the world as a whole. This view of academic world is far from reality. Instead, each academic communicates with certain protocols to a sub-set of other academics, has compulsion to focus on certain aspects and neglect others as a way to facilitate collaboration, and can get into a mindless projection of what one does by neglecting the useful work of others. Needless to mention that these imperatives shape what each academic does. Hence the reality of academics is shaped by the organisational, social and political relationships between them, and not by the needs of the world. That is an important reason why academic knowledge becomes less useful to the world or to people at large. 

How do we break this conundrum? We should break consciously the link between the modalities of academic communication and academic knowledge. The latter needs to be driven by the needs of the world. There can be multiple forms of communication, and all these should not be aimed at `other academics’ whether they are part of a hierarchy, or are collaborators or competitors. What we do as academics can be communicated to other academics, but that should not determine what we do as academics. Then there can be a genuine question. Who will determine whether what we do is correct/relevant or not? We can leave that to the world as a whole. 

End Note: The content and opinions expressed are that of the author, and are not necessarily endorsed by/do not necessarily reflect the views of Azim Premji University.