I agree. How can anyone understand EH Carr without understanding his experience of living through WWI? Or Morgenthau without WWII?
In politics, particularly, we recognize how life experiences shape the candidate. I think it might be imprecise for academics to think our research is not affected by life experiences.
I would argue that presenting one's life experiences make one's research stronger, not weaker.
Well, what if some kid grew up in the 'hood, with his bros rappin' to the latest gangsta fare, yo, but he liked skimmin' old copies of Foreign Affairs and the Atlantic down at the county library.
Would that put him in good stead with some Indian scholar who transcended the caste? Would the editors at the top IR journals be riffin' on that kid's street creds?
I get the feeling that bios would marginalize folks of that sort, based on being outside the 'stream, if you catch my drift.
Interesting, in any case.
No would be forcing "the kid who grew up in the 'hood" to reveal anything he or she doesn't want to. Of course, in fact, the kind of background Americaneocon describes would be less likely to marginalize a scholar, at least in the American academy, than to help his or her career, and perhaps deservedly so... I'm not saying that's bad by any means, just pointing it out.
My sense is that at least some IR journals are quite lenient in terms of what they let people write in their bios; I recall reading one bio of Prof. Carpenter that mentioned her children, so at least one journal on at least one occasion must have been o.k. with that. If I've got that wrong, she will correct me.
First sentence above should begin "No one..."
LC: How darling of you to keep tab on my bio notes.
Yes, there is some variation in terms of how much different journals will let you "bend" the existing norms - or, how strenuously they'll object when you try. But that doesn't invalidate the existence of a general norm to the contrary, which as Kratochwil and Ruggie have said, are counterfactually valid. The norm to the contrary means few people will add such personal info in; and that any given editor may choose to be "lenient" or not. Plus, the backhanded one-sentence mention of a "life" in that one bio-note you are thinking of was nothing close, really, to what Rosenau and Ayindli are proposing, which is to make such matters central, and to encourage editors to encourage it.
I should acknowledge that I myself have exercised the same policing function vis-a-vis scholars from other countries when taking on editorship duties, and have done so because I recognize there are limits to the kinds of autobiographical content "appropriate" for scholarly bio notes in American academic publishing.
That doesn't mean I approve of the current norms, just that one recognizes they're there when one bumps up against them.
This is a simple and even petty thing to problematize, I realize. But I fear it's one of the many practices of our craft that maintain the pretense that we exist outside of, rather than as part of, the world we are studying. This in turn has implications, I think, for the way we interface with politics as scholars and citizens.
Hi there,
I read your blog and I think you're a good writer. I'd like to invite you to join our new online community, polzoo.com. We're a user generated political editorial and social network site. We also choose from amongst our own bloggers to be featured on the front page. Come check us out. I think your voice would be a great addition to our site.
Shame on anyone who judges academic work based on an author's bio rather than her words on the page. It's not only disrespectful of her ideas, but also it's an invitation to ad hominem: "She's making that argument only because she's XYZ."
If you want to turn the study of IR into an exercise in biography, go ahead and do it in an English department. But don't pretend it's social science.
Amen, BB. Leaving aside the irrelevance of such things (or, at least, what ought to be their irrelevance), reading much contemporary IR is painful enough without having to pour through page after page of narcissistic claptrap.
I don't think that Rosenau and Aylindi are suggesting narcissism for its own sake. I think they mean that we should reflect on and be transparent about how elements of our particular social locations and histories have impacted our research and our research findings.
For example, Carol Cohn's analysis of the nuclear security establishment was shaped in important ways not only by the assumptions she brought to her ethnographic work, but by her identity as a white female civilian, and the assumptions her informants made about her on that basis. I think her analysis of the institutional norms in the defense community was richer because she found a way to include her presence as a researcher in the analysis of the community that she was both studying and with which she was interfacing.
Maybe the question you are asking is whether the benefit gained in adopting this approach as a general rule is worth the risks. I don't have an answer.
I think this is a very bad idea. There are a fair number of IR scholars, and others, who rightly fear that revealing things like being religious (particularly of the more conservative bents) or their political ideologies (particularly on the right) will lead to their isolation in the discipline and even greater difficulty in the job market.
Then they wouldn't / shouldn't reveal those things. I can think of plenty of things I would also want to leave out of my "author's bio."
It seems we agree that authors should have the discretion to define themselves as they see fit. No one is saying someone should be forced to include personal details that they consider irrelevant to others' understanding of their work. Rosenau is suggesting that the discipline should be open to such detail to the extent that the author can make the case it is relevant.
I think the bigger question for me is not what is legitimate or illegitimate in an author's bio - that's just an example of a broader issue I have in the field, which is our seeming need to compartmentalize our professional and civic/social identities. I understand the reasons for this all too well. I'm just not convinced it's healthy or honest.
I see what you're saying, Charli, but it seems to me that if the expanded bio note as you are describing it becomes de rigeur, norms of what needs to be included will arise, and failures to include things like those that I mentioned--things that are surely important to a scholar's vantage point and interests--will become points of controvercy and sources of discredit for the scholar's work and findings.
In response to TMD, I recognize your point that scholars should not be "forced" to reveal pertinent information.
However, I agree with Charli's original point that readers might find it helpful to be able to "locate" the author if that author is willing to share particular insights as to why he or she is writing on a particular topic or takes a particular approach. BB makes the point that the reader might dismiss some particular argument that the author is making because of his or her background, but I think it is equally likely that readers will be enriched by being able to locate a particular author. Do people dismiss Said's arguments in "Orientalism" because of his particular background? Quite possible, but plenty of other people see how his background motivated him to address this issue head on in a way that few other academics could.
BB's point is well made, but I think there are readers who will be enriched by more information given by the athor. I agree with Charli's basic point--if an author feels that his or her background is pertinent to the work, he or she should be granted the space to present the reader with this information.
Someone like Said (Palestinian, liberal christian, politically left) is never going to have a problem in academia. It's rather the evangelical christian, social conservative, militarily assertive type who's going to have the problem, Josh, so I don't think your example holds.
For a long time, Said was given a pass on the many misstatements, distortions, and falsehoods in "Orientalism," which have been publicly exposed only in the past few years. The fact that Said was a member of an "oppressed group" no doubt contributed to people's willingness to believe his claims. Thus, Said personally benefited from the biographical element in his work, but the larger enterprise of honest scholarship did not. The example of Said works against Charli's argument, not in favor of it.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
