As a researcher who has dedicated his professional interest to sustainability and its paradoxical connection to growth, I try to be a “public academic”. Public insofar as the very notion of sustainability and its implication for a society, that can most likely be termed “unsustainable”, is highly political – and relevant to all, regardless if they are decision makers in politics and business or “just” ordinary citizens caring for their own and their families’ future well-being. If you do sustainability research for a living, your results are the results of everyone, keeping in mind that you hardly reach this ominous entity we call the public. This blog is one of my attempts to ensure publicity. Academic insofar as, although I am passionate about my research and its results as a citizen, it reflects my professional work to the best standards I can assure – not beyond doubt, but hopefully beyond most of the more reasonable doubts.
One specific aspect of my research is always catching a public eye more easily than others: postgrowth. But it does so not by being published in academic journals or presentations on scholarly conferences, but by being written up in a more accessible manner in this blog. Especially the piece I wrote in December 2013 got some attention: Green growth vs. Postgrowth – Where the twain can meet. It first was republished with the Postgrowth Institute, from where it really went viral – on a small scale, but nevertheless it impressed me a lot, as I was nowhere near getting any of the feedback I got here from my scholarly publications. Next was Open Democracy, a fine site I cannot recommend highly enough for alternative news, ideas and backgrounds. Then came The Ecologist and this made me very humble and thankful as I always admired it for being the longest standing news and insight source, academic and otherwise, on ecological issues.
These cross-publications, and there are probably some I don’t know about, have not only led to an inspiring discussion with Ralf Fücks, head of the German-based green think tank Heinrich Böll Foundation, which’s summary was accurately drawn up by NetGreen, the network for green indicators. They also brought the notion of Postgrowth and the high time for a Plan P as I call it into Making It, the magazine of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO).
Why I am writing this? Because I want to encourage other researchers for “publicizing” their research, especially if they are working in similar fields with high societal and economic relevance. Science is accountable, but not only for the usual “impact factors” like peer-reviewed journal articles or research funding. Trying to make a public impact, to cause some ripples in the public debate, no matter how small they are, is a third pillar for scientific accountability and personal recognition as an academic. At least it should be and it should be equally valued and encouraged. Only then can science justify itself in the 21st century, after postmodernity, postgrowth, post-everything. And, very personally, it is by far more rewarding to get feedback from real people who’s thoughts have been positively irritated by the work you hold dear to your heart.
Could agree more Andre! And it was great to have your work appear on the Post Growth Institute website.
I’d also encourage authors with a gmail address to publish their more popular pieces to Google +, as this should have some pretty serious ramifications, from an SEO point of view.
Donnie