Academia for a new millennium

Browsing through the bookstores in Harvard Square, the titles of the latest faculty works caught my attention: each was hardly more than the educated musings of a private individual, with credibility lent by the institution that has entenured them and perhaps imprinted their works on their presses. What separated these musings from that of the average (or slightly above average) blogger on the Internet?

Indeed, what makes academia today the sole authoritative source on anything?

The idea of the academy is a group of people living and working together in the pursuit of knowledge. Not only does their joint work expand the borders of human knowledge, but the inclusion of those willing to learn issues that knowledge and its application is propagated out into the larger world.

The modern academy consists of a faculty, group of professors each with different areas of interest and specialties, and the students who attend classes and study the areas of knowledge covered by the faculty. As a professor, the university funds not only each of their living arrangements (whether through on-campus living arrangements or through salaries), but also the research, teaching, and publication activities expected of them as professors. As a student, the university similarly funds each of their living arrangements (although the university is typically reimbursed through tuition and loans) while attending classes taught by professors.

And what of the post-modern academy?

The requirement of the academy that professors and students live near one another is not so necessary in this age of the Internet. Through blogs, online forums, IM software, email, and video, there are multiple channels available for the exchange of ideas and conversation so essential to the progress of the academy's mission. Indeed, blogs alone represent an evolving conversation on nearly limitless topics, with anyone in the world possessing an Internet connection and a computer able to participate.

Browse through racks of recent professorial publications at your local bookstore: note the esoteric titles, the obscure yet specific topics they examine. I do not wish to dismiss the fine work of contemporary professors, far from it; I merely wish to understand why their good work still possesses a distinction separate from the investigations of the average human being with a blog and a passion. Why is an esoteric work by a university professor lent credence, when the esoteric work of a late-night blogger may or may not be lent that same credence?

Let's examine the reasons for why the product of the academy received a higher regard:

• Educational lineage: a professor derives a portion of his or her reputation from that of the schools they have attended, the professors that taught them, and the schools where they hold chairs now.
• Established fields: the academy acknowledges a finite list of fields of inquiry, and only periodically updates that list to recognize changes in the landscape of human knowledge. The work of a professor has an automatic association with one or more of those fields of inquiry, based upon the chair or department within which he or she serves.
• Peer review: professors can assert that degrees granted to new students (who may later become professors) receive a rigorous review before the grant; that papers submitted for publication are evaluated by others in the field for quality, accuracy, and contribution; that other professors know best what is a contribution to human knowledge.

How relevant are any of these reasons with today's interconnected communications and media?

Let's start with educational lineage. Today's equivalent might be termed the "social network:" the mesh of personal and professional relationships in which today's bloggers participate. Think about the blogs that you read. How many of them did you discover:

• Through recommendations from your own friends, family, or colleagues (your social network)
  
• Because a site or blog you do read regularly linked to articles on it
• Because bloggers or authors you respect listed links to the blogs of colleagues they respected

The idea of a finite set of established fields, with rigid structural boundaries between them conforms to a 19th century (or even older) view of human knowledge. Throughout the 20th century, we have seen an explosion of new fields, as existing fields grew so large as to require increasing specialization to progress, or new ideas emerged because someone thought of integrating ideas from multiple disciplines.

Peer review is still a valuable part of the post-modern academia, but there is a key difference: whereas the classic academy defined "peer" as an expert in the same field either at the same or similar academic institution, the modern definition for "peer" could mean "anyone in the contributor's social network." Or even the public, as in "hold up under public scrutiny."

In this post-modern world, the former pillars of our civilization (God, country, King, Harvard, Oxford, etc.) have come to lose their relevance. Critical-thinking individuals have more information at their disposal to select for themselves the view of the world that they will adopt; they need not rely so much upon others to supply a view to them. The classic academy has become but one source of knowledge and insight among many, one anchor for our vantage point, and its grip on the catechisms of human wisdom has slipped irrevocably.

All that is left to us to consider is this: how, in this world where individuals are free to choose their own view of the world, do we prepare individuals to step into this arena? How do we perpetuate the tools of critical-thinking that flourished in the classic academies in the first place, and could now be washed away?

That's what a post-modern academy for the new millennium should be. Not the gospel for our world, but the sextant and compass and walking stick and flint for moving about and surviving within it.