Econoblogging - still a Worthwhile Canadian Initiative?

This Friday I will be joining colleagues in international affairs, journalism, public policy and political science to talk about "Academics in the Media Landscape: The Role of Scholar-Columnist-Bloggers". The panel is part of Carleton's Visions for Canada, 2042 conference, which explores "the ways innovative collaboration among researchers and the community may be the most effective response to Canada’s future challenges." As part of that exploration, us scholar-columnist-bloggers have been asked to talk about trends in our corners of the blogosphere, and make some predictions and prescriptions for the role of scholar-op-ed-writers-bloggers in Canada as it hurtles towards 2042. Here are my speaking notes for that event. The event is open to the public, if you would like to drop by.

I want to tell you about three blog posts. Two that I'm proud of, and one that I'm not. And all three of which say something about the beauty, and the perils, of being a scholar-blogger. 

One of my less impressive blog posts was about the television show Battle of the Blades. (Battle of the Blades was like Dancing with the Stars, only on ice.) In the post I argued that the Russian skaters Valeri Bure and Katia Gordeeva were the best team in the competition. But they were not getting votes because of something called "home town bias". People prefer to vote for people like them, which gives Canadians an advantage over Russians. When the post appeared on the Globe web page, it got lots of likes and shares - and Valerie and Katia won the competition. 

So what's the problem?  I was pontificating on a subject I know nothing about - ice dancing. I was wrong. I now believe Theo Fleury was a better dancer than Valerie Bure, and my post helped the wrong team win. What's more, I relied on slightly dubious research - an unpublished working paper - because it said something I wanted to believe was true.

Scholar-bloggers walk a fine line. We have to be entertaining and easy to read, yet accurate. Original, yet grounded in solid research. Opinionated, and yet non-partisan. Academics' salaries are paid by students and citizens. Because of this, we have a responsibility to think of the public interest when we write; to abide by certain intellectual standards. And we don't always get it right, as that Battle of the Blades post shows.

At the same time, having a salary gives scholar-bloggers wonderful freedom. Here's a post I'm proud of: the macroeconomics of middle earth. In it, I discuss whether Smaug should be seen as a monetary or a fiscal phenomenon. Here's a taster of the comments - Pavlos arguing "the dwarven nation of Erebor would likely be best approximated as an industrial capitalist superpower coupled with an unfortunate, highly deflationary, mercantilist monetary regime." 

That is the magic of blogging: people from around the world can come together and talk about ideas. Participate in a virtual seminar with smart, thoughtful peers. But that magic is elusive. Blog communities need nurturing. This is one of the big struggles I'm facing right now. There is greater scope for creativity, putting out substantive content, and enjoying serious intellectual engagement, when I write on things like the monetary impact of dragons. But there are greater external rewards associated with publishing an op-ed in the Globe and Mail.

I see the tensions about where to publish increasing over time. One of the big issues for scholar-bloggers is "does blogging count as research?" I believe that, as universities grow increasingly concerned about outreach, reputation and impact, they will give "public intellectual" type activities more recognition. Rewarding blogging has an obvious upside for bloggers. Yet I would not like to see blogging go where conventional academic publication seems to be heading - that is, to a place where metrics trump content.

Yet there is much to be said for the traditional op-ed.  One of my all-time  favourite columns was a Globe piece called "Sorry, Canada never was the best place to live". It  dove into the details of how the United Nations' Human Development index is calculated. But people read the post. They were engaged. Informed. For me, that's the biggest thrill: when people say, "we were talking about your piece and..."

In economics, policy wonk-ery is one of the most important things scholar-bloggers contribute to the media landscape. We bring in expertise that 99 percent of journalists lack. That means that new kinds of stories get covered, and old stories get covered in new ways. The rise of the economics-scholar-blogger is a win-win-win. It's a win for us bloggers, because we have fun. It's a win for traditional journalists, because econo-bloggers break new stories. But once the stories are out there, journalists can keep the stories going - as they did with, for example, the cancellation of the long-form census. And economics-scholar-bloggers are a win for smart, engaged readers because at least some of us produce original, well-researched, interesting content.

Comments

[Stephen Gordon]

Thanks Frances - this is obviously a topic I've given a lot of thought to. I haven't come to any conclusions, but this helps frame the questions, at least.

[Majromax]

There may also be some personal skills-building at work, as well. Writing "the Macroeconomics of Middle Earth" is a flight of fancy, but it's also a training ground, on how to cast scenarios people have deep opinions of into economic terms, while still addressing a general audience.

If you had not written of the macroeconomics of Middle Earth, would you have been as adept at writing about the calculation of HDI for a general audience?

[Livio Di Matteo]

Interesting post Frances. However, you might want to extend the question more broadly. As academics, is anyone ultimately really listening to what we write whether it is an op-ed, a blog, a refereed journal article or a policy report for a think tank or government agency? There has been such a proliferation of venues for articulating analysis, points of view, etc... that is is hard not wonder what the point of it all is. In the end I think you do what you are interested in doing and respond to whatever incentives drive you personally.

[Phil Koop]

"In economics, policy wonk-ery is one of the most important things scholar-bloggers contribute to the media landscape. We bring in expertise that 99 percent of journalists lack."

I've no quarrel with this, but why stop there? There are plenty of policy questions where non-economists can make vital contributions. For example, the doctors over at sciencebasedmedicine.org are far more informative than any health journalist could hope to be on medical and pharmacological issues.

(BTW, Vox is currently running a piece "Study: half the studies you read in the news are wrong.)

For that matter, why stop at policy? I'd much rather read an explanation of, say, the latest search for dark matter from Sabine Hossenfelder (backreaction.blogspot.com) than from even the best of the science journalists. Hell, I just finished a really interesting post on special cases of Shannon entropy from Terry Tao of all people! (https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/special-cases-of-shannon-entropy/) When one of the world's best mathematicians is willing to share his mind with you, why would you say no?

[Kelvin]

How do you know now, in hindsight, who is the better ice dancer?
(Follow-up: in general, how would you know when you had goofed, or maybe there's another layer to the onion? If this question is unanswerable in the general, perhaps some personal experience on how to tell?)

[Frances Woolley]

Majromax: "There may also be some personal skills-building at work" For sure. WCI is a great forum for testing and refining ideas.

Livio: " As academics, is anyone ultimately really listening" Agreed. Though there is probably a correlation between being sceptical about the value of traditional academic publishing taking up blogging.

Phil: "When one of the world's best mathematicians is willing to share his mind with you, why would you say no?" At the session today one of the questions was along the lines of "is blogging part of the problem? Is blogging lowering the quality of public debate?" My answer was an emphatic "no." One of our tasks at the session was to do some crystal-ball gazing and predict what the media landscape would look like in 2042. I have no idea, but one possibility is that personal reputation will become much more important. So people will read particular pundits and micro-outlets, e.g. 538, rather than media bundles like WSJ.

[Smuckers]

I'm a strategic planner, based in Canada, for a large energy consumer. My #1 contribution to my entity's strategic vision and success is my deep understanding of the macroeconomic landscape. An understanding which I've sculpted through reading blogs such as this one.

I believe that the development and expansion of economic writing through blogs (and other 'alternative' sources) is critical in reducing deadweight loss in society.

Thanks to all the contributors and commentators on WCI. Your thoughts and analysis are a tremendous public good.