In speaking to the three colleagues who have volunteered their time in this project thus far, they all shared that they have transitioned towards an emphasis on engaged scholarship. We are at different stages in integrating practice into lab work and theoretical exploration, and are also working to understand how a goal of “making a difference” or scholar activism can be part of respected scholarly work in our various fields of study. While some of us have intentionally already found a way to integrate activism into our other identities, others are wrestling to find how it best fits, and how it is ‘allowed’ to fit, within certain disciplines. For myself and one other interviewee, we definitely have struggled to find a way to maintain the distance and objective perspective that is often expected of scholars. Another interviewee shared that while she has maintained this objective perspective, it has limited her sense of connection and passion for her work recently, and that rather than invigorating, she now finds her work “soul extinguishing.” While we all relate to activism and academia in different ways, we all hope to continue to move to a more praxis-oriented approach to our work to make a difference.

The argument of objectivity

Women shared that one reason they have had difficulty pursuing activism as part of their academic research is the expectation that scholarly work be objective. "Science" in particular has been branded as a value-free and neutral field that has a singular identity. For a description of the limitations of this view of science, see indigenous scholars Bang, Marin, & Medin's piece on Indigenous science and the contributions it can bring to the "value-free" space that science is supposed to be (2018). In the past, at multiple universities, I have been encouraged to tone down the subjectivity in my work, and to reconsider my project because of the way I have become invested in the work beyond scholarly curiosity and more in line with an activist mindset. One woman I interviewed shared a similar experience in sharing her desired approach to her research with a professor after a summer of fieldwork:

“It’s frustrating to see how on the ground people are living and then how we talk about it in academia, and present it in this objective way... I was telling him how I was feeling, and he basically was telling me my work was too activist, that I was too activist-centered, that it wasn’t scholarly enough, and that I needed to rethink my research approach because it was too political. That’s how it is on the ground though.”

This displays the sense that it is inaccurate scholarship to present an “objective” analysis of research when someone has inevitably been shaped by the experiences of researching in a particularly context. It demonstrates how we as young scholars see it more productive to include our experiential knowledge along side the theoretical and more accepted academic knowledge in presenting our research. We recognize that the claimed "objectivity" is failing to recognize that Western sciences still do have specific values that it promotes and prefers, and we are choosing to pursue rigorous academic work that moves to a more nuanced understanding of what those values are and what objectivity and subjectivity actually mean in research (Bang, Marin, & Medin, 2018). Such a perspective aligns with the importance of grounding theory in action and experience that the academic fields of transnational feminism and environmental justice (among others) emphasize (Blackwell et al., 2015; Corburn, 2003; Langer, 2000; Pellow, 2016; Sze, 2006). Scholars in these fields recognize that an activist, or engaged, orientation does not need to negate the scholarly quality of a research project. Instead, they model stating one’s positionality as a scholar-activist or researcher in support of such an intersection of identities in relation to the work. I would argue, as has been argued before, that while the above-cited scholars explicitly name that they are coming from a more engaged and activist perspective in their work, there is no way to actually produce work that meets the scholarly expectations of objectivity. The choice to research any question requires a scholar to be invested in answering the question, be it due to personal interest, grant funding, impressing a potential future grantor, or otherwise. In this way, I want to reinforce what my colleague said of the incongruence between the way we observe and collect information about our research and the way academia expects us then to sterilize our research of all emotion in order promote an image of rigorous scholarship by these falsely "objective" standards.

Are activism and academia compatible?

While certain fields do explicitly call for more engaged scholarship, multiple women shared that doing such work is treated as tangential to scholarship, and not as furthering one’s career. In expressing why this lack of support for activism in scholarship can limit someone’s future and happiness in the field, one interviewee said, “I don’t want to be laying on my deathbed realizing I lived my whole life for my CV.” She gave me chills when she said that because it quite succinctly summed up my own internal wrestling with how I can continue as a respected scholar but still make a difference. At a recent talk I attended on engaged and activist scholarship, a number of professors (both tenured and non-tenure track) encouraged me to continue to apply to positions in academia, intentionally focusing on universities that recognize and value such work. They qualified this recommendation, however, by encouraging me to pursue the engaged scholarship about which I am passionate as part of a dual-pronged research profile where the other project is more in line with academia's expectations of research questions, methods, and products (peer-reviewed journal articles). I continually wonder how to best make use of the knowledge and skills I have developed in my doctoral program and whether it is best to use those skills within a teaching professor position, in an extension position connecting the university to the local community, or directly working with frontline community activist organizations. While I do think in the fields of research in which I situate myself (environmental justice and critical social science research more generally) activism can be supported as a part of scholarship, the following sentiment still rang true to that continued wrestling match in my head of activism and academia:

“I don’t think that [activism] is valued. When you let those emotions and the politics of the situation drive the work, people look down on it, but I think if we are really talking about working with people and changing their lives and improving people’s lives, you have to be like that. I don’t think it works if all that you’re doing is publishing papers and getting awards, and looking cool cuz you added things to your CV. That’s how I think a lot of academics are, it’s really frustrating.”

Finding a place where research and activism are equally respected is difficult. While I may find this difficult, the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields pride themselves in objectivity to such an extent that even further reduces the possibilities for scholars to envision how activism can become a part of their work. For example, one interviewee shared:

Her advisor is “really open minded and supportive of [her]. But a lot of scientists don’t really get it because they’re so single-minded. They have a narrow idea of what success is in science, which is understandable, because everybody’s competing for funding and your focus is just on building your academic record. And for me, that’s just not a motivator anymore, it’s so centered on self-promotion and competing for money. It’s just gross. It just became soul extinguishing for me. On some level I think they do get it too, because they’re smart people and their eyes are open to what’s going on in the world. They just don’t see how they can be successful scientists and also get engaged to actually tackle some of the huge problems we’re facing. Because that’s also so beyond all-consuming. I don’t feel like they discourage it. I feel like people don’t quite get it but they’re not not supportive.”

This sense that success in academia is distinct from the goals of engaged scholarship came up repeatedly, and revealed how we all see this singular understanding of success as not allowing us to define what we would define as our own success based on our goals. The woman quoted above is now actively working to incorporate more activism into her entire career path. She explained why she needs to move from a more traditional scientific and academic space and sense of activism to one of activism based on the impact it has on those around her, and her own mental health:

“Until now, my research has been me thinking up some question I’m curious about, finding funding for it, and satisfying my own curiosity, which has been great, but it started to become unfulfilling to me. Because it was me alone doing this stuff. I feel drawn to work where I’m working part of a team, working on issues that are urgent and important, and effect people. That people can relate to and understand, and it’s not something obscure.”

Another woman I spoke with shared how she incorporates subjectivity and personal interests into communicating her research since she is limited in her ability to define the overarching research questions of her lab. She has found a space for activism around greater inclusion in the sciences through intentionally Inclusive Science Communication. This is one way to bring what you are passionate about into the overall research process, making it align with the scholarly and publication goals of your department or lab and the personal interests you have that may be seen as external to the academy.

When I asked her if science and activism can coexist, she explained how she’s made them coexist for her:

“I think it’s inevitable. It’s that same restorative part of my personality, I work in these places and I love the communities that are being developed and being fostered, but you see all of these day to day examples of people that are marginalized in science, and not just women, or people of color, or other people who may have a disability, or people who identify as any submarginalized group. You see a lot of that anywhere you go. But when you’re working in this community as scientists, you want to do better for those people, and you want those people to feel like they have you as allies. I think that for me, it was a mistake to ever think that they were separate things. I think that it’s not just those two silos of information, I think people come with such important aspects of their personality that drives why they’re interested in science. And part of what interested me in science was the activism side and being able to communicate science in an effective way and do science that meant something. Which I think is what drove me into environmental science. For me, yes, they definitely go together.”

While we are still working on the best ways to bring scholarship and activism together in our identities, our conversation revealed how essential it is for all of us to move from the purely “academic” and theoretical space to a more engaged place in our research. Inclusive communication practices, inclusive and decolonized research design, and intentionally embodying a scholar-activist identity are all methods to bring academia and activism into conversation. We may not know all the answers, but at least for us four young professionals it is clear we will keep researching how we can move beyond our CVs and make a difference.

References

Blackwell, M., Briggs, L., & Chiu, M. (2015). Transnational Feminisms Roundtable. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 36(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.5250/fronjwomestud.36.3.0001

Corburn, J. (2003). Bringing Local Knowledge into Environmental Decision Making Improving Urban Planning for. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22, 420–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X03253694

Langer, B. (2000). Mothers of the disappeared in the diaspora: Globalization and human rights. In A.-M. Hilsdon, M. Macintyre, V. Mackie, & M. Stivens (Eds.), Human Rights and Gender Politics: Asia-Pacific Perspectives (pp. 193–210). Oxon, OX; New York, NY: Routledge.

Pellow, D. N. (2016). TOWARD A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE STUDIES Black Lives Matter as an Environmental Justice Challenge. Du Bois Review, 13(2), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X1600014X

Sze, J. (2006). Noxious New York: The Racial Politics of Urban Health and Environmental Justice. Cambridge: MIT Press.