This post is a "sidebar", unrelated to the main topic of this blog. My apologies to readers who are not interested in this controversy.
1. The perceptual hypothesis
Academics don’t really lean left, they just appear to do so. In this hypothesis, the presumed or apparent leftward trend is an artifact. Something about how academics think/speak/act makes others view them as more liberal than they really are. This hypothesis requires identification of what that “something” is, and proof that when this “something” is partialled out or controlled for, the leftward trend disappears (or, more technically, never existed in the first place): an example might be the stereotypic “quirkiness” of the prototypical academic.
2. The self-selection hypothesis
Whatever makes some people (but not others) choose a career in academia is correlated with, or caused by something (an underlying trait or quality) that also is correlated with or causes the pre-existing liberalism that these people had to begin with. This hypothesis requires identification of what that “something” is (such as the personality trait of open-mindedness or tolerance for ambiguity/complexity).
a. Variant #1: The “something” is genetic in origin, such as the D4DR gene that has been linked to differences in levels of risk-taking behavior.
b. Variant #2: The “something” is cultural/familial in origin, such as a tendency to find unanswered questions compelling/interesting rather than frightening/threatening (because asking “why” as a child was rewarded rather than ignored or punished).
3. The other-selection (gatekeeper) hypothesis
Those with liberal values/views are more likely to be accepted into graduate school, and/or into academic positions after graduate school, than those who have conservative values/views. Though this hypothesis is sometimes presented in pernicious terms (morally questionable cultural bias), in all probability any such “gatekeeping” is not explicitly designed to keep conservatives as such out of academia, but is responsive to other qualities (such as the ability to think critically about certain kinds of issues) that are functional or adaptive within academia, and which are also correlated with liberalism. This hypothesis requires identification of what those specific qualities are, as well as an explanation of why they might be correlated with political liberalism. The hypothesis also requires examination of when (in the longitudinal trajectory of becoming an academic) the “gatekeeping” function is likely to be operative.
4. The attrition hypothesis
Liberals are more likely than conservatives to survive graduate school (or the tenure process once hired); hence, the pool of (future) academics becomes more liberal over time due to selective drop-out rates that are correlated with political outlook.
a. Variant #1: This selective attrition is due to adaptive reasons (like differences in the ability to hold the “habit of twin hypotheses” or to be a “professional undergeneralizer”) that do, in fact, meaningfully and logically predict success in the academic role.
b. Variant #2: This selective attrition is due to extraneous reasons (like the perception that one either does or does not “fit in” with the subculture of academia); those who drop out might be just as effective in the academic role, but become demoralized, disillusioned, or demotivated due to perceptions of a misfit with the underlying values/culture of the academic institution.
5. The socialization hypothesis
(Future) academics become more liberal over time because something about the academic environment or role has a liberalizing impact. This includes the notion that academics (like those in any vocational role) are gradually and informally socialized into the “unwritten rules” of the role.
a. Variant #1: The socialization is due to factors that are intrinsic to the academic role, such as the need to question existing ideas and to continuously challenge one’s own thinking and presuppositions.
b. Variant #2: The socialization is due to factors that are extrinsic to the academic role, such as increased exposure to cultural or ideological diversity (as compared to the baseline levels of diversity found in other, non-academic settings).
No comments:
Post a Comment