expertise

13 Responses to “expertise”

1. Mel
   November 22nd, 2004 @ 4:58 pm

   Not only the NY parties are expected to be cuddly, it seems. I am interested in just who or what you think is ironic, disjointed and falsely conscious here.

   I think maybe one factor is this conviction journalists seem to have that academics can ‘validate’ an opinion because they’re so wise and learned. But the actual opinions journalists seem to want are ones that anyone could have.

   I am still quite obsessed with producing ‘relevant’ and ‘engaging’ research, but I’m coming to realise that mass media and the sandstone tower operate according to very different and (potentially) mutually exclusive logics.

2. mc gregg
   November 22nd, 2004 @ 8:04 pm

   The disjuncture: between *my* idea of important research and the kind of expertise I am apparently useful for;

   The irony: as above;

   The false consciousness: I will continue to think my idea of important research is worth investing my time in.

   I guess what was redeeming about the experience was that I managed to shift the conversation (if not the story) away from “isn’t it great to see a ‘larger girl’ succeed on television” – as if that was the most exciting end we’ve ever reached as a culture – to other things. The journo kept saying “I hadn’t thought of that,” which was nice. So I guess I don’t really think we should be content to see the two domains as having mutually exclusive logics. I think there’s a lot more leakiness than that, and that there can be qualitative, if not quantitative value in such exchanges. For instance, I think your Spectrum pieces *do* resonate with sandstone tower inhabitants, certainly more so than this shire newspaper article I was adding bulk to ever will. But each is a *niche* rather than a mass media outlet: they’re read in very particular circles. Talking with the journalist was a productive ‘encounter’ because we each had to appreciate a bit about each other.

   I’ve been reading a lot of the big guy today, and trying to work out a more satisfactory way to see the crossover between academic work and other forms of speech. This passage seems key to what I’m trying to do, with the final line the one to take to heart:

   We must be bilingual even in a single language, we must have a minor language inside our own language, we must create a minor use of our own language. Multilingualism is not merely the property of several systems each of which would be homogeneous in itself: it is primarily the line of flight or of variation which affects each system by stopping it from being homogeneous. (Deleuze in Dialogues, 4)

   From this we can perhaps see that the academic and media worlds need each other. But more than this: that when we continually breach the rules of speech in each of these domains, we’re probably doing something right.

3. kris
   November 22nd, 2004 @ 9:50 pm

   In my experience, the secret or not-at-all-secret parcel that journalists arrive to an interview with is a firm sense of what’s interesting and what is not. This seemingly innocent sense of “just what’s interesting” (which they present as a vessel to be filled by the expert) seriously constricts the possibilities for speech in that moment, because some things just aren’t admissible, a priori. And because what they call their small ‘i’ interests are actually the possibilities for knowledge, e.g. your journalist’s comment about big women on tv. What I always wish I could do is set the terms for what’s interesting, or shift them. Which often requires ignoring or puncturing their questions. I don’t trust Q&A format precisely for the ease with which this power dynamic is established and then masked. -kris

4. Mel
   November 22nd, 2004 @ 10:02 pm

   Just remembered the following:

   I remember saying in interview: “Bogans are not a subculture.”

   I’m quoted in the article as saying: “It’s the original Australian subculture.”

   A few other factors that might be worthwhile thinking about:

   * the ‘wanker factor’ – not wanting to stray from journalist’s terrain for fear of looking like a pompous egghead

   * Many ‘media-studies’-trained journalists nowadays have much more comprehensive knowledge of academic jargon and assume readers know ideas like ‘cultural capital’, ‘orientalist’ and ‘discourse’

5. kris
   November 22nd, 2004 @ 11:46 pm

   Before I clicked on the “Mel” link, I thought that Melissa Gregg was, in this comment threat, carrying on a conversation with one of her own alter-egos, whom she had named “Mel.” Sorry Mel, and Mel. -kris

6. mc gregg
   November 23rd, 2004 @ 9:44 am

   no apology necessary – keep up the chatting! you two will meet each other in perth, where mel is giving a much anticipated paper on ‘everyday bling’. excellent.

7. Danny
   November 23rd, 2004 @ 11:28 am

   Hey mels (and kris)

   Good post MC gregg. I wonder though (as kris alludes to) whether the “appearing in the media as talking head” mode of engaging with the press really gets too far. I think that – particularly for the kind of stories that media academics get called on to talk about – there isn’t too much opportunity for consciousness reshaping or information provision no matter what you say. Best to just say something witty and see if they’ll give you a photo (check the successful academics and you’ll see this strategy works . I wouldn’t get too distressed about the disjuncture.

   I do think that there are possibilities for academics to engage in the mass media, but the best way is through being a journalist, where (sub-editors willing) there’s some kind of opportunity to set the terms of the discussion. There’s no shortage of expertise, partiucularly in this field so I think the sit in the ivory tower and wait for a phone call days are in the past (not that either of you mels do that!). Do a postgrad diploma in journalism @ QUT and join the media beast, MCGregg, I dare ya! (I lasted about 3 months on my part-time gig with an NZ newspaper writing on arts, and have no desire to return :7, nor would they want me back!)

8. mc gregg
   November 23rd, 2004 @ 3:00 pm

   I should probably clarify that I didn’t feel a deep professional dilemma about this incident, just that I thought it was an amusing thing that happened. The article didn’t even quote me! Someone else kindly obliged with the predetermined soundbite:

   http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3612978&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=

   In fact Danny what I was trying to say is that I find it interesting to think about how to perform deliberately badly in both worlds, because both have such restrictive discursive requirements. Drawing attention to them is one way to start something new. I certainly want to resist anything that is a guaranteed formula for academic success in the media – I’d like to know who you count as a successful academic in your comment!

   Anyway, thanks for all this useful distraction from my conference paper. It’s helping.

9. Glen
   November 23rd, 2004 @ 3:03 pm

   oi,

   Street Machine didn’t want me back after I moved from WA to NSW and from motoring journo doing his honours to wannabe academic doing a PhD. But I have bits and pieces that are going to be published in one of the other car magazines. I know this is not the sort of media stuff academic dreams are made of, but it does raise my exposure in the culture and allows me access to people I wouldn’t otherwise have access. V. useful if studying the media itself, particularly a close knit enthusiast media.

   Also, I just got offered to consult on a movie. They are flying me down to Melbourne for the day to meet with the dudes and do the ‘consult’ thing. Is that fuckin cool or what?!?

   L8r

10. mc gregg
    November 23rd, 2004 @ 3:09 pm

    now that’s what i’m talkin ’bout!

    welcome home glen xx

11. kris
    November 23rd, 2004 @ 6:28 pm

    One of my colleagues was being interviewed by a reporter. Reporter asked something about teenage girls and mobile phones. Colleague (sociologist) winds up for her answer, beginning with something soft and precursor-ish like “It has to do with the culture of teenage girls…”. Reporter cuts her off: “Culture, you say?” Colleague: “Well, yes…”. Reporter: “Thank you very much Dr. W_______”. True story, I think. -kris

12. danny
    November 24th, 2004 @ 7:13 am

    Glen, kei runga noa atu – you are onto it! Consultancy is the way to go for sure

    Melissa, I get myself in enough trouble on your mailing list without naming those working it in the media ! I know what you mean about trying to fit the discursive conventions of the “two worlds”, but I guess what I’m saying is that at the end of the day if the academy pays your bills that’s the determining factor around your interests and engagements, and (trying not to get on my hobby horse) I don’t think trying to cover them both off with related work in different “languages” either a) has much impact in the media space or b) is good for research. So rather than thinking about how the language works, one could place oneself in a position of operational control within a media organ and just go from there. But that’s really quite different than academic work, even though on the surface it looks similar (writing, research, etc.). The narrative conventions, social relations, and experience of time are quite distinct in my pov.

    Maybe I’m a pessimist [but a pessimist with a year's ad agency experience!], but I just don’t see much leverage from the academy into the organisational network of media production – I see it as a desire from the academy that also stands in the way of the urgent task of rethinking our labour practices and value proposition. Academics are slotted into pre-determined roles as kris suggests – journalists basically use them/us because it makes a more human story than quoting blogs or google. But that’s basically all we are. To write, on the other hand, and do the work that say MelC does, is something different, and I’ve got a lotta respect for people who can do that!

    A useful reference that can be good for teaching purposes:

    Thornton, S. (1999), ëAn academic Alice in Adland: Ethnography

    and the commercial worldí, Critical Quarterly, 41, 1, 58-68

    Good luck for your paper! Great catching up in Melbourne.

13. Mel
    November 25th, 2004 @ 5:58 pm

    I discussed this issue yesterday with Misha Ketchell, late of The Age, who covered higher ed for a number of years. He had some observations from the journalist’s perspective. The most interesting ones, I thought, were:

    1) that academics are so used to expressing themselves very precisely and pre-empting criticisms that their language is full of qualifying clauses that don’t make good soundbites, and they’re trained to craft ideas over time rather than expressing them quickly in conversation, so they’re uncomfortable when asked to provide quick answers.

    2) that academics take their work very seriously and get much more outraged than other professionals when their opinions are quoted incompletely or out of context.

    3) that journalists are genuinely curious and while they hope the academic will add to their existing story, often the academic will bring something to the story that the journalist hadn’t thought of, which can take it in an unexpected and better direction.