The thread is right about the phenomenon: many scholars describe their own work as activism, and universities have built hiring pipelines around it. But a lot of folks also still seem confused about the difference between activism and public engagement.
One decides its conclusions before the research starts. The other invites challenge, and challenge is what separates inquiry from advocacy. Confusing the two is costly in both directions: activist work gets to borrow the credibility of science, and honest public engagement gets dismissed as activism.
Social scientists do not have to choose between the ivory tower and activism. There is a third way, what political scientist
@cdsamii calls the "problem-solving" approach: commit to a clearly defined societal problem, stay open about the answers, and figure out what needs fixing, why, and what actually works. Take sides on the problem, not on the politics.
Last year, I wrote a series on what I call the "scholar-activist" career pipeline. In short, a bunch of universities carved out huge hiring programs for this type of scholar.
But I didn't coin the term. I use it because that's how these scholars describe themselves 🧵