Intellectual Pluralism, Politics, and Academic Freedom in Higher Education
A Radcliffe Interdisciplinary Research Collaborative
Collaborators: Neil Gross (Colby College) & Michèle Lamont (Harvard University)
Project Description
Political diversity among faculty is diminishing, part of a long-term political realignment of the professional class more generally. What this entails for how academics do their job day-to-day, and what the consequences may be for important outcomes like scholarly creativity and rigor or student learning, has been the subject of a great deal of speculation and policymaking—and virtually no research.
The starting point for our investigations is the assumption that academics organize their lives around carrying out specific tasks related to research, teaching and service; that their views on how to carry out these tasks are embedded in normative cultures; and that many express a commitment to protecting the autonomy of their profession. They cultivate diversified scholarly habiti across fields, often organized around moral obligations that define appropriate behaviors. Informed by this assumption, which builds from our own research (e.g., Lamont, How Professors Think; Gross, Why Are Professors Liberal and Why Do Conservatives Care?; Camic, Gross, and Lamont, eds., Social Knowledge in the Making) as well as scholarship on science and knowledge production by anthropologists, Science, Technology, and Society (STS) scholars, intellectual historians, philosophers, and others, our approach to intellectual pluralism will consider how if at all the scholarly habitus, and with it research and teaching, is being challenged, redefined, or defended amid the changing political composition of the academy and in this moment of heightened political conflict over higher education
Our approach allows us to consider a raft of issues, including how professors go about navigating political similarity and difference; the boundary-work they perform to demarcate their roles as academicians from their roles as concerned citizens; how they think about academic freedom; how they respond when external actors mistake academic autonomy for partisan inquiry; and the imprint that all this leaves on their ideas. We will consider not only the politicization of academic life, but also the many academics who want to stay away from politics, motivated by a range of reasons (mental health, quality of life, professionalism, negative views about current politics, time constraints, etc.); for these scholars, political identity may be far less salient than other identities. We are also interested in how changing scholarly habiti, which are diverse across fields of study, affect students’ experiences in the classroom, and the consequences of this for student learning and how they see the world. Just as we are interested in academics who wish to stay away from politics, we are especially keen to learn about the experiences of not very political students—a large but analytically neglected group—and how they are coping with the political conflict around them.
We will undertake surveys and qualitative interviews of faculty and graduate students in selected disciplines and universities nationwide. At least part of our study will be longitudinal, allowing us to track participants over a one-year span, as they respond to rapidly changing political and institutional circumstances in the country and at their universities. Although we will not include a survey of undergraduates as part of our research, we will connect with other researchers who have such surveys in the field. Our research is developing in conversation with leaders and other experts of higher education who have closely followed developments over the recent years.
We have assembled scholars from various disciplines who will be part of the collaborative team. This includes Amy Binder, Andrew Perrin and Steve Teles (focused on grad students), Jon Shields and Richard Arum (focused on teaching) and Maya Sen and Erin Cech (focused on grad students in professional schools). Neil and Michèle will focus on faculty and the research enterprise.
Recognition, Globally
Project Description
I am currently conducting research for my book project titled "Recognition Globally" where I analyze recognition claims in a variety of contexts to help us better understand how to move toward a more inclusive society. Collaborative comparative interview-based case studies concern claims for political recognition by “invisible” US and UK working-class youth living in Manchester, New Hampshire; Manchester, UK; Tampere, Finland; and Osaka, Japan, with collaborators; recognition claims through environmental justice and work by indigenous people in the Northern Mariana Islands (Micronesia) and Anishinaabe Algonquin territories in Eastern Canada; and “impossible” cases where recognition is relatively inaccessible to certain groups (e.g. claims about racial discrimination in France and Germany, sexual discrimination in Senegal and China, and others). .
These studies all concern recognition in a different context of uncertainty about the future. They also concern groups that vary in terms of their “groupness” (the fluidity of their group identity and experienced symbolic boundaries), whether and how, and whether and how they experience misrecognition.
This project is supported by various programs at Harvard (Asia Center, Canada Program, FAS Dean’s Competitive Fund for Promising Scholarship, The Salata Institute for Climate and Sustainability, and the Weatherhead Center for Advanced Research). External to Harvard, this project is supported by the Hewlett Foundation and Freedom Together Foundation.
Beyond Polarization: Religious Dialogue, Bridge-Building and Peacebuilding
Collaborators: Elisabeth Becker-Topkara (Heidelberg), Michèle Lamont (Harvard), Shai M. Dromi (Harvard)
Funding: Supported by the Heidelberg | Harvard Explorer Seed Fund
Project Description
How can interfaith dialogue cut across deep religious and political divides? When does dialogue build bridges, and when does it fall apart? This project examines interfaith dialogue initiatives centered on and shaped by debates about Israel–Palestine in Germany and the US in order to understand how actors navigate the tensions between seeking to transcend cultural and political differences and seeking to address deep‑seated power imbalances. While some projects may be understood as meaningful forms of bridge‑building by participants and observers, they may also be criticized as normalizing injustice and avoiding structural questions in favor of shallow “feel good” solutions. Understanding interfaith peacebuilding around such a heated conflict can shed light on broader sociological questions of recognition gaps, moral boundaries, and the cultivation of pluralism.
Empirically, the project relies on interviews with organizers, facilitators, and participants, as well as observations in meetings and workshops. It also draws on organizational documents and public commentary. While Israel–Palestine is the point of reference for these conversations, our fieldwork focuses on Germany and the US as representing two diasporic contexts in which the conflict is interpreted and acted upon. Comparing these settings will illuminate how different historical trajectories (Holocaust memory and postwar migration in Germany; racial and campus politics in the US) shape the boundaries people draw, the forms of bridge‑building they consider legitimate, and the kinds of dialogue they reject.
Through this work, we aim to understand how faith can serve as a resource or a barrier to crossing political divides, as well as the conditions under which dialogue is perceived as legitimate. Aside from journal articles, the project will also include a summer school at Heidelberg University and a teaching toolkit on Israel/Palestine as a global peacebuilding issue. It will similarly produce a comparative report for NGOs, foundations, and policy actors with concrete guidelines for designing, sustaining, and evaluating encounter‑based initiatives, including how to address potential setbacks and critiques.