On the most disappointing ‘un-invitation’ (or when will we stop academic stereotyping?)
Recently, I was delighted to accept an invitation to serve as an advisor in a #PhDstudent consortium.
Being invited to serve as a mentor is a real honor - bc you get to meet students at a crucial point in shaping their identity - bc not very many people are invited - & bc it means people respect your scholarship & your conduct.
Yea, I was pretty excited.
Today, I was uninvited.
I was informed that because I am an American-based scholar, two of three consortium chairs had deemed me not qualified to mentor students at a European-based event.
What can you say?
Other than you appreciate having been invited? And move on?
Which is what I did.
But this experience made me think about how stereotypes & misnomers hold back the global academic community.
While Americans often make the mistake of assuming scholars from other places are not well-trained, it’s a mistake for non-Americans to assume that Americans don’t appreciate their work, value different world views, & the nuance their experiences bring to the scholarly conversation.
So what to do?
First, this nonsense about excluding scholars from roles - be it a doc consortium or journal editor - because of the country of origin or work - needs to stop.
It’s based on stereotypes - not qualifications - & we need to focus on merit - if we are to build a global, inclusive community.
Second, we need to acknowledge that differences exist.
Having worked in Denmark, Germany & the States - there are real differences in how people approach their jobs & experiences.
Third, we need to foster an understanding of what differences mean for world views & approaches to work.
We can collaborate more effectively if we acknowledge & understand how differences shape our work.
Fourth, we need to encourage tolerance - not just in terms of location - but in terms of ideas & methods.
I understand why the consortium organizers dismissed me - bc many leading scholars do conform to the ugly American stereotypes - & take a posture that US-based scholarship is better.
We need to encourage senior & early-career people to see the value in different ways of doing work.
Finally, we need to encourage conversations.
Rather than limiting exposure to intolerance, we need to immerse ourselves in conversations.
The solution isn’t limiting exposure - it’s encouraging junior & senior faculty to exchange ideas.
The differences aren’t just geographic; they are also generational - with early career scholars seeking different outcomes than senior faculty.
Conversations across the community help knit together a coherent intellectual landscape within disciplines & break down the stereotypes that plague the academy.
If we can start to drop out stereotypes & learn from each other - we can build a better academy!
And perhaps, I’ll get another crack at doc consortium mentor! :)
Comments