The term “public scholarship” is problematic for me. By using this term, it seems as though we are implying that there exist a scholar who has no public/audience. What would it mean for a scholar to not have a public? Even if the scholar wrote/created material, not for the “average Joe,” publishers, administrators, or students, do they not at least create for themselves? However, even though I think the term is problematic, I think we can use the term to help us distinguish between different types of scholars.
As I see it, the “public scholar” is someone whose audience goes beyond the publishers or administrators to the “average Joe.” By “average Joe,” I mean to say someone that is outside of academia. This is a necessity, for their work is a reflection of society. And who occupies society? The majority of society is the “average Joe” not the administrators or publishers! Now, what is “public scholarship” in practice?
In my opinion, the first and foremost criteria to “public scholarship” is that they need to have the ability to translate their work. For example, they need to be able to easily explain their work to a middle schooler (someone whose frontal lobe is not fully developed, for their ability to grasp abstract ideas is not quite there yet). This translation is a necessity because they want their public to actively engage with the work. They don’t want their public to only be consumers, rather they want critics. How do they get the public to engage/care about their work?
I think the way that they get the public to engage with their work is by having a consistent presence and by being accessible in that public. They can establish a consistent presence through the use of twitter, blogs, or even YouTube. A public scholar will need to have a schedule of when they communicate with the public, so that the “average Joe” knows what is going on. The public scholar is not just talking at the audience and then leaving, but is open for questions, critiques, etc. They will also directly ask the “average Joe” questions. Why would a scholar want to be a “public scholar?”
A scholar would do this for a couple of reasons. The first reason would be that they understand the importance the public plays in developing works. That if their work is about society, then wouldn’t they want some input from those who live in society? The public is there to enrich their work. Another reason is that the authority to talk about issues in the public domain no longer lies solely with the scholar who went to a top-tier university, who has a Ph.D or who has published several books/articles, but rather lies with someone who has formed strong bonds with the “average Joe.” To me, public scholarship is also about regaining some authority in the public domain. They want authority out of the hands of dangerous people (i.e. Trump in some peoples opinion). So that when critical issues are being asked, they can help make decisions that are better for the “average Joe,” not just for the 1%.