Time to Retire the Term, “Non‐Academic”?

Abstract

As a member of at least two numerical minorities, I am well aware that how people are labeled affects how they see themselves and how others see them. Often such terms of difference seem innocent enough on the surface, but the danger that such terms may belittle or disparage people is real. The term “non-academic” is an example of labeling that emphasizes what people are not. Labeling people by what they are not can be interpreted as devaluing what they are. That is, “non” emphasizes roles other than those that people actually play. Science, in reality, is a diverse and inclusive pursuit, requiring a community diverse enough to achieve new discoveries, create and nurture the community that generates discovery, and connect the scientific community with society at large in all its facets. This range of activities requires careers in an equally wide range of institutions and organizations. “Non-academic,” although it is potentially an exclusionary term, is often encountered in discussing ecological careers, even when the intent of the discussion is inclusive. The term does recognize that there are careers in many organizations and situations beyond those in academic institutions. Such careers cover an impressively broad spectrum: they reside in organizations that focus on policy making, management, education, industry, consulting, international development, planning, and many more. Many of these diverse careers take place in government agencies, charitable organizations, private firms, industry, and community-based organizations, to name only a few. Of course, the training for jobs in the professions or practices may differ from those in the academy. The skill sets of many professors, compared to professionals in planning, restoration, consultancies, industry, government, small business, or environmental activism, for example, are likely to be different to some degree. Training must be better designed to accommodate the broad variety of careers that deploy ecological knowledge. One size does not fit all. Yet emphasizing what people are not may inadvertently imply that their careers are less valuable, or somehow less worthy than those in the reference group. In other words, the phrase “non-academic” may be taken to mean that the academy is of the highest status, while all others are less praiseworthy. Because even this unintentional slight can damage the inclusive work of ecology, it is worth avoiding. Fortunately, there are alternative approaches. First, it may be possible to frame the discussion in terms of the diversity of ecological careers without privileging only one kind (careers in the academy) as the “in group.” In addition, other, more specific terms may point to and respect the whole range of careers. Why not try phrases like “diverse careers in ecology,” “careers that use ecological knowledge,” or most simply, “ecological careers?” These may be longer, or require a moment's thought before uttering them, but inclusiveness is worth the effort. Science is healthy, sustainable, and effective only when discovery, community, and engagement are all operating and integrated effectively. It takes a village, not just the academy. Our language can help promote the inclusiveness needed for the success of our complex, multifaceted scientific enterprise.