What Critical Demography Means to Me

Abstract

Unlike some of my peers, I do not see a conflict between the roles of social scientist and social critic. On the contrary, I have always felt obligated not just to undertake the most rigorous scientific research, but also to disseminate the results of that research to the widest possible audience. After all, some aspect of demography underlies nearly every political issue of import, and as a concerned citizen I have a duty to speak out whenever demographic facts or analysis are relevant to an ongoing public debate. Most of my research has been funded by American taxpayers, who likewise have a right to know how their taxes are spent. Moreover, the part not funded by taxpayers was paid for by private foundations, which also expect some return on their investment besides a few boring articles in journals that no one but a few graduate students and professors will ever read. Thus, I believe, therefore, that demographers, especially those in federally funded population centers, owe it to the public to be accessible and forthcoming about their research and its implications. As a critical demographer, I have found myself addressing the public in four different ways. First, I have always responded positively when asked to offer public testimony on an issue related to my areas of expertise. Over the years, I have spoken to numerous citizen groups, testified before city councils, served as an expert witness in federal and state court proceedings, briefed any number of congressional staffers and professional lobbyists, spoken before federal commissions large and small, advised government panels and agencies, testified in congressional hearings, and lectured to executive branch officials from cabinet members on down. Second, I always take calls from reporters-no matter how small the outlet, no matter how inane the questions, and no matter how dense the particular journalist (local TV reporters are the worst in my experience).