Polarization and Echo Chambers in Academia

It is no secret that our culture is severely polarized. Much has been written about the echo chambers we somewhat build ourselves yet are turned into almost impenetrable fortresses by social media algorithms. Polarization often seems to be discussed in conjunction with politics, but academia is not immune to polarization.

A certain perspective can dominate a field of study. To be the rebel that breaks from ideological orthodoxy means that publication will be an uphill battle. It is not impossible, as academic journals and presses are often open to publishing many perspectives on similar issues, but it is difficult. When a certain perspective dominates a field, most reviewers will most likely be sympathetic to that perspective. Therefore, when a heterodox paper comes across their desks, they will most likely be skeptical of the claims presented. There is nothing wrong with critique. Challenging weaknesses is the entire point of peer review, after all.

There is a hypothetical level of quality that is necessary for a paper to be published. It would be difficult to quantify that number, but papers above that level deserve to be published while those below are rejected. Perceived quality will increase with a reviewer’s agreement with that position. This is not to say that peer reviewers are sloppy; it is rather an acknowledgment of human bias. All people have biases, and while they can be minimized, I am personally not convinced that they can be entirely silenced. Therefore, in a situation where there are two papers of identical quality, a reviewer will most likely contend that the one that conforms to his or her preconceived notions is of a higher quality. In a hypothetical situation where all else is equal, we are more likely to trust that the view we already agree with is of a higher quality. David Braucher wrote in Psychology Today that our propensity to share fake news stories is a combination of our implicit bias (derived from identifying with particular groups) and confirmation bias (choosing sources to confirm what we already believe). If Braucher is right that this can impact our news consumption, it could undoubtedly challenge our peer review process.

In order to present a view that is not mainstream, the research must be that much more impressive than its mainstream counterpart. As a numerical example, two papers could each earn an 80% on pure quality if it was possible to be entirely objective. However, if one paper is consistent with the views of the reviewer, it might get a 5% bump in favorability just because of our human biases. Therefore, that paper would be more likely to be published.

The only way for the heterodox view to be published is to earn more than 85% approval. That means its pure quality needs to be higher since it not only has to overcome a pretty good, mainstream paper, but it needs to overcome extra credit earned through our human bias towards ideological conformity.

A case could be made that it is good for unorthodox ideas to be held to a higher standard. Tradition is a source of authority, and it should be respected without a doubt. Just because someone challenges the status quo does not being that the challenge is actually decent. When tradition becomes dangerous is when there is no possible way for an unorthodox view to earn its way into publication. If something becomes so established that there is no amount of proof that can overcome the bias towards the establishment, polarization has arrived, and echo chambers have been constructed.

The problem with this, specifically within academia, is that academic publication is critical for career success. The phrase “publish or perish” is no joke. However, imagine the uphill battle facing a young scholar who finds herself convinced of a rare perspective in her discipline. She will have to work that much harder to defend her perspective to overcome the bias of the gatekeepers at academic publishers. Every time she goes to submit a paper, she will have to work that much harder. There is nothing wrong with hard work, but creating a higher-quality paper takes more time. While she is still improving her paper, her mainstream colleagues will be publishing and moving on. In an environment of “publish or perish,” volume matters. Someone with five published articles will most likely look better than someone with four if published in journals of similar quality.

Polarization in academia can stymie careers. Publication is key to advancement, and the gatekeepers at those institutions are human. Everyone has biases, but in fields where dominant perspectives exist, there is a very real question about how those with heterodox views will advance meaningfully.

I do not necessarily have all of the answers to solving this problem. I am very sympathetic to a parallel polis style solution where alternative journals exist. I edit one such publication. However, that does not necessarily solve the problem because the gatekeepers who determine what articles and publications support career advancement can simply ignore such publications. Of course, if there is an alternative educational system that recognizes publication outside of the traditional powerhouses of the discipline, that would help alleviate this problem. However, that would be an even bigger parallel polis project.

Another solution to this problem is encouraging these gatekeeping institutions to increase the ideological diversity of their review boards. While that sounds nice in theory, the problem of polarization largely stems from disciplines being so uniform in the first place. While there are heterodox scholars, it is not like they can serve as the token voice on every review board. They would be so busy that they would have no time for their own scholarship.

I write this with an eye towards recognizing the problem at hand: polarization leads to echo chambers. When echo chambers exist in academia, careers are literally held up because the gatekeepers at the institutions that allow for advancement are also part of the echo chambers.

In its purest form, the academy is supposed to be dedicated to the pursuit of truth. Our own biases should not derail that pursuit. Research must be rigorous, and the review process indeed can improve quality. The review process exists so that there is a standard that is good and necessary. However, we all must be conscious of our tendency to prefer views that resonate with our personal beliefs. The minute we do that, articles of similar quality but different views are being left behind, and careers are being held up. That is not healthy and does not promote the highest level of scholarship.