Street cred--the first step in effecting culture change

I can't quite define my aversion to asking questions of strangers. From snatches of family battles which I have heard drifting up from railway stations and street corners, I gather that there are a great many men who share my dislike for it, as well as an equal number of women who ... believe it to be the solution to most of this world's problems.

Robert Benchley (1889–1945), U.S. writer, humorist.

I have worked for two different faith-based universities. Both had very good faculties, especially when one considers how much more money, and discretionary time, most of the professors could have had working for public post-secondary institutions, for which the vast majority were suitably qualified. 

The professors fell into three camps, in my opinion (for what that's worth). There were those who chose a private university with an emphasis on teaching rather than research because their interests were decidedly in the former direction. Some of these people, in my experience, were rather fearful of attempting to publish in academic journals, while others simply felt called to be instructors. The downside is that they remain retailers of second-hand ideas.

A second group enjoyed doing a least a little research and publishing, as well as attending academic conferences. But they tended to limit their arena of academic activity primarily (or even exclusively) to faith-based circles; i.e., journals and conferences run by, and for, faculty members of faith-based institutions, sometimes all within their own denomination.

The third group were drawn to the journals and conferences relevant to their academic disciplines, regardless of whether there were any faith element involved. Some attracted large research grants and even Canada Council chairs.  

As a Dean, I was content with having colleagues in the first two categories provided that there were a goodly number in the third. There is a tendency for faith-related institutions to stay within their "ghettos" and not be inclined to mix it up in the broader culture. This is regrettable for three reasons:

1. If we believe that our faith-informed perspective brings some unique and creative approaches to our disciplines, we should find outlets for these that don't amount to "singing to the choir."
2. Hiding in a ghetto of any sort arbitrarily cuts one off from what others, who employ different worldviews or approaches, have to offer. No one has the corner on all good insights.
3. Academics who don't encounter professors from the private universities will come to any number of conclusions about why they never meet these people, and will tend to fall back on stereotypes and uninformed biases that are seldom complimentary. 

In a nutshell, what I wanted the faculty to have was street cred--I wanted our university to be seen as contributors to the broader discussion, and as having earned the credibility to be listened to by the mainstream universities.

I feel exactly the same way about what I have been calling the "life sub-culture". If we are to have any influence upon behaviour, to have any recommendations that could be viewed as viable alternatives, and to be taken seriously by the all-pervasive media--we must spend our time on Main Street, not just Church Street. 

That's why I quoted writer Robert Benchley above. He was talking about the differences between men and women, not life groups. But what he was saying was that there are individuals (and I'm adding groups) who avoid the unknown, and don't seek out interactions with those with whom they feel they have nothing in common. Then there are those who are drawn to asking questions outside of their comfort zone; in fact, they see this as indispensable to addressing life's problems.

That's my first criterion for engaging in the broader public culture--credibility. The second is finding common ground. I'll deal with this next.