Prof denied tenure... because of blog?

Let me start by saying: probably not. But it's worth considering. Just skip to the last three paragraphs, if you want.

If you don't know, Dr. Daniel Drezner at the University of Chicago recently received word that he will not receive tenure. He will now move on. I thought this was quite unfortunate, as he seemed incredibly sharp and well-versed in international relations, but I didn't think it was necessarily newsworthy.

The New York Sun disagreed, however, and wrote an interesting article about it, as I found out on the Duck of Minerva, a blog by three political science professors.

But it does make me wonder about blogging, particularly my own. Does blogging, like journaling (or diary-writing, if you're a sissy!) help more than hurt when it comes to your career?

First of all, there are huge differences between personal blogs, academic blogs, and media watchdog blogs. And there are other types. So one can't simply say "blogging is beneficial" or the opposite. However, here are some generalizations about the pros and cons of blogging in general:

Pros:
1. Develop writing skills (perhaps... practice makes perfect, right? As long as you're not writing in text-message style.)
2. Develop ideas, through forcing you to think about them more before and as you write.
3. Receive comments on ideas - greatly helping to further develop ideas.
4. Networking. In the same way meeting someone for drinks once a month can foster an important relationship - important personally or professionally - mutual blog reading can accomplish similar things, although I believe face-to-face contact is far more beneficial. However, "it's 2005!"

Cons:
1. If "only" a personal blog - writing about what you ate for breakfast, etc., will most likely not develop academic thought process. However: Ben Franklin and many other wise human beings kept diaries or wrote extensive letters almost daily; much or most of the "thinking class" from previous generations did so, and blogs can be quite similar.
2. TIME, it is time that could be used writing, reading, and more writing. I have a personal statement I could be working on now.
3. General public, including your boss, can read your writing. This can be good or bad. It has caused people to get fired.

While I think personal blogging can be healthy - a good way to vent and reconsider the events of the day, I have chosen for the most part not to engage in it. However, I also have found it much more convenient to rip on articles/graphics I dislike than do any sort of "serious" writing. So perphaps I might as well write about what music I'm listening to, where I went on vacation, and how much I hate so and so.

Or perhaps I should try as mixed persona//academic blog. Miguel's is one example. One day it's about the cat, the next day it's a lot of information about Bolivia.

Dan Drezner's blog is mostly academic, with a few exceptions (baseball, S. Hayek). I find it hard to believe it was a factor in the decision to not grant him tenure. However, blogging might put one in a different catagory of academia - such as the difference between a professor who is interviewed on PBS vs. a professor who is a talking head on FOX News. I don't mean to reduce Drezner's persona to that of a FOX personality; my metaphor is an exaggeration. But perhaps the perception of that kind of difference was a slight factor.

Furthermore, perhaps the difference is a generational one. While older professors have adapted to email and Powerpoint (some certainly have not), maybe the blogs are just too much for them. It might take 10 or 20 years before the establishment respects blogs. Or perhaps many in the ivory towers will never respect them; too public, too pop-culture, not enough of an elite, old-leather-and-dust feel to them.

I hope not, though, because I have learned a great deal about political science, and working in the field, though the blogs of those involved. I hope they continue their blogging.