Heterodox Academy is a collaboration of professors, grad students and other university stakeholders committed to promoting open inquiry, viewpoint diversity and constructive disagreement in institutions of higher learning. Our blog serves as an outlet for sharing research, tips and tools to facilitate these goals. We welcome contributions from our members, as well as academics who have not yet joined (although we encourage you to join!)
We are methodologically and ideologically diverse, and invite original submissions from authors from across the disciplinary and political spectrum. However, in order to maintain this diverse community of scholars and readers, we insist upon particular norms of communication and engagement (the “HxA Way”).
Please also note that as a 501c3, Heterodox Academy is legally forbidden from advocating for or against any particular political candidate, political party, legislation or ballot initiative. Although individual, non-HxA-employee contributors, speaking for and as themselves, are not necessarily bound by these restrictions — we will nonetheless be generally averse to publishing content that could jeopardize our 501c3 status.
As a non-profit, we are committed to providing all of our tools, resources and content to as many people possible at little-to-no cost. All of our blog content falls under a Creative Commons (Attribution, Non-Commercial, No Derivatives 4.0 International) license — allowing it to be syndicated for free, at will, without asking permission from HxA. To publish with Heterodox Academy is to consent to your work being freely utilized within the confines of our restrictions and guidelines.
Our blog is oriented towards producing and disseminating original content. We typically decline essays that have been previously published elsewhere — although we occasionally share externally-produced content on our social media channels, in our bulletin, etc.
As a final piece of general advice: be interesting, quickly. Blog posts are not like academic papers where you can develop your thesis gradually. Capture your readers attention at the start, state your case upfront, and make sure every paragraph has a concrete point, tightly related to the overall argument (with each constitutive sentence directly reinforcing the ‘point’ of the paragraph in which it appears).
Although we are happy to consider any essay that advances our mission, complies with these guidelines and would be of interest to our readers — we are particularly eager for the following types of submissions:
These essays are designed to draw readers’ attention to key studies and empirical findings related to the challenges Heterodox Academy is seeking to address including: 1) problems with research and pedagogy that result from a lack of open inquiry, viewpoint diversity or constructive disagreement, 2) changing social and institutional dynamics related to freedom of conscience, inquiry or expression — particularly in institutions of higher learning, 3) bridging differences, especially socio-political and moral differences, and 4) the evolving relationship between institutions of higher learning and the societies in which they are embedded.
Summaries of work analyzing the causes, scope, significance or trends of these phenomena are welcome. However, we are particularly keen for studies that look towards (or test!) possible solutions to apparent challenges as well.
- In terms of structure, Research Summaries should briefly describe the problem or phenomenon the study is trying to explore, along with its methods and key findings. Authors should then explain how the summarized research relates to the sorts of problems Heterodox Academy is trying to address (in other words, “why should we care?” or “How can we use this?”).
- The goal should be to highlight exemplary research. This is generally not a space to critique or debunk others’ work. However, exceptions can occasionally be made for particularly important research that has generated a lot of public interest (e.g. here)– especially if the study in question suffers from glaring and easy-to-explain errors that could likely have been avoided through increased engagement with others who hold different priors and commitments.
- Although it is most common for Research Summaries to be focused on one particular study someone else has published (e.g. here), we would also welcome essays describing authors’ own original published findings (e.g. here), or essays that put multiple published studies into conversation to arrive at a deeper understanding (e.g. here).
- Keep in mind that Research Summaries are intended to distill key findings for a non-specialized audience, or for scholars who may be outside the authors’ own field. Please limit the use of technical terms or jargon, and provide brief explanations of any specialized language or acronyms that are used.
- Concision is also critical (graphs and charts can be very helpful here!). Although there are no firm length requirements for these essays, aim for a maximum of 2,000 words (the more efficient, the better).
- We also accept Book Summaries. These should not be reviews. Rather, they should be similar in format to other Research Summaries, following the guidelines provided above — including with respect to the recommended length.
Heterodox Academy’s members are committed to promoting viewpoint diversity, mutual understanding and constructive disagreement in their research and pedagogy. However, translating these aspirations into concrete action, into tangible changes in the classroom (and beyond) can often be intimidating or challenging.
Fortunately, our network includes hundreds of seasoned educators in a wide-array of institutions and fields. Our Teaching Heterodoxy series attempts to crowdsource the insights and strategies of our professors and administrators to make it easier for all of us to put our commitments into practice. It is an opportunity for educators to share things they have tried that were successful, or to work through some of the difficulties with implementing our shared aspirations in the real world.
- Essays for this series should be relatively short, think 750- 1200 words, and should focus on concrete steps that you have taken — or good ideas you’ve heard from others and are eager to try yourself – regarding how to integrate viewpoint diversity, mutual understanding or constructive disagreement into pedagogy.
- Practitioner strategies for more fruitfully engaging wider perspectives or adversarial collaborators in research are also welcome here, as well as advice for de-biasing peer review and committee decisions within departments (such as for admitting grad students, hiring and promoting faculty, etc.), or strategies for identifying, recruiting and retaining faculty with underrepresented backgrounds, perspectives and research interests (to include innovative methodological or theoretical approaches).
- Here is how a Teaching Heterodoxy post would typically go: describe the technique or idea and its pedagogical purpose (i.e. “In order to help students understand ____, I ask them to_____”). Then detail how it is implemented, how (if) and why it works, and any advice you may have for others who may want to give it a shot at their own institutions of higher learning (as useful, you can lead with a little about yourself and your students, your area of study or your institutional affiliation as well).
Campus and Community
Our Campus and Community series explores the relationships between institutions of higher learning, the communities they are embedded in, and the constituencies they serve (or fail to serve):
How are research, teaching and campus politics influenced by local and regional developments? How are local, regional (even national) politics and culture influenced by what happens on campus? How do the challenges and opportunities faced by universities with regards to open inquiry, viewpoint diversity or constructive disagreement vary across geographical lines? Who has access, and who is denied access, to institutions of higher learning and the research enterprise? Campus and Community is intended to explore these and related questions.
- This series is intended to be a resource for facts and data on the issues in question. Essays should be empirical or data-driven (as opposed to conventional op-ed-style musings) — and focus primarily on local and regional variations, trends, or phenomena.
- Essays in this series should generally run between 750 -1200 words.
Heterodoxy in History
Peer review and academic committees are premised on the idea that seeking consensus among experts or practitioners is likely to produce the best outcomes for a field – both epistemologically and institutionally.
However, as we all know, the consensus position in a field is sometimes wrong. At times, the errors can be grievous. This is the main reason why viewpoint diversity is so important in social research: to help identify and challenge problematic axioms, to draw attention to phenomena the field neglects, to conceptualize new and more effective ways of understanding and addressing social problems, etc.
The idea behind our Heterodoxy in History series is to provide readers with concrete instances that our understanding of the world was improved by those who bucked the prevailing orthodoxy: the dissenter whose views were long ignored, dismissed or maligned but later vindicated; the outsider who changed a field because (s)he was unencumbered by its dominant assumptions and norms; the long-running debates within a field that led to important breakthroughs, discoveries or new lines of inquiry, etc.
- Our goal with this series is to provide a teaching tool (easily assigned as readings), or a resource for laymen, to underscore why viewpoint diversity and engagement across difference are so important – through accessible, concrete and compelling historical examples, drawn from a range of fields and disciplines. Hence, it is important to keep these essays relatively concise as well: an ideal length would be between 1200 – 2000 words.
- Authors should explain a particular problem or question that a field was trying to solve, or a phenomena scholars struggled to explain. They should briefly explain what the prevailing consensus was, the obstacles faced (or consequences borne) by a thinker who wanted to change it, and how these historical figures and their findings or theories have proven highly-significant in retrospect.
- Explorations of pre-modern dissenters (for instance, from the “classical period,” the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, or Enlightenment-era) are welcome too. And we are particularly eager to receive works highlighting important contributions of non “Western” thinkers or critical innovations provided by members of groups who were historically marginalized or underrepresented in the academy – especially in those cases where a scholars’ unique background, commitments or experiences informed their groundbreaking work.
How to Submit
All submissions are subject to a review by our editorial team. Please direct drafts or pitches to Heterodox Academy’s Academic Communications Director, Cory Clark (email@example.com).
- In the subject line, write “HxA” followed by the submission category (i.e. Research Summary, Teaching Heterodoxy, Heterodoxy in History), and your name [Example, “HxA Research Summary, Jon Haidt”].
- Give you submission a similar filename [e.g. “HxA_Research Summary_Haidt”].
- Include your name, title, and institutional affiliation at the bottom of your essay – and links to any websites or social media accounts you would like to direct readers towards [Example, “Jonathan Haidt is a professor in the Business and Society Program at NYU Stern. You can follow him on Twitter @JonHaidt”].
- Stylistically, we rely on AP Guidelines.
We try to reply to all submissions with an acceptance (and suggested edits) or a decline (and as relevant, suggestions for alternative placement) within a week. However, due to the volume of submissions, this may not always be possible. If you have not heard back from us for some time, or if there is some compelling reason why you need a confirmation/disconfirmation of interest more immediately, it is acceptable to send a follow-up inquiry.
The main reasons why submissions are rejected are because the editors have decided:
- The content fails to comply our standards and guidelines,
- The content does not provide research, tips or tools that effectively facilitate Heterodox Academy’s core mission, or
- The content is not a novel contribution (either because was previously published at some other outlet, or because it is redundant to other already-published content on the blog).
Here it should be emphasized that the HxA blog is intended as a practitioners’ resource — connecting readers with research, data, tools, resources, tips and techniques to improve scholarship and pedagogy. As we explain here, we rarely run op-ed style content.
Personal stories and anecdotes are occasionally acceptable to illustrate a key point — for instance, in Teaching Heterodoxy or Campus and Community posts — or can be held up as a representative case of a broader (empirically established) dynamic or trend. However, we will not run content making personal attacks or unsubstantiated accusations against any individual or institution, nor will we run content that violates confidentiality of students or peers, nor content that discloses information that could open authors or HxA to civil or criminal liability, nor content that would plausibly expose others to campaigns of harassment and intimidation or professional sanctions.
Other Ways to Contribute Your Perspectives
- While a commitment to open inquiry and viewpoint diversity unites HxA members, each discipline faces unique challenges. The HxCommunities initiative exists to promote the values of open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in the disciplines by creating spaces (currently, closed Facebook groups and/or closed Google Groups) where scholars can freely discuss topics, trade ideas, tools and techniques for improving research and teaching, foster research collaborations, organize events, panels or mixers at disciplinary conferences and more. Additional information about joining or starting an HxCommunity is available here.
Half Hour of Heterodoxy (HHH)
- Hosted by Heterodox Academy co-founder and Georgia Tech sociologist Chris Martin, our popular bi-weekly podcast features scholars whose research or findings embody Heterodox Academy’s aims or facilitate its mission. If your research or advocacy tightly connects with our core concerns, and especially if you have work you would like to discuss (typically a journal article or book), you can reach out to firstname.lastname@example.org with a bit about your research and interests. Please note that only a small number of scholars (20-25) are typically selected in a given year – but we are happy to consider proposals, and to build a roster of interested and interesting potential guests.
HxA Resource Compendium
- We are attempting to crowdsource policies, programs, teaching materials and other interventions that have been deployed in classrooms, on campuses, and in disciplines to effectively support open inquiry, viewpoint diversity and constructive disagreement. More information available here.