{"id":960,"date":"2022-07-12T12:03:53","date_gmt":"2022-07-12T11:03:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/business-and-society\/?p=960"},"modified":"2022-07-12T12:03:53","modified_gmt":"2022-07-12T11:03:53","slug":"imaginative-practice-impact-and-intersectionality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/business-and-society\/2022\/07\/12\/imaginative-practice-impact-and-intersectionality\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Imaginative Practice\u2019, impact and intersectionality"},"content":{"rendered":"

These reflections are based on <\/em>Francesca Sobande\u2019s<\/em><\/a> May 2022 Thinklist keynote on the relationship between imaginativeness, digital culture, academic impact, and intersectionality. This post considers what can be involved in embracing \u2018imaginative practice\u2019 as scholars. It draws on themes from Sobande\u2019s forthcoming SAGE \u2018Social Justice\u2019 series book, Consuming Crisis: Commodifying Care and COVID-19, as well as arguments made in the Marketing Theory article, \u2018<\/em>Hierarchies of knowledge about intersectionality in marketing theory and practice<\/em><\/a>\u2019 (co-authored with Marcel Rosa Salas). <\/em><\/p>\n

In the inspiring words of author, scholar, and activist bell hooks, \u2018To be truly visionary we have to root our imagination in our concrete reality while simultaneously imagining possibilities beyond that reality<\/a>\u2019.<\/p>\n

Imaginativeness is often associated with the arts, creativity, and self-expression. However, it is central to many elements of life. Imaginativeness manifests like magic in moments of mundanity but is never humdrum in nature. It can involve creative forms of thoughtfulness and thoughtful forms of creating, but imaginativeness is always about much more than just thinking. Ultimately, imaginativeness is a space where dreams bloom and ideas come alive.<\/p>\n

Imaginativeness and introspection<\/strong><\/p>\n

Imaginativeness is present in how people participate in storytelling practices to pass time (\u2026remember \u2018I spy with my little eye, something beginning with\u2026\u2019<\/em>?). Imaginativeness also appears as playing with and parsing language \u2013 from the creation and regional remixing of slang to the development of digital modes of visual communication and cultural codes.<\/p>\n

Although imaginativeness can be connected to a strong sense of conviction, this should not be confused for hubris which is associated with \u2018over-confidence, arrogance, pride, and contempt for the advice and criticism of others<\/a>\u2019.\u00a0Imaginativeness may be principled, but it also involves an openness to the prospect of thinking about and doing things differently \u2013 including as scholars.<\/p>\n

Imaginativeness springs from people\u2019s minds \u2013 their thoughts, memories, hopes, and dreams, but is also influenced by external environments \u2013 how geo-cultural, socio-political, and material conditions impact imaginations. Imaginativeness is the power and playful possibility of creativity and introspection. It can be expressed in tangible ways \u2013 from books to photography \u2013 but experiences of imaginativeness can take very personal, and even private, forms.<\/p>\n

Put differently, while imaginativeness can involve creating and sharing ideas, it can also involve self-reflections and inner dialogues which are never publicly shared or may solely be communicated within intentionally \u2018small\u2019, ephemeral, and opaque spaces<\/a>. For these reasons, embracing imaginative practice as scholars is not just about the content and production of published work. Instead, such an approach involves engaging in ongoing and reflexive processes of intention-setting, introspection, and boundary-making. Specifically, while public engagement efforts play a significant part in imaginative practice, so too do carefully considered decisions about what not to share, and why.<\/p>\n

Imagining impact outside of metrics-driven models \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Aspects of academia frame \u2018deep thinking\u2019 \u2013 and by extension, imaginativeness \u2013 as exclusively occurring within universities\u2019 walls. The dominant notion of \u2018impact\u2019 and \u2018best practice\u2019 in academia is based on metrics and bell curves which reflect the belief that people must be \u2018exceptional\u2019 to produce impactful work. Essentially, impact is assumed to be \u2018quantifiable\u2019 for it to be of \u2018value\u2019.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, institutions\u2019 ideas concerning scholarly impact are frequently accompanied by an expectation that scholars establish an \u2018on-brand\u2019 digital presence which appears to align with theirs. As such, increasingly universities express an interest in the social media follower count and digital engagement of scholars, but seldom do they seem as preoccupied with attempting to mitigate the online harms that such scholars may face. In other words, pressures to pursue scholarly impact typically dovetail with pressures to (re)present yourself and others online (but in the \u2018right\u2019 way).<\/p>\n

I share all this to outline the starting point from which I have been thinking about imaginative practice in relation to digital culture, academic impact, and intersectionality. For imaginativeness to be fully embraced, institutions and individuals need to push against notions of \u2018impact\u2019 which uncritically equate it with \u2018visibility\u2019 and mounting numbers (of citations, followers, and credentials).<\/p>\n

Then again, digital culture can afford structurally marginalised and precariously positioned scholars a chance to widely share and relatively autonomously archive their work in ways that academic institutions rarely facilitate. So, the benefits of such digital activity should not be dismissed, and discussion of scholarly impact and digital culture must move beyond viewing digital spaces as intrinsically \u2018good\u2019 or \u2018bad\u2019.<\/p>\n

I recognise that there is an irony in writing this post as someone who has quite consistently used Twitter since 2015, and as someone with a personal website in addition to their institutional staff page. That said, my critical reflections on this topic are not intended to be a prescriptive call for scholars to abandon all forms of \u2018digital presence\u2019, nor is this piece meant to cast judgment on those who turn to digital culture as part of how they do and share their work.<\/p>\n

Instead, I am pondering how generative dimensions of imaginative practice, such as departing from a focus on written outputs, can be fostered both with and without the use of digital tools. This involves critically thinking about how academics\u2019 \u2018digital visibility\u2019 can become an example of what philosophy scholar Ol\u00faf\u1eb9\u0301mi T\u00e1\u00edw\u00f2 terms <\/em>\u2018elite capture<\/a>\u2019, resulting in institutions consuming the scope for imaginative practice, and eroding boundaries between work (employers) and play (employees\u2019 personal space).<\/p>\n

Intersectionality and hierarchies of impact<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2018Visibility\u2019, \u2018influence\u2019, and \u2018impact\u2019 are among a wealth of words that circulate amid conversations about academia, including commentary on scholarship which addresses questions concerning business, ethics, and society. At times, \u2018influence\u2019 and \u2018impact\u2019 are ambiguous descriptors used interchangeably to infer that something and\/or someone has the power to shape society \u2013 from influencing the direction of scholarly discourse to impacting policy and public debate.<\/p>\n

When critically analysing arguments about what influence and impact entails \u2013 both in and beyond academia, it is essential to consider questions such as the following:<\/p>\n