The academic commitment to discover truth and share as much of it as possible is extremely uncompromising. In comparison, the professional vows of the medical doctor, the lawyer, the journalist or the priest must be considered "soft" commitments. Unlike these professionals who can legitimately invoke prudential reasons for deliberately withholding what they know to be true (the doctor may believe his patient cannot stand up to the truth, the lawyer like the journalist and the priest may speak of clients and parties whose confidence they cannot violate), the academic feels he must share what he has discovered, whatever the consequences might be. There is no such thing as a 4-way test for truth among academics; there is only the singular demand that what one believes to be true after he has carefully worked to discover it must be shared with a wider and more public constituency.
Not being fools, academics accept the possibility that their studies could be flawed, even outrightly wrong. As science-guided human essayists, they reject the notion of infallibility that crusaders for fundamentalist religions reflect. Academics indeed could be wrong, but when they are wrong, they are simply honestly wrong. Their errors are not stoked by burning passions, informed by manipulative reason or induced by comfortable indolence. When academics err, it is despite their hard labor on some chosen subject and their unrelenting attempts to be exceptionally fair to whichever parties might be affected by their work. They are among the first to recognize errors in their own work and to point them out; they are also among the first to attempt correcting what is recognizably wrong. Academics are remarkably different from pandering politicians. They also must not be confused with so many hacks that often give journalism and media a bad reputation.
At their best, survey researchers, public opinion probers, the so-called pollsters are proven academic workers. At much less than their best, they could just be paid hacks, commissioned lackeys or pricey mercenaries.
A society is truly fortunate where public opinion polling is undertaken by dedicated academics. In this milieu, traditionally voiceless people get to have a voice and are able to participate in collective discourse. The common taos are able to assess the extent of their consensus on many issues and find it easier to do organizational work that makes for their greater empowerment. Faced by this public, national leaders who otherwise might have become irresponsible are encouraged to shape up, become more productive officials and treat public accountability as a most serious concern. This pattern is a historical one for many societies that are now acknowledged to be among the most democratic worldwide. Academic survey research undeniably contributes to this process of democratization.
In the Philippines, when an academic group like Pulse Asia comes up with survey findings that contravene their conventional wisdom, many knee-jerk columnists and similarly gifted media people – experts all in instant punditry – rush to accuse those who did the survey. Unsubstantiated charges of survey manipulation, handsome pay-offs, irresponsible trending and sloppy survey work are hurled not only by partisan politicians – something totally predictable and much in the nature of the species – but also by the purportedly truth-obsessed, patriotic personalities who are the self-appointed guardians of this not-too-strong republic.
Sometimes, similar accusations are insinuated by pseudo-academics who do not take the time to master their craft or, having taken the time to do so, blurt out criticisms that have not been given enough time to prove their worth.
Imprudent reactions to the recent Pulse Asia findings are basically of two kinds. The first summarily treats as disposable garbage those findings that the critics actually have not found time to rigorously examine, and the second – regardless of the findings’ intrinsic worth – insists on shooting the bearer of the presumed garbage.
In both instances, academic work has been most improperly depreciated. This is truly unfortunate, as the most recent non-Pulse Asia survey results – released yesterday and fully aligned with what earlier had been badmouthed as Pulse Asia’s manipulated and probably mercenary survey findings – make it difficult to parrot the same terrible criticism without sounding like a demented fool.
In lieu of hasty reactions to findings one finds undesirable, the better response would have been to quietly study the same findings and, if one’s own capabilities are not quite up to making sense of them, to quickly find someone who can assist in this challenging task.
Or, as a senior member of Pulse Asia quietly commented when his group of academics was being publicly pilloried: Perhaps these critics simply will have to remember that when other survey groups do their work well, they discover what Pulse Asia had discovered much earlier and also earlier shared with the public.