---

It is a troubling fact that the quality of analysis in policy studies is becoming tragically sophomoric. Western academia, in fact academia in general, has declined from the days of intensive granular studies, replaced by a more linear approach to thinking without much depth of thought.

The current situation is the result of a decline in the quality of Western thinking that began not with 9/11, but rather the end of the Cold War. Some of this is generational in nature; younger generations increasingly lack the depth of knowledge necessary in the modern world. In other words, superficial analysis is flawed and is very bad for policymakers.

This has been long in the making. Part of the problem lies in a lack of courses teaching the history of Western civilization, which were once the backbone of Western society. These courses, which were previously a common component of undergraduate curricula, have disappeared as a requirement at many large private research universities. These institutions have changed their core course requirements in an attempt to “modernize” and accommodate new schools of thought.

In the late 1960s and 1970s, these courses, as well as the study of US history, were dropped as requirements at progressive universities. The damage this caused has rippled through academia, resulting in declining standards.

Fast forward to the present day and the stunning deterioration in the quality of education is apparent. Now we have quick assessments and analysis that is driven by emotions and is biased and delimited. Key facts are left out without any note of this being the case.

Courses that teach the history of Western civilization are uniquely capable of introducing students to the key themes of a liberal education. In the absence of such an organizing principle, the curriculum deteriorates to become “all things to all people,” much of it trivial in nature and potentially misguided in its recommendations.

This is not the fault of the developers of the courses but of the issues with the design of university programs. That triviality is central to today’s faulty work. Moreover, younger generations are being hurt by the linear thinking that results from this.

In 2005, the failures of academia were clear to American political scientist, political economist and author Francis Fukuyama. He argued that, while regional studies are of course important, they have limitations. Specialists in one particular region tend to become narrow-minded and draw unnecessary conclusions. Notably, he said that it is important to consider historical contingency in analysis. This refers to the idea that historical events and trends are not preordained or inevitable, but shaped by a variety of factors that come together, influenced by chance.

If academia is not of sufficiently high quality, there are significant implications.

In a sense, we are all now paying for the lack of “deep knowledge” as a result of the scholarly developments of recent decades.

It is important to note that policy development relies on academia and scholarly insights. If academia is not of sufficiently high quality, there are significant implications. Polemics are fine, but to indulge in emotionally driven publications pollutes the intellectual environment, creating internal drivers of instability within academic fields.

Some efforts that steer away from greater strategic and tactical considerations of the entire landscape are leading to endless debates, accusations and obnoxious behavior in pursuit of academic fame, and are affecting how policy decisions are ultimately made. This is reflected in the dumbing down of published academic papers, which now present short, biased examinations of topics and contain quotes from other experts. This growing trend of including comments from other expert voices instead of citations transforms the nature of the publications from academic to journalistic. Journalists are not academics in the true sense of the word and the dividing line needs to remain sharp and distinct.

Therefore, a significant problem in our pandemic era is our increasing tendency to communicate through messenger apps and social media, resulting in the dumbing down of society. The amount of time wasted by policymakers on these platforms as a substitute for solid analysis is a mistake and is negligent.

Moreover, in this era of “fake news” and toxic information, analysts often repeat and legitimize false information, which then enters the mainstream. When this happens, the falsehoods and skewed narratives are passed on by younger, less experienced analysts and it becomes increasingly difficult to counter them.

For much of the past year, our younger generation has been forced to stay at home due to lockdowns and resort to distance learning. Those who are a little older have had to work from home and face other pandemic-related challenges early in their careers. The damage has been done. The long-term outlook for the young people most affected by the effects of the health crisis is that the quality or sophistication of discussion has been reduced to a linear aspect.

What was previously a depth of knowledge has been flattened. Solid and insightful lines of thought need to be reintroduced to replace the simplistic screaming. True, the emotions of the moment can be intense in some circles, and rightfully so. However, the most serious problem with the level of discourse among the younger generation is that it is sorely lacking any ability to produce useful, actionable insights.

Time has been cruel to Western intellectual thought. An excess of confidence as a substitute for genuine expertise and legacy knowledge is the recipe for an endless war of words and dangerously simplistic thinking.

Dr. Theodore Karasik is a senior adviser to Gulf State Analytics in Washington, DC. He is a former RAND Corporation senior political scientist who lived in the UAE for 10 years, focusing on security issues.

This article was originally published Arab News.
Views in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CGS policy.