Greg Ashman Highlights Academic Resistance to External Critique, Citing Credentialism in Education

Melbourne, Australia – Education researcher and author Greg Ashman has ignited discussion within academic circles, asserting that a prevailing "culture of these institutions is to resist internal correction and dismiss outsider critiques, often substituting activism for scholarship." Ashman, a prominent voice advocating for evidence-based teaching practices, shared his personal experiences on social media, underscoring what he perceives as systemic barriers to intellectual discourse in education.

Ashman, who holds a PhD in Instructional Design and has a background as a teacher and deputy principal, detailed how his lack of a doctorate was previously used to dismiss his observations. > "Before I had a PhD, the fact I didn’t have one was often raised." He further revealed that during his doctoral studies, he was "frequently and revealingly told that I would need to moderate my tone to pass," and even faced skepticism about whether he was genuinely pursuing the degree.

His critique extends beyond personal anecdotes, touching on a broader issue of credentialism within academia. Ashman argues that such emphasis on formal qualifications can overshadow the validity of arguments themselves. > "What matters is whether my observations and arguments are right or wrong," he stated, emphasizing that the substance of an argument should take precedence over the credentials of the person presenting it.

The sentiment echoes wider discussions about the insular nature of some academic fields and their reluctance to engage with external perspectives or self-critique. Experts note that academic institutions can exhibit resistance to change, often due to deeply ingrained traditions and a focus on internal consensus. This can lead to a dismissal of critiques, particularly those from individuals perceived as outside the established academic framework.

Ashman's observation about "substituting activism for scholarship" points to concerns that ideological commitments may sometimes supersede rigorous, objective research and open debate in educational discourse. This perspective suggests a potential shift where advocacy for certain social or political causes might be prioritized over purely academic inquiry and evidence-gathering. The ongoing debate highlights the tension between theoretical frameworks and practical, empirically supported approaches in shaping educational policy and practice.