So, your task is to read this collection of articles and try to make some sense of them. What do you make of this debate? 

I have summarized the main ideas of their work, but you should identify and synthesize their arguments. 

Where do they agree? Disagree? 
From the reading, the passages inter-lapped and contrast on various points. Where they found common ground was availability to public. They wanted to make scholarly articles and academic journals more attainable to the public/masses, instead of having to pay for subscriptions past paywalls. Academia, they found, is under great pressure to conform to things like conservative agendas. From these passages I found that people are willing to learn and grow but sometimes need guidance and an open mind. Few articles disagreed on extent of participation. Political issues were a deterrent for some. How some shied away from certain issues because of perceived repercussions and then again how others got further involved because of those same issues. 

From this collection of work, what are the roadblocks to social scientists seeking to engage with a public audience? Roadblocks for social scientist participation was the expectation of powerful groups and how they wanted the academics to place their fancy degrees in service to conservative agendas. The production of material that, they think, would not be accepted by scholarly audiences. Paywalls for academic journals and last, turning academic writings into something the public would be interested in reading and articulating the findings from something too difficult for a non-academic to comprehend to a passage that can clearly be read by masses of all sorts. 

Should social science influence public debate and public policy? How might it be done? To whom should the work be addressed? Yes I think social science should influence pubic debate and public policy, how is the question? Sociologist need to get more involved in policy design rather than policy dismantling. They need to study both sides of an issue e.i. poverty. When confronting this issue, sociologist should not only focus their study on the poor and their problems but on the rich as well and how their elitism and high social ranking advertently place pressure on issues of poverty. Sociologist need to also get involved in talking to the public and not just in conversation with other academics.  

In your response, recall C. Wright Mills' discussion about the role of the social scientist. What would he say to these questions? 

And finally, what do you think? What do you make of the fact that this is a debate being had by people with advanced degrees at universities? I certainly believe that topics of the nature are worth diving into, thus why academics are so involved. I find myself agreeing with the notion that although "people with advanced degrees at universities" need to talk to one another to hopefully solve or yet alleviate some of the troubles of this earth, but conversation about the public needs to be had with the public. Multiple perspectives is a true enough fact. If the president of the united states had a conversation about poverty with the poor and homelessness than he might be able to fully understand the extent of this issue, instead he talks about poverty with the rich and educated, doesn't make sense. 

 How might the conversation change if we were to think in terms of how people with social science training outside of the university setting (and outside of the PhD) might engage with the public?