I'm inclined to say that there is a difference in usage between the two terms "researcher" and "intellectual." Also of interest in this connection is "scholar," which contrasts in degree with each of the two terms. 

In public usage, at least, "intellectual" suggests someone who makes use of research and scholarly skills for public purposes. Perhaps it is just that such intellectuals attract more public attention, but the usage seems to reflect this element. Still, I think that "public intellectual" is not completely redundant.

"Researcher," in contrast seems more general, and it would be no surprise, certainly, if a given researcher showed no interest for publicly debated questions and issues. It is not, though, that intellectuals must be concerned with public issues. We can imagine a reclusive or reticent intellectual, concerned with public issues, but not a public figure, "scholar" suggests the humanities, while "researcher" is more suggestive of the sciences. 

Some scientific researchers have become public figures who may speak out on occasion on issues concerning the public. Hawking, for instance, has warned against the dangers of humanity keeping to the earth, as against space colonies, and against the dangers of possible contact with alien civilizations. His public statements on cosmology and related topics are of public interest. So, he seems to have become a public intellectual, though perhaps in a narrower sense, he was an intellectual as well as a researcher all along. 

I suspect that literally, a researcher must be an intellectual in some sense, but the usage is still somewhat distinct. "Intellectual" is more a term of public honor. But keeping to the scholarly and/or scientific straight and narrow may be every bit as honorable--in fact. Some people are better positioned to deal with the particular stresses and problems of addressing public problems and questions publicly, others less. This may have little to do with the quality or character of their work. It also has much to do with the extent of media prominence and influence in society. I suspect that the greater the influence of the media in society, the more will public intellectuals become dependent upon large-scale or powerful institutions. The media like to make and unmake their stars. 

H.G. Callaway

none!

...meant, the same coin, different sides.

Intellectual is the ability to think in a logical way. It is strictly associated with reason and thinking. It is an important element required to conduct research. A researcher has to be an intellectual.

I'm inclined to say that there is a difference in usage between the two terms "researcher" and "intellectual." Also of interest in this connection is "scholar," which contrasts in degree with each of the two terms. 

In public usage, at least, "intellectual" suggests someone who makes use of research and scholarly skills for public purposes. Perhaps it is just that such intellectuals attract more public attention, but the usage seems to reflect this element. Still, I think that "public intellectual" is not completely redundant.

"Researcher," in contrast seems more general, and it would be no surprise, certainly, if a given researcher showed no interest for publicly debated questions and issues. It is not, though, that intellectuals must be concerned with public issues. We can imagine a reclusive or reticent intellectual, concerned with public issues, but not a public figure, "scholar" suggests the humanities, while "researcher" is more suggestive of the sciences. 

Some scientific researchers have become public figures who may speak out on occasion on issues concerning the public. Hawking, for instance, has warned against the dangers of humanity keeping to the earth, as against space colonies, and against the dangers of possible contact with alien civilizations. His public statements on cosmology and related topics are of public interest. So, he seems to have become a public intellectual, though perhaps in a narrower sense, he was an intellectual as well as a researcher all along. 

I suspect that literally, a researcher must be an intellectual in some sense, but the usage is still somewhat distinct. "Intellectual" is more a term of public honor. But keeping to the scholarly and/or scientific straight and narrow may be every bit as honorable--in fact. Some people are better positioned to deal with the particular stresses and problems of addressing public problems and questions publicly, others less. This may have little to do with the quality or character of their work. It also has much to do with the extent of media prominence and influence in society. I suspect that the greater the influence of the media in society, the more will public intellectuals become dependent upon large-scale or powerful institutions. The media like to make and unmake their stars. 

H.G. Callaway

Sometimes we want to make a clear difference and after talking about it for a while we tend to shift all the properties to one side. So we could say that an intellectual reflects his activities whereas the researcher follows his defined route once it is defined.

That being said we later may wish to say that of course a researcher reflects his activity too. Otherwise it would be almost an accusation against the researcher.

In order to find a diplomatic way, I would like to say that an intellectual – just in case he has the time - is in the comfortable position to gather information about things that are a bit further away. With this experience in mind he may look at his work a different way. This may give him new ideas!

An intellectual person is a smart person who enjoys serious study and thought, whereas a researcher refers to who conducts researches.

An intellectual is an intelligent person who goes beyond the utilitarian applications of intelligence. When s/he uses that intellect in a professional capacity, it may be in research or scholarly pursuits. A researcher is most likely an intellectual but an intellectual does not necessarily have to be a researcher. It's highly likely though that regardless of professional practice, an intellectual will always enjoy the spirit of inquiry and research. 

I define a researcher who does research, and an intellectual uses this research to advocate for an issue.

A researcher could be (and is in most cases) an intellectual, but an intellectual is not necessarily a researcher...

In Europe the word “intellectual” is sometimes used with a little negative connotation. Something like “only for feuilleton” - the culture pages of a newspaper. How is the situation in the U.S.?

I' ve been working a bit on the subject. - Part of the tragedies of the intellectuals is that they have lost their independence. An intellectual is a figure that historically corresponds to the 19th and part of the 20th centuries. At large, it is anyone, man or woman, who has passion for understanding and ideas and who devotes his/her life to the arts, poetry, literature, philosophy or science.

With time, most intellectuals have become "employees" - whence researchers. A researcher can be grasped as the same intellectual but who is employed by a university, a public or a private company.

This is one reason, as H. G. correctly says, that explains why and how intellectuals were public. Researchers, as it happens, have lost - to a large extent - the capacity to be/become public. F. i. in the sense of the French intellectuals around the 1968s, or many American intellectuals who pivoted around The New School for Social Research.

I have the hunch that intellectuals are/were much more free, independent, critical and  autonomous than scholars, academicians, or researchers. I wish I was wrong - though.

 An intellectual is a person who uses intelligence in understanding and analysing an issue rather than taking the symptoms as the causes. For example, a journalist or other media personalities are known as intellectuals. They may analyse why a certain  violence has taken place. A researcher may also study this issue; but s/he is likely to do it differently.  A researcher is concerned with inquiring into certain phenomena in a systematic and organized manner which is methologically acceptable to the reserach community. Though an intellectual may also be concerned with an inquiry, but that may be merely intuitive or a mere analysis of opinions. So that will not take the form of research.

Dear All,

An intellectual is a traditional brainworker specialised at any field of cognitive dimensions of life (body and soul) and their collateral relationships. A researcher tries to discover new details and parts of these dimensions. An intellectual has (must have) an innate relationship to philosophy.

In the XIXth century and earlier each researcher was intellectual. Now, it is not right. Many well trained and well paid techno freaks (?) have no idea on humanities or philosophy and so they are not able to find the correct way. You can classify them...

Dear Martin,

I have never experienced this little negative connotation. Intellectuals are thought often an unnecessary cast but without them practice is paralysed.

This is a very interesting question, indeed! Let's say that intellectual is a person who create a global strategy of the investigation. But researcher is rather a people who realize this strategy in practice. Of course, in many case same person can combine both researches and intellectual tasks. That's why in many cases "border" between both definition is rather arbitrary.

There is something else - even though not of the importance of the features mentioned above.

An intellectual is a socially and politically engaged personality. Most scientists are not. This is related to one key aspect. The intellectual has a rather "dis-organized" life style. It is closely related to "la bohème"; you know, cafés, etc. On the contrary, a researcher is a much (far more, in fact) organized person, vis-à-vis his/her personal life style. This is partially due to the fact that - as a rule - a researcher is supposed to hold a Ph.D. (An no one can get and "confirm" on the long run, his/her doctorate without… well: a disciplined life style.

Please allow to say this: a researcher is the continuation in a secular world of the monk's life style - medieval, hence. (There is a relatively large literature on this last subject).

Agreed with Monica & Abderrahmane Kadri

Carlos Eduardo, I find your remark very stimulating that the researcher continues the life style of monk. An intellectual, to use the medieval analogy, continues the life style of the scholar, who would travel from city to city, teaching his discipline.  That is, the intellectual is more worldly wise, more universal in scope. I do not mean to disparage the researcher: he operates in a more down-to-earth sphere, with nose to the ground in his labor.

Absolutely, dear Nelson. That is a very good characterization, indeed. The intellectual is much more universal in that sense, whereas the researcher is far more focused and specialized. I am afraid that either the intellectuals seem to have been vanished from our surroundings - I do hope this is not the case! -, or at least they seem to have been confined to closed or less open spaces.

By definition, an intellectual is politically incorrect. Researchers are "intellectuals" that have been… well… disciplined. (If one wishes, in the sense of Foucault).

One way in which researchers have been disciplined is that - as we continuously see, f.i. here on RG, there is the real concern for publishing with impact, and so on and so for. Researchers are eager about publishing - whence: yes, the Fordist and Taylorist intellectual production.

Such a situation is unimaginable for an intellectual (…).

Research is 'COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE', whereas Intellectual is a 'spark within'

The way Callaway and Prof Saini dissects the terminology  of intellectual and researcher, are simply superb and outstanding. 

To me intellect is an inherent characteristics of any person who can think and interpret any fact, finding or phenomenon with analytical mind and plausible explanation.

The researchers are a specific group of intellectual people who love to delve into answering some  questions in a very specific area and if there is a logical explanation for a question with experimentally determined evidence and researchers would love to control or modulate that specific finding with an idea that can be used for the betterment of human civilization and knowledge. Researchers usually have great liabilities to the nation. Since most of the research involves public money researchers usually take adequate care to return some useful knowledge to the society where as no such liabilities exist for the intellectual. 

Dear Mandal, 

Thank you for your kind words on my prior note. In a sense, of course, I was merely discussing the usage of the words, following Wittgenstein's advice, to look to the use of words.  We have subsequently seen some tension in respect to the usage of the word "intellectual," which is perhaps only to be expected. 

Regarding your note, directly above, I would emphasize that people also do research in the humanities, though the concern for "experimentally determined evidence" is there chiefly indirect at best. I take it that your concept of the researcher is strongly oriented to the natural sciences. Nonetheless, research in the humanities is also often much concerned with the "betterment of human civilization and knowledge." Again, with or without benefit of public money, there will often be a focus on public problems of society or of a given society. We all owe a debt to our own societies of upbringing and education, and we are naturally concerned with their well being. 

Perhaps the problem is with the concept of "useful knowledge." Why should one think that the intellectual is under no obligation to return "useful knowledge?" Though I contrasted "intellectual" with "public intellectual," it strikes me that each stands under some obligation to return "useful knowledge," though the contributions may be less directly practical. Moreover, if what they provide is totally without any use, then why would such a person be of any interest?

So, let us imagine a nineteenth-century American intellectual, say, who, before the Civil War, had the foresight to point out that human slavery was inconsistent with the ideals of America's founding. (Notice, that American nationality,as with many countries so largely based on immigration, involves a so-called "constitutional patriotism," unrelated to ethnicity.) As it happens, there were such people, and they were often hounded and persecuted for saying something that many, many people did not want to hear. It is a simple point, of course, and we take it for granted; but the point can be elaborated and detailed--as it was in fact. 

The powerful Southern slaveholders certainly didn't want to hear this point--encouragement to slave revolt! Again, many people in the North didn't want to hear it either--troublemaker, out to destroy the federal union! So, the point may not have been regarded as a very useful one to make, but in spite of that, it was a point that needed to be made. (There may have been little direct concern with self-promotion, either, in the project of making this point.) We  can easily take the view, in retrospect, that making this point helped save the union in the long run--since human slavery was bound for self-destruction--one way or another.

The concept of "useful knowledge," is liable to being cooked for very parochial purposes, and it is part of the function of research in the humanities to keep our eyes open to broader perspectives and purposes. Such are the social obligations of the intellectuals. 

H.G. Callaway

A researcher needs to be intelligent to pick up the intellectual offers and tie up the relevance to their ongoing research, to make it line with the technology and digital space of knowledge revolution.

A researcher is a person who is always misunderstood until one fine day he is able to proove himself..

Intellectuals can overtake researchers as Heads / administrators.

The research is one of the most factors in creating IC.

Please refer to:

Information Management Model for Intellectual Capital of HEIs : Theoretical Quantitative Approach and Practical Results. J. of Information and Knowledge Management, 2018, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.1-38. (World Scientific).

Regards,

Zuhair