Fail Academia: Keys to Dismissing Funding Metrics Over Quality Science

[Hornbein]

Keys to failure in academia. Basically he says that it's all about conforming to the funding organizations' metrics, which don't necessarily have anything to do with good science.

 

[gleem]

I wonder how many untold stories there are.

As for me, I had no delusions about an academic career well before my dissertation defense.

BTW the sitar background music in the video was distracting.

 

[Hyperfine]

I wonder how many untold stories there are.

At least one per failure, regardless of profession.

 

[f95toli]

Keys to failure in academia. Basically he says that it's all about conforming to the funding organizations' metrics, which don't necessarily have anything to do with good science.

Yes, but that is hardly news. It is also not necessarily a bad thing.
I'm not saying the system is perfect -far from it- but I also do not subscribe to the idea that we should just give money to scientists and then let us do what we want with it. Doing research is often very, very expensive and if we are talking about work ultimately funded by the public, they do have a right to have a say about what we do and what work to prioritise.
I have a lab with millions of pounds worth of kit, most of it paid for by the UK taxpayers, and the total cost of running my group is not insignificant. I do NOT believe that I should just be allowed to do whatever I want with my funding.

Moreover, science is very competitive and there isn't nearly enough money to fund all ideas for research that could be done. High-impact publications etc is most definitely not a perfect metric for "good" science, but it does give some indication of how significant your work is considered to be by your peers.

Lastly, is it even possible to define what "good" science means? There are obviously criteria for how the science is carried out (using the right methods, being transparent etc), but I am not sure how would go about deciding what is "best" if you compare say one research project in theoretical cosmology with another aiming to develop better vaccines?

I suspect that unless we are careful there is a real risk that this turns into a thread about politics...

 

[Hyperfine]

Moreover, science is very competitive and there isn't nearly enough money to fund all ideas for research that could be done. High-impact publications etc is most definitely not a perfect metric for "good" science, but it does give some indication of how significant your work is considered to be by your peers.

Within this context, how do the professional communities respond the the growing emphasis on Open Science and Public Outreach? How do those charged with hiring decisions, promotion and tenure decisions, and funding decisions view and compare open publications to conventional subscription journal publications? How are junior faculty in particular protected when they openly publish their data and results? Are public outreach activities indicative of a superior candidate?

Different segments of the scientific community appear to be either embracing Open Science (high-energy physics and astronomy) or effectively rejecting the concept (chemistry). At one Ivy League university in the US, junior faculty from a broad range of departments and disciplines compete for a single available tenure position. Within such a competition, how are the different cultural perspectives on scholarly productivity to be approached?

 

[symbolipoint]

That video in post 1 is too long to watch. I got through about 6 minutes. The guy is saying, 'too much of a rush to publish papers'.

The sitar background music is maybe not too distracting.[/size]

 

[Office_Shredder]

At one Ivy League university in the US, junior faculty from a broad range of departments and disciplines compete for a single available tenure position.

Can you explain further? This sounds weird to me.

 

[Hyperfine]

Can you explain further? This sounds weird to me.

It is rather strange. That university does not have tenure track positions. A tenured position becomes available when a faculty member with tenure leaves the university by retirement, death, or moving to another institution. At that time, all junior faculty that can be considered for tenure compete for that now open tenured slot.

A physicist, a musician, a biologist, an historian compete for the same tenured position.

That is my understanding of how that system functions.

 

[Office_Shredder]

It is rather strange. That university does not have tenure track positions. A tenured position becomes available when a faculty member with tenure leaves the university by retirement, death, or moving to another institution. At that time, all junior faculty that can be considered for tenure compete for that now open tenured slot.

A physicist, a musician, a biologist, an historian compete for the same tenured position.

That is my understanding of how that system functions.

Can you just say which school this is? It doesn't seem like this is a secret that no one can know about.

 

[Hyperfine]

Can you just say which school this is? It doesn't seem like this is a secret that no one can know about.

I never implied it was a secret, and certainly I could say which university it is. But what difference does it make which it is beyond being an Ivy League and thus certainly "mainstream"?

 

[BillTre]

But what difference does it make which it is beyond being an Ivy League and thus certainly "mainstream"?

Confirming your information.

 

[gleem]

I thought these articles on tenure might be of interest. First by the American Association of University Professors https://www.aaup.org/issues/tenure and then by an individual giving a more detailed look and the tenuring process https://sueishaqlab.org/2021/03/26/...s a permanent and,legislation began to pop up.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I never implied it was a secret, and certainly I could say which university it is. But what difference does it make which it is beyond being an Ivy League and thus certainly "mainstream"?

You're the one who asked how this mystery school compares faculty from different areas. I don't know how we're supposed to answer that.

Without further info I speculate you're thinking of Harvard and just describing their ad hoc committee badly.

 

[mcastillo356]

Keys to failure in academia. Basically he says that it's all about conforming to the funding organizations' metrics, which don't necessarily have anything to do with good science.

Well, in international maritime law, when two ships collide, the responsibility is, a priori, of both. I haven't seen the video; I sense it's biased. Personally think it's not worth it.
¿keys to failure in academia? My Jesuit education would direct me to look for the part of me that failed.
Love, good wishes.