The Fetishization of Excellence
June 19, 2016 10:09 AM Subscribe
In Excellence R Us: University Research and the Fetishisation of Excellence (commentable version here) the authors "...examine how excellence rhetoric combines with narratives of scarcity and competition and show that hypercompetition that arises leads to a performance of 'excellence' that is completely at odds with the qualities of good research." Inverse interviews one of the authors. Times Higher Education interviews another.
The paper's preprint went viral, with 20,000 views in the first 24 hours. A senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool comments, after a meeting on the UK's Research Excellence Framework: "...this attitude to management of research, focusing on excellence and 4* papers, is not visionary and not world leading. It is what everyone else is doing with disastrous consequences. It is not setting the scene and it is not ambitious."
The paper's preprint went viral, with 20,000 views in the first 24 hours. A senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool comments, after a meeting on the UK's Research Excellence Framework: "...this attitude to management of research, focusing on excellence and 4* papers, is not visionary and not world leading. It is what everyone else is doing with disastrous consequences. It is not setting the scene and it is not ambitious."
There was some discussion in our group about getting our (federal government) sponsor to highlight some of our research on their website. Our communications person queried them, and got this response "We only highlight results published in Nature, Science or PNAS". Unfortunately, these journals tend to publish "discoveries" rather than science: the first example of X. They have a very high impact factor, because everyone who follows will reference that first article, but because the topic is so new there is rarely good information included. As noted in the FPP article, the higher the impact the journal the more likely the results will be disproven.
posted by 445supermag at 10:31 AM on June 19, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by 445supermag at 10:31 AM on June 19, 2016 [10 favorites]
"Excellence" was a very popular MBA-speak concept in the 80s and it probably became current in Universities due to the increasing influence of business culture on administrators.
posted by thelonius at 10:32 AM on June 19, 2016 [29 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 10:32 AM on June 19, 2016 [29 favorites]
The need to appear “excellent” may even encourage fraud by scientists, the paper claims, as “hypercompetition” for career advancement, publication in “top” journals and research grants has increased.
It stresses that it is not against the “pursuit of quality per se” but the concentration of resources on only the “excellent”, which leads to “the intense competition to make it into the top few percent”.
This is consistent with my observations as university staff working directly with faculty. As grant resources tighten, competition for scarce funds becomes more intense and desperate. The granting agencies exacerbate this by adding more and more requirements to funding. I work in tech transfer, and have been observing that DoE and especially ARPA-E have been emphasizing commercialization and go-to-market plans, even for basic research grants. This places even more stress on the researchers, who may not want to work on that aspect of their science or technology, but are now forced to.
"Excellence" was a very popular MBA-speak concept in the 80s and it probably became current in Universities due to the increasing influence of business culture on administrators.
'Innovation' is another, and has infiltrated the academy in a ridiculous way.
posted by Existential Dread at 10:38 AM on June 19, 2016 [17 favorites]
It stresses that it is not against the “pursuit of quality per se” but the concentration of resources on only the “excellent”, which leads to “the intense competition to make it into the top few percent”.
This is consistent with my observations as university staff working directly with faculty. As grant resources tighten, competition for scarce funds becomes more intense and desperate. The granting agencies exacerbate this by adding more and more requirements to funding. I work in tech transfer, and have been observing that DoE and especially ARPA-E have been emphasizing commercialization and go-to-market plans, even for basic research grants. This places even more stress on the researchers, who may not want to work on that aspect of their science or technology, but are now forced to.
"Excellence" was a very popular MBA-speak concept in the 80s and it probably became current in Universities due to the increasing influence of business culture on administrators.
'Innovation' is another, and has infiltrated the academy in a ridiculous way.
posted by Existential Dread at 10:38 AM on June 19, 2016 [17 favorites]
Excellent Innovation Required.
posted by sammyo at 10:45 AM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 10:45 AM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
The paper's preprint went viral, with20,000 views in the first 24 hours.
Hm. Sounds like a pretty excellent piece.
posted by sexyrobot at 10:57 AM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hm. Sounds like a pretty excellent piece.
posted by sexyrobot at 10:57 AM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's a service van that shows up at our condo building now and then which carries the motto, "People Committed to Excellence". I'm still not sure exactly what they do. Maybe plumbing? Or maybe they fix the constantly-broken elevators. Or HVAC? Probably one of those things.
posted by clawsoon at 11:11 AM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 11:11 AM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sorry, but this is all I think of when I hear any form of the word "Excellent".
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:11 AM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:11 AM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
this is all about management culture undermining culture. Everyone knows this is wrong, but no one has the arguments for change. If someone here would come up with them, they'd be nobel-potential, because this hurts research across the globe, and even at the most privileged places
I have a colleague who is in every way an excellent scholar. They are also likable and hard-working. Only problem is that their research is not relevant and never will be. And that problem migrates into other problems. Since everything they do is perfect, management wants to support this person, and allocates basic research funding their direction. This means relevant knowledge is not prioritized. I will get fired if I expose the true facts, but imagine a genius midwife getting full tenure at a department of brain surgery. No one can blame the midwife — she's a genius. But brain surgery is a whole other game.
posted by mumimor at 11:14 AM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
I have a colleague who is in every way an excellent scholar. They are also likable and hard-working. Only problem is that their research is not relevant and never will be. And that problem migrates into other problems. Since everything they do is perfect, management wants to support this person, and allocates basic research funding their direction. This means relevant knowledge is not prioritized. I will get fired if I expose the true facts, but imagine a genius midwife getting full tenure at a department of brain surgery. No one can blame the midwife — she's a genius. But brain surgery is a whole other game.
posted by mumimor at 11:14 AM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Relevant" to what? It might not be relevant to what you're doing or what you think is important, but in an environment where funding and resources are as scarce as they are, it's practically impossible to imagine someone being rewarded for completely pointless, if wonderfully executed, research. Brain surgery isn't inherently better than midwifery, and if she's able to make the case that her midwifery is even more worthy of support than your brain surgery to the goals of the department, then ... it seems like the fault isn't hers.
posted by ChuraChura at 11:19 AM on June 19, 2016 [26 favorites]
posted by ChuraChura at 11:19 AM on June 19, 2016 [26 favorites]
The quality or condition of being excellent.
posted by migurski at 11:37 AM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by migurski at 11:37 AM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
Al Davis was the innovator in fetishizing excellence.
(He stole it from Lombardi who told his players when they complained he was working them too hard that they would "achieve excellence through pursuing perfection".)
posted by bukvich at 11:49 AM on June 19, 2016
(He stole it from Lombardi who told his players when they complained he was working them too hard that they would "achieve excellence through pursuing perfection".)
posted by bukvich at 11:49 AM on June 19, 2016
it seems like the fault isn't hers.
There is no doubt that she has no fault. The fault lies with management, but it is mainly structural. In a sane system, patients would be able to sue if their brain surgeon turns out to be a midwife. (This is all allegorical). But in the current system, the system can sue anyone who complains.
posted by mumimor at 11:54 AM on June 19, 2016
There is no doubt that she has no fault. The fault lies with management, but it is mainly structural. In a sane system, patients would be able to sue if their brain surgeon turns out to be a midwife. (This is all allegorical). But in the current system, the system can sue anyone who complains.
posted by mumimor at 11:54 AM on June 19, 2016
I guess I don't understand your analogy, then.
posted by ChuraChura at 12:07 PM on June 19, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by ChuraChura at 12:07 PM on June 19, 2016 [11 favorites]
It is good to be excellent, but do not neglect to also party on, dudes.
posted by sfenders at 12:21 PM on June 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by sfenders at 12:21 PM on June 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
Steps to a successful NIH/NSF proposal
1) do basic research while funded for something else
2) get a positive result
3) apply for grant to do the research in (1) that lead to (2)
posted by zippy at 12:24 PM on June 19, 2016 [22 favorites]
1) do basic research while funded for something else
2) get a positive result
3) apply for grant to do the research in (1) that lead to (2)
posted by zippy at 12:24 PM on June 19, 2016 [22 favorites]
See also: ‘Novel, amazing, innovative’: positive words on the rise in science papers. Analysis suggests an increasing tendency to exaggerate and polarize results.
Paper: Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis.
posted by carter at 12:30 PM on June 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
Paper: Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis.
posted by carter at 12:30 PM on June 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
zippy: I've heard similar advice, not as a joke, for math/cs-theory NSF proposals:
posted by erniepan at 12:43 PM on June 19, 2016 [11 favorites]
- Write a good 15-page paper.
- Starting on page 8, remove all proofs and change all verbs to future tense.
- Add NSF boilerplate and submit.
posted by erniepan at 12:43 PM on June 19, 2016 [11 favorites]
It's all word magic. Yes. In the 80's it was all about "excellence." Then we had "innovation." Now we have "disruption." Just using these magic words makes it so. What I don't understand is how people have fallen for what is an almost religious use of language. If I don't call it excellent no one will believe me. I guess the moral of the story is that grant money comes to those who use the right incantations.
posted by njohnson23 at 1:13 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 1:13 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
According to Google, disruption was big in the mid-70s, too.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 1:32 PM on June 19, 2016
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 1:32 PM on June 19, 2016
Yes, but the '70s had a much less profit-friendly form of Disruption.
And the current Silicon Valley/New Billionaire version of a lot of words have little relationship to previously agreed-upon definitions. "Social", "Influence", "Engagement", "Agile", "Curator" and, yes, "Excellence"... And remember when "Viral" was a BAD thing?
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:57 PM on June 19, 2016
And the current Silicon Valley/New Billionaire version of a lot of words have little relationship to previously agreed-upon definitions. "Social", "Influence", "Engagement", "Agile", "Curator" and, yes, "Excellence"... And remember when "Viral" was a BAD thing?
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:57 PM on June 19, 2016
This reads like a much needed antidote to prevailing enculturated discourse. The authors demonstrate a good insight, that it's not the neoliberal outside world but rather the equivalent values, outlooks, and unexamined beliefs that academics internalize. For the cream of the crop institutions, this disciplining runs so deep that the public, explicit "excellence" narrative becomes implicit--we're just more clever at obscuring it for the purposes of day-to-day life/existence within the ivory tower.
posted by polymodus at 2:57 PM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 2:57 PM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
I blame Bill and Ted.
posted by srboisvert at 3:09 PM on June 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 3:09 PM on June 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
Within the context of UK REF mostly what they produce are schools that are excellent at gaming the REF. So they get excellence. Just not the excellence they wanted.
posted by srboisvert at 3:14 PM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 3:14 PM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Walk into any shopping-mall bookstore, go to the rack where they keep the best-sellers such as 'Garfield Gets Spayed,' and you`ll see a half-dozen books telling you how to be excellent: 'In Search of Excellence,' 'Finding Excellence,' 'Grasping Hold of Excellence,' 'Where to Hide Your Excellence at Night So the Cleaning Personnel Don't Steal It,' etc."
posted by praemunire at 3:26 PM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 3:26 PM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
'Innovation' is another, and has infiltrated the academy in a ridiculous way.
My university, which has struggled with cutbacks that have slashed budgets and frozen faculty hires, recently created an entirely new high-level admin position dedicated to innovation, whose first public statement was 'A culture of innovation and entrepreneurship involves collectively committing to audacious goals and having the drive to achieve them with excellence.' Her qualifications? Being CEO of a startup and giving interviews in which she claimed that 'We monetize our games using a freemium model.'
Empty business-speak trifecta, FTW.
posted by googly at 3:27 PM on June 19, 2016 [20 favorites]
My university, which has struggled with cutbacks that have slashed budgets and frozen faculty hires, recently created an entirely new high-level admin position dedicated to innovation, whose first public statement was 'A culture of innovation and entrepreneurship involves collectively committing to audacious goals and having the drive to achieve them with excellence.' Her qualifications? Being CEO of a startup and giving interviews in which she claimed that 'We monetize our games using a freemium model.'
Empty business-speak trifecta, FTW.
posted by googly at 3:27 PM on June 19, 2016 [20 favorites]
Googly, that quote actually means something. It's just not particularly positive when stated plainly: "We profit because the first hit is free."
posted by pwnguin at 3:33 PM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by pwnguin at 3:33 PM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
Oh I'm well aware that 'freemium' means something. So does 'innovation' and, for that matter, 'excellence.' But the fact that a word means something in some contexts doesn't mean that it is meaningful in all contexts. Corporate double-speak works precisely because it can be parsed as meaningful while still being essentially meaningless.
posted by googly at 3:46 PM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by googly at 3:46 PM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
More on business excellence, with a helping of leadership. I thought this article was astute and very funny.
posted by sneebler at 4:44 PM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sneebler at 4:44 PM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is unbelievably relevant, as someone on the tenure-track I have been losing my damn mind recently after realizing two years ago my department chair's annual letter in my file said my work was "excellent" and last year it was "very good." All my other colleagues tenure dossiers mention something like "My supervisor recently called my work 'excellent'" and now I'm figuring out how to bring up my concern that I get back on the "excellent" description train during this annual review.
It's crazy-making, seriously.
posted by mostly vowels at 4:52 PM on June 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's crazy-making, seriously.
posted by mostly vowels at 4:52 PM on June 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
According to Google, disruption was big in the mid-70s, too.Achievement peaked in the 70s but seems to have been in decline since then.
Then of course there's outstanding achievement in the field of excellence.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 5:22 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
More on business excellence, with a helping of leadership. I thought this article was astute and very funny.
Yes indeed. From the article (bold-emphasis mine):
Koresh actually isn’t a bad parallel, though. Leadership education is distinctly religious in its feel; it’s full of recitations and rituals. Dozens of arbitrary dogmas are accepted as revealed truth; God help you if you raise your hand and say that the “9 Stages of Empowered Decisionmaking” (or whatever) seem like a bunch of opaque redundancies. Of course, that means it’s not training for leadership at all; it’s training for conformity. “Leadership” just means “being in management,” since the sorts of people who actually make leaders don’t memorize multi-step diagrams on how to lead.
posted by philip-random at 6:09 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes indeed. From the article (bold-emphasis mine):
Koresh actually isn’t a bad parallel, though. Leadership education is distinctly religious in its feel; it’s full of recitations and rituals. Dozens of arbitrary dogmas are accepted as revealed truth; God help you if you raise your hand and say that the “9 Stages of Empowered Decisionmaking” (or whatever) seem like a bunch of opaque redundancies. Of course, that means it’s not training for leadership at all; it’s training for conformity. “Leadership” just means “being in management,” since the sorts of people who actually make leaders don’t memorize multi-step diagrams on how to lead.
posted by philip-random at 6:09 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Of course it's religious -- it serves to mark outsiders as anathema, since outsiders might call your bluff and ask you to prove that your God can actually do great things. Those in the cult know that the real job is to amass money and power from those gullible enough not to call bullshit.
posted by benzenedream at 7:13 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by benzenedream at 7:13 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Relevant" to what? It might not be relevant to what you're doing or what you think is important, but in an environment where funding and resources are as scarce as they are, it's practically impossible to imagine someone being rewarded for completely pointless, if wonderfully executed, research.
"Relevant" is a broad word, and taken broadly I agree with the above. At the same time, in the social sciences, there is definitely an enormous amount of highly prioritized "socially relevant" research that, given the underlying methodology and the nature of the questions, has virtually no chance of producing generalizable knowledge. I'm thinking specifically of the funded attempts to try to determine "what works" in social intervention programs, educational media, and other topics, by decomposing specific, historically contextualized situations into some number of variables, with the underlying assumption being that eventually we will get down to the right variables, the right models, and be able to predict outcomes regardless of historical context. ... If you ask me, this is just not going to work given the dynamic complexity of human cultural life.
posted by patrickdbyers at 7:33 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Relevant" is a broad word, and taken broadly I agree with the above. At the same time, in the social sciences, there is definitely an enormous amount of highly prioritized "socially relevant" research that, given the underlying methodology and the nature of the questions, has virtually no chance of producing generalizable knowledge. I'm thinking specifically of the funded attempts to try to determine "what works" in social intervention programs, educational media, and other topics, by decomposing specific, historically contextualized situations into some number of variables, with the underlying assumption being that eventually we will get down to the right variables, the right models, and be able to predict outcomes regardless of historical context. ... If you ask me, this is just not going to work given the dynamic complexity of human cultural life.
posted by patrickdbyers at 7:33 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
"We only highlight results published in Nature, Science or PNAS".
In a more sane world this would be recognized for the corruption that it is.
posted by 1adam12 at 8:17 PM on June 19, 2016
In a more sane world this would be recognized for the corruption that it is.
posted by 1adam12 at 8:17 PM on June 19, 2016
>"it's practically impossible to imagine someone being rewarded for completely pointless, if wonderfully executed, research."
Do you really believe this? I'm not being argumentative; I'm genuinely inquiring.
I certainly feel as if I might have been the recipient of rewards for some research that was more about quality than how much of a point it had.
posted by surenoproblem at 9:29 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Do you really believe this? I'm not being argumentative; I'm genuinely inquiring.
I certainly feel as if I might have been the recipient of rewards for some research that was more about quality than how much of a point it had.
posted by surenoproblem at 9:29 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
New Zealand academics Sean Sturm and Stephen Turner have some more insights into how the global spread of the language of academic excellence helps create a stultifying intellectual monoculture:
posted by Sonny Jim at 4:59 AM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Education becomes a process of continuous improvement by producing processes of its measure, or processes to measure improvement. ‘Excellence’, a.k.a. ‘international best practice’, is the measure ... Academic econometrics does little else than effectively incorporate academics and students within a larger corporate structure that maps, more or less happily, onto other such corporate bodies nationally and transnationally. It exemplifies the preset programming or templating by which technocapitalism works: in the application of econometrics as standard practice and ‘international best practice’ in the university (a business model), we see the emergence of the template university, which creates, as a public (economic) good, the template student. The template student is merely the raw material—and funding unit—of the new university. This student isn’t any actual student from any actual place but an aggregate—an account or count—of the design objectives and outcomes of the course,which themselves align with those of the faculty and university, and the design drive of neoliberal technocapitalism as enacted in the [University] 2.0. The template student is the countable product of this university, and the new model citizen of the global commons being established by technocapitalism.Sean Sturm and Stephen Turner, Cardinal Newman in the Crystal Palace: The Idea of the University Today, Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor 20 (2012): 58-68.
posted by Sonny Jim at 4:59 AM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
If you don't want to log in at Academia.edu, Sturm and Turner's paper is available in PDF at the journal itself, which is open access.
posted by rory at 6:01 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by rory at 6:01 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
My point is that relevant means a lot of different things. My research on monkey stress is not hugely relevant to, say, solving food insecurity, but it does fit with the aims of my department to understand health in humans across evolutionary and cross cultural time. I have heard students studying things like food security complaining that I won a departmental grant because honestly, all I study is monkeys and how does that help? I didn't get funded because of my research excellence alone, I got funded because it is a good project and I articulated why it fits in with the grant's aim. I've also not received a grant and gotten the feedback that "This is a great and interesting project, but it's not anthropological enough for us to fund it."
I'm just saying, in this cutthroat funding climate, nobody's getting money or honors just got having well done research. It has to be well done research that you can make a strong argument explaining why it fits in with the goals of the department, funding body, journal, or what have you. At least, that's been my experience.
posted by ChuraChura at 6:21 AM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm just saying, in this cutthroat funding climate, nobody's getting money or honors just got having well done research. It has to be well done research that you can make a strong argument explaining why it fits in with the goals of the department, funding body, journal, or what have you. At least, that's been my experience.
posted by ChuraChura at 6:21 AM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
Re: Excellence
"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."
Goodhart's law.
posted by lalochezia at 9:51 AM on June 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."
Goodhart's law.
posted by lalochezia at 9:51 AM on June 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
Can anyone tell me what the 4* papers are? Is that IF >4? or a set of top journals (Science, Nature, NEJM, Cell)?
In biomedical research, the new favourite metric is translational research; basic research is definitely not popular any more, despite being the foundation from which translational outcomes become achievable (think antibodies, restriction enzymes, CRISPR). Here in Oz we're seeing a "correction" (read: brain drain) in the number of scientists. The basic researchers are the first to go.
posted by kisch mokusch at 5:55 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
In biomedical research, the new favourite metric is translational research; basic research is definitely not popular any more, despite being the foundation from which translational outcomes become achievable (think antibodies, restriction enzymes, CRISPR). Here in Oz we're seeing a "correction" (read: brain drain) in the number of scientists. The basic researchers are the first to go.
posted by kisch mokusch at 5:55 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
A 4* output reflects, according to the REF, "Quality that is world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour."
I hope that helps.
posted by Sonny Jim at 6:11 AM on June 21, 2016
I hope that helps.
posted by Sonny Jim at 6:11 AM on June 21, 2016
Okay, right, thanks. I read the line as a descriptor for the journal, not the paper.
I agree with the sentiments expressed in the article and blog, by and large. Measuring scientific research has always been a difficult (if not impossible) process, since no scientific endeavour is ever the same as another. I think the article plays down the utility of publication citations as a useful metric a bit too much (there is stochasm there, but papers with 10K citations do not get there by chance). I certainly agree that the current reward system is a breeding ground for error and fraud, which I think is the biggest issue.
posted by kisch mokusch at 6:37 AM on June 21, 2016
I agree with the sentiments expressed in the article and blog, by and large. Measuring scientific research has always been a difficult (if not impossible) process, since no scientific endeavour is ever the same as another. I think the article plays down the utility of publication citations as a useful metric a bit too much (there is stochasm there, but papers with 10K citations do not get there by chance). I certainly agree that the current reward system is a breeding ground for error and fraud, which I think is the biggest issue.
posted by kisch mokusch at 6:37 AM on June 21, 2016
The rhetoric of modern research - what's sold to the multi-millionaires who build the shiny new research buildings, anyway - seems to be some combination of Einstein and Steve Jobs. It's going to be fundamental science that'll immediately transform technology, that's how excellent our Centre for Excellence is.
posted by clawsoon at 12:00 PM on June 21, 2016
posted by clawsoon at 12:00 PM on June 21, 2016
My university...recently created an entirely new high-level admin position dedicated to innovation
Ha, so did mine (I checked your profile to see if we work in the same place- apparently not). I was even thinking of applying for it. I'm not a corporate drone (although if I was, would I know it?), I just hate seeing the outrageous inefficiencies cemented in workflows all throughout this place. Everyone rolls their eyes and says, oh well, that's how it's always be done, as though nothing could possibly ever change. What a waste! Surely there is room for thoughtful (and yes, profitable) change in an academic institution without going full fetish.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:20 PM on June 21, 2016
Ha, so did mine (I checked your profile to see if we work in the same place- apparently not). I was even thinking of applying for it. I'm not a corporate drone (although if I was, would I know it?), I just hate seeing the outrageous inefficiencies cemented in workflows all throughout this place. Everyone rolls their eyes and says, oh well, that's how it's always be done, as though nothing could possibly ever change. What a waste! Surely there is room for thoughtful (and yes, profitable) change in an academic institution without going full fetish.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:20 PM on June 21, 2016
TPS, that's why I mentioned who they hired for the position. I'm not opposed to a VP of innovation per se. Having someone to advocate for encouraging faculty to take risks and do stuff that is audacious would be great. But I think the most basic requirement for that would be someone who has, you know, actually done research or at the absolute minimum knows what a research environment is like. But instead they hired someone whose experience consists entirely of marketing socially-conscious gamification apps.
So yes, plenty of room for improving efficiency, reducing waste, and setting the groundwork for innovative research. For example, we could change the tenure process to reward genuinely exciting research instead of publish-or-perish quantitative metrics. But I really doubt that's what is going to happen when your main criterion for hiring seems to be spouting empty jargon.
posted by googly at 3:37 PM on June 21, 2016
So yes, plenty of room for improving efficiency, reducing waste, and setting the groundwork for innovative research. For example, we could change the tenure process to reward genuinely exciting research instead of publish-or-perish quantitative metrics. But I really doubt that's what is going to happen when your main criterion for hiring seems to be spouting empty jargon.
posted by googly at 3:37 PM on June 21, 2016
There is one sure way to improve research results : Fire the bureaucrats who waste researchers' time with stupidity. And the bureaucrats who waste their students time. And spend that money to hire more researchers, support visitors, travel support, etc.
There is otoh a serious problem with nepotism in academia that seems much worse in Europe than in the U.S. due mostly to country size. If you want to fix this, staff your hiring committees with professors who work abroad. In particular, you need to organize them with several months notice, not the few weeks common in the U.K.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:33 AM on June 25, 2016
There is otoh a serious problem with nepotism in academia that seems much worse in Europe than in the U.S. due mostly to country size. If you want to fix this, staff your hiring committees with professors who work abroad. In particular, you need to organize them with several months notice, not the few weeks common in the U.K.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:33 AM on June 25, 2016
« Older Happy Father's Day! | African and African American Studies: Introduction... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by biogeo at 10:13 AM on June 19, 2016 [9 favorites]