Andersen, Martin Marchman

Landes, Xavier

Nielsen, Morten Ebbe Juul

English

Copenhagen University Research Information System

u n i ve r s i t y  o f  co pe n h ag e n  Københavns UniversitetOn Academia and Sea ElephantsLandes, Xavier; Andersen, Martin Marchman; Nielsen, Morten Ebbe JuulPublished in:I I A S NewsletterPublication date:2011Document versionEarly version, also known as pre-printCitation for published version (APA):Landes, X., Andersen, M. M., & Nielsen, M. E. J. (2011). On Academia and Sea Elephants. I I A S Newsletter,57, 41-41.Download date: 02. Feb. 2020Opinion: On academia and sea elephantsThe Newsletter | No.57 | Summer 2011The Network | 41The social benefits expected from academia are generally identified as belonging to three broad categories: research, education and contribution to wider society. Universities and higher education institutions are meant  to operate within these fields. However,  evaluating the current state of academia  according to these criteria reveals a somewhat disturbing phenomenon. It seems that an  increased pressure to produce peer-reviewed articles creates an unbalanced emphasis on the research criterion at the expense of the other two. More fatally, the pressure to produce articles has turned  academia into a rat  race; the fundamental  structure of academic  behaviour has been  changed, resulting  in a self-defeating and  counter-productive  pattern.Martin Marchman Andersen, Xavier Landes and Morten Ebbe Juul NielsenTwo further remarks: First of all, it should be recognised  that we are all responsible for this situation. By trying to stand  out from the crowd, we are raising the requirements for every- one else. It resembles what is known in game theory as the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ or social coordination problem. What is rational to do according to immediate self-interest is collectively self-defeating; it is a so-called ‘smart for one, dumb for all’ logic. Secondly, what can be done? One solution raised by, among others, Alain de Botton consists of paying less attention to our relative positions in the publications pecking order.3 But the problem is that standing apart from the competition almost certainly means giving up on the chance of a decent academic position. In the existing system it does not seem to be a viable option. It simply clashes with the structure of incentives that academics face – to publish more than their competitors.Other solutions include restricting the amount of working  hours (which can be seen as a justification for incremental  taxes on extra hours worked) or applying strong negative normative judgements to high achievers, justified by specific social conventions. It is uncertain whether the first option  is enforceable since it is (1) difficult to evaluate the amount  of hours effectively worked and (2) difficult to enforce such  a restriction (especially in a context of international and decentralised competition). Regarding the second option,  some uneasiness stems from its intrusive and indiscriminate character. Peer pressure of this kind could have a healthy impact, but it could also promote a harsh conformism and undermine the positive impact of competition, especially  in an environment that pretends to be innovative.These suggestions illustrate that there is no straightforward solution. A more workable option would be to value achieve-ments and contributions other than publications and, thus,  to expand the array of criteria for evaluating the contributions  of a given academic. It would be even more desirable inasmuch  as more of the social benefits of universities would be produced through cooperation, and not just competition. More coop-eration among academics might bring about the more desirable scenario where fewer but better articles would be published, and at lower psycho-social costs. In order to realise this scenario, we need to move away from a common misconception about academic work, sometimes fostered by academics themselves: the idea of the lonely, secluded genius, developing his or her ideas in isolation, in silent communion with books and papers. As a knowledge producer, academia has always relied on the exchange of ideas, in dialogue, something which is currently being undermined by the extremely competitive behaviour propelled by a heavy reliance on individual production.So, our contention is that combining the idea of the lonely genius with that of ‘more production equals better quality’ engenders the fatal notion that we should structure incentives so as to ‘squeeze as much out of those brainiacs as possible’.  But consider: is it not plausible that a single article, carefully  constructed through dialogue and criticism in academic for- ums, informed by several points of view and academic (sub-)disciplines, can be better, and contribute more (to both research and the public) than 10 highly specialised peer-reviewed articles, read only by those peer reviewers? Certainly, expand-ing the range of criteria will not (and should not) cancel out competition. It will not change the fact that some researchers will fare better than others, but it might result in an academia with better working conditions for those involved and, more importantly, fewer but more qualified articles. However, the  current national and international standards for research eval-uation give the universities no strong incentive to change the current situation. Hardly surprising; but it does confirm that  this is a matter for political attention at the highest levels! Martin Marchman AndersenThe University of Copenhagen, Denmarkmmarch@hum.ku.dkXavier LandesThe University of Copenhagen, Denmarkxlandes@hum.ku.dkMorten Ebbe Juul NielsenThe University of Copenhagen, Denmarkmejn@hum.ku.dkNotes1  Kinman, Gali et al. 2006. ‘The Well-being of the UK Academy, 1998-2004’, Quality in Higher Education, 12:1, pp.15-272  Frank, Robert. 1999. Luxury Fever: Why Money Fails to Satisfy in an Era of Excess. New York: The Free Press. pp.150-23  De Botton, Alain. 2004. Status Anxiety. New York: Vintage BooksWhAT Do yoU ThiNk? Share your views by posting a comment at www.iias.nl/newsletter-57.THe NUMBeR OF WORKING HOURS among academics and researchers is on a constant rise. They bracket their lives and devote ever increasing amounts of time and energy to their work, which often impacts their personal life. They spend less and less time with their partners, children, relatives or friends; they experience loneliness and stress. A study published some years ago on the well-being of academics in Great Britain found that their levels of psychological distress were worse than  those of accident and emergency staff (nurses and doctors).1 Almost half of British academics experience levels of stress requiring medical intervention. In our experience, this pattern is consistent across europe and North America: different places, different people, same story.It seems plausible that at least a part of this pattern can be explained by the increased pressure to produce articles in peer-reviewed journals – certainly within the humanities and social sciences – since that has become the main criterion of evaluation. Terrific levels of productivity in this one domain have now become the prerequisite for obtaining tenure or funding, and the exigency has become even more pressing in a context of economic downturn. (To be clear here, the point is not to abandon the principle of competition, but nevertheless: endorsing competition as a principle does not mean accepting all the potential flaws that follow from a particular structure of competition.) In any case, this over-emphasis comes at the cost of other social benefits and, as we shall argue, even at the cost of the thing which it is supposed to foster, namely quality research. As a result, academics are stuck in a ‘race to the bottom’.Let us elaborate this last point: When applying for a position, the chances of being hired do not just depend on your absolute level of publications, but on how much you have published relative to your competitors. Of course, job applications mention other criteria such as the ability to teach, the ability to raise external funds and sometimes other fussy conditions like personality traits, and so forth. But, in the end, it is almost exclusively how much you produce in comparison with people around you that counts. As a result, anyone involved in the competition faces a strong incentive to publish, and therefore everyone raises the standards for all.The behaviour of male sea elephants seems to be analogous: The bigger a male is, the higher his chances of beating his  opponents during fights and, thus, gaining access to the females. In this evolutionary process the competition has reached a level where males often suffocate females during  the reproductive act due to their excessive dimensions.2 If one considers that the purpose of inflation is to maximise  the reproductive performance of males, a self-defeating dynamic is clearly at work here.We should remind ourselves that ‘to publish more’ is not  an intrinsic good. First, to be useful a publication should bring forth some new insight. The more academics are pressured  to publish, the more they tend to publish everything. Most  of us have received similar advice from an older colleague:  ‘no matter what: just publish, publish everything’.Consequently, the standard volume of published work is rising for everyone and, everything else being equal, the quality of everyone’s publications must be going down.Secondly, it is a banal point, but someone should read it. If not, there is no advantage at all to be had. Again, the more academics are pressured to publish, the less they pay attention to each other’s work, for the simple reason that they won’t have the time to read other people’s stuff. The picture is quite absurd. The average number of readers per academic article varies from below 1 (it is an average) to a handful of people.  A common joke among academics is to say that, on average, four people read an article: the two anonymous referees,  the author herself and her mother.More seriously, why put such an emphasis on publications  if so few people actually access the knowledge? It is part-icularly worrying if we consider the fact that the majority  of ‘innovation’ flows from our ability to produce new ideas  that will be discussed by peers. Academia has always been  a community of ideas based on the confrontation of argu-ments and enquiries. It has been this way because this kind of  human interaction produces the most benefits. But, in reality, academia appears more like a rat race. The point here is that  it has become impossible to read everything of value – or just  a reasonable selection of it – that is published in each our fields. The chance is high that we will lose track of some important contributions, new developments and occasions to produce better research. Moreover, in order to publish something, we are forced into ever higher degrees of specialisation. Consequently, we find ourselves locked in highly specific,  tall and narrow ivory towers, with very little knowledge  about the forest of ivory towers surrounding us. If we take the question to another level, the problem is  that publications are only one kind of social benefit that  a society can expect from its higher education. Colleges and universities also have an educational purpose. They are supposed to offer valuable courses and consistent peda- gogical follow-up. If we were completely rational, we would  be forced to see teaching as a burden, time wasted for our  research and publications. In Denmark where we work, the most efficient researchers are usually relieved of their teaching duties and this ‘burden’ then falls largely on the shoulders  of young researchers, who actually need more time for their own research and cannot provide the quality of teaching  normally associated with well-established professors. Moreover, while specialisation might be productive in the natural sciences (though there are good reasons to doubt  this as well), specialisation within the humanities makes  fertile points of contact between individual scholars and society ever harder to achieve. In terms of the third social benefit – contribution to wider society – why should we bother writing popular articles, contributing to social debates, organising conferences  open to a wider public, since these activities will not help  us to get a position or gain recognition from our employers?  As a result, society is losing some of its richness and the social benefit produced by universities is declining. In sum, the gap  is increasing between researchers in their ivory towers and  the rest of society. Without advocating for the return of the intellectuels engagés of the last century, it is still plausible to find it regrettable that academics in the humanities and social sciences are largely absent from the public scene.When applying for a position, the chances of being hired do not just depend on your absolute level of publications, but on how much you have published relative to your competitors.Above: Are academicpublications lists as bloated? Sea elephants on Amsterdam island  in the indian ocean.  Photo by StormPetrel1.

On Academia and Sea Elephants

https://curis.ku.dk/portal/files/36045421/IIAS_NL57_41.pdf

On Academia and Sea Elephants

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Copenhagen University Research Information System