So much of science is predicated on the idea that it's an extreme privilege to work on something intellectual, rather than something overtly profitable. In a capitalist society, these pursuits are tolerated, but only in small amounts.
-
So much of science is predicated on the idea that it's an extreme privilege to work on something intellectual, rather than something overtly profitable. In a capitalist society, these pursuits are tolerated, but only in small amounts.
Because of this rare privilege, there's an overwhelming pressure to deliver. Papers, certainly, but also grants: that is, doing research that attracts investors.
To be fair, there is limited funding, but that's a choice. That's about how we spend our tax money, and how Universities prioritize internally.
The truly maddening part is that this "productivity" academia obsesses over mostly comes from under-paid, precarious workers, like grad students, postdocs, and associate professors.
Tenure is for the elite, and most of the output comes from folks working tirelessly but futilely to gain insider status. Science is fueled by their burn-out.
-
@ngaylinn Nate, I think I disagree with your framing in one important way: I’ve always seen the unique feature of being an academic that society is paying me to work on *whatever I choose*. That’s incredible!
People paying tax with income from horrible, deadening, stifling jobs, are paying me so I can sit there and spend a good amount of time thinking about whatever I want. How could that *not* come with a need for accountability and pressure to produce?
it’s not just about capitalism
-
@UlrikeHahn I appreciate that perspective, and I think it's incredible that folks in academia have that sort of freedom! I don't want to be dismissive of that, because it matters a lot.
On the other hand, I want to push back on two assumptions in what you just said. Why should the market decide what you're allowed to work on? Why must people work dreadful jobs to earn an income, which must then be taxed to accommodate the sciences?
These are both aspects of how we have designed our society. They would seem very strange to most of our ancestors, and to many people around the world today. Things could be different. For one thing, a Universal Basic Income would radically change this equation!
Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I worry so much of science's trouble is we've convinced ourselves the current dysfunction is how it has to be.
-
@ngaylinn Thanks Nate. One clarification, I *don’t* (at all!) think the market should decide what we work on. I see the problem as one of responsibility or democratic legitimacy. I’m also not disagreeing with you that capitalism (or other things like political interests) are, to varying extents across different countries, exerting specific negative pressures that make things worse. I’m just trying to say that there’s a really fundamental, hard to balance trade off in the middle of this too
-
@ngaylinn I don’t think UBI, here, would fix things, but I agree the problem is about resource allocation. Relatedly, your description of an exploited worker class and a tenured elite also doesn’t really match my experience. Not that there isn’t exploitation of students and ECRs (there is) but because I don’t really see a fat cat tenured elite around me, not just because the UK has no tenure. Senior academics have better paychecks but many I see really struggle to manage the demands of the job
-
@UlrikeHahn I think a UBI would help enormously, but it would not fix everything, certainly.
Also: the image of fat cat tenured professors is a myth! I did not mean to imply that at all, and I appreciate you calling it out explicitly.
This is one of the problems with elitism generally: it comes with many layers. Being an insider grants you certain privileges—most notably stability—but it doesn't imply you have any real power. These things are usually hierarchical. The insidious thing is that those with more power within the system exploit those with less to do the work of filtering.
I feel bad for the professors, too! They are also exploited, overworked, and underpaid. This dynamic of artificial scarcity is bad for everyone. (See my recent post about elitism, this thread is just an extension of that)
-
@ngaylinn thinking more on this, I think my perceptions of academia and science have sort of split over the years. Certain things like competition for resources or the fact that it’s ultimately a democratic decision how much science a society wants to fund make things that will always be difficult for individuals seem unavoidable. At the same time, it feels like there is a lot of avoidable dysfunction that just adds up. I think it makes me feel less like one big thing is to blame.