On the peril of applying standards from one country to the next (or US research expectations should not be universal).
(Part one of two)
An early career scholar recently commented, that their country was becoming more like the United States - in terms of research expectations.
I asked how?
They explained that they had to publish in top business journals, which were mostly US-based.
They explained that they were still expected to land grants & teach (a lot).
To me, it feels like a catastrophe.
I've spent twenty years visiting scholars in different countries. I have learned every system differs.
While people focused on scholarship in each country, the way they pursued it, how they managed teams, & how they lived differed - sometimes dramatically.
For example, in some countries, scholars only cared about top papers, while In other countries, scholars possessed more freedom - publishing in many outlets.
More importantly, values about how we relate to the world & live as scholars vary. The conversation in Europe was about impact & balance. The conversation in the United States was starting to acknowledge impact & balance. The conversation in China, it was somewhere in between - focused on impact & less on balance.
To change incentive systems, to the US system, will disrupt this bricolage of ideas & values, in ways that make the global academic community stronger.
So why is this happening?
First, the world of uni leaders is a bit flatter.
Flatter in the sense that "n of publications" is now transparent & uni's share productivity information across country boundaries.
We are seeing shared norms emerge among uni leaders about what it means to be a productive scholar.
Second, uni leaders have converged on performance metrics.
A simple metric is counting journal papers.
This lets them compare their faculty to other places.
Third, uni leaders have more pressure to explain value to external audiences.
Being able to say they have "ranked scholars" based on "n papers", helps them justify hiring decisions & resource investments.
Fourth, due to this isomorphic pressure, research requirements are climbing.
More & more, I hear "n" mentioned in top journals for tenure & promotion.
Fifth, while demanding more papers, many uni's are not receiving more resources.
Absent more resources & time, there is extraordinary pressure on scholars.
Ok. It doesn't feel like a catastrophe. It is a catastrophe.
This mismatch between research goals & resources creates a bullwhip effect.
Metrics based on a narrower set of journals, which publish a smaller range of ideas, introduce fear to the lives of early career scholars - bc even with resources, there are no promises you can publish.
We see more PhD students opt out of academe. We see more compromises around teaching to focus on research. We see less impactful research bc people must publish.
It's a hot mess.
We need a conversation about a more positive way forward. More later!
Comments