The publication cycle is vicious. We hear a lot about the hard-working academic, but it won’t change until researchers themselves decide it’s not worth it. And please don’t tell me it’s about promotions. That’s a small part of the story.
A typical tenure is far more secure than an industry position, yet many of my colleagues work just as hard, if not harder, than the assistant profs hoping to obtain tenure. To date, I haven’t heard a good reason for why they keep working so hard. It’s never mother dying or bills to pay. Rather they are always wishy-washy reasons that hide the real truth: They like it. They enjoy it. It gives them meaning and purpose. Not to mention sabbaticals: I see senior faculty frequently delaying sabbaticals too, for reasons as varied as the individuals themselves and none of them ring true. I often ask, “Do you really think committee A or initiative B would not survive without you?” They hem and haw, but have no concrete statements to back up their reasoning. And don’t get me started on academics who continue to practice into the 70s and 80s, well past their best before date. Most can’t even remember the names of their grad students. It’s pure hubris. The norm should be retiring to teaching-only roles, and hand the mantle of research over to the younger faculty or stepping away from the lab they created by selecting a successor. Rather, it’s the exception.
If all the senior faculty across academia collectively took a break in the same timeframe, say one or two months every year, it would create opportunities for the younger members to step in and shine in their own way across the stratum of activities. Publications receiving fewer (and invited!) papers from senior academics would accept more research from the juniors, there would be more openings on committees. There would be greater career growth at the early stages.
In short, the inmates are at least partly responsible for the rules of the asylum.
A typical tenure is far more secure than an industry position, yet many of my colleagues work just as hard, if not harder, than the assistant profs hoping to obtain tenure. To date, I haven’t heard a good reason for why they keep working so hard. It’s never mother dying or bills to pay. Rather they are always wishy-washy reasons that hide the real truth: They like it. They enjoy it. It gives them meaning and purpose. Not to mention sabbaticals: I see senior faculty frequently delaying sabbaticals too, for reasons as varied as the individuals themselves and none of them ring true. I often ask, “Do you really think committee A or initiative B would not survive without you?” They hem and haw, but have no concrete statements to back up their reasoning. And don’t get me started on academics who continue to practice into the 70s and 80s, well past their best before date. Most can’t even remember the names of their grad students. It’s pure hubris. The norm should be retiring to teaching-only roles, and hand the mantle of research over to the younger faculty or stepping away from the lab they created by selecting a successor. Rather, it’s the exception.
If all the senior faculty across academia collectively took a break in the same timeframe, say one or two months every year, it would create opportunities for the younger members to step in and shine in their own way across the stratum of activities. Publications receiving fewer (and invited!) papers from senior academics would accept more research from the juniors, there would be more openings on committees. There would be greater career growth at the early stages.
In short, the inmates are at least partly responsible for the rules of the asylum.