Well, Marcus, I certainly agree that bad academics can be very bad. I saw my brother destroyed by his mentor at a Big Eastern University. I share your distaste for the Cult Of The Individual. Ted Talks Make Me Puke.
What about good academics? Or is that an oxymoron? What would Good Academia look like? Sometimes I think, sitting around the FRIAM table or reading the list, THIS is what good academia looks like: a bunch of people, with many talents and deep training in different fields, exploring an idea closely. And when I see that happening, I want to get it out to the world. Now that part is perhaps silly, because the World it would get out to is barely larger than the world of FRIAM itself. But it is a different world. And I Just Plain Believe in collaborative essays as a tool in the development of thought. Do you have a model for Good Academia? NIck -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 12:43 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] "Academics" and other Stereotypes On 1/19/13 10:24 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > Not to fan any flames, but I am curious about the stereotypes we all > carry... "Academic" being the current one at issue... Peer review is the mechanism for determining quality work in academia. Researchers that can get their work past peer review get jobs, and others do not. A common way for junior people to get work through peer review is to have senior researcher (typically their mentor and boss) guide the process. The senior researchers do this for their own benefit, becoming senior authors on the papers, and in this way they accumulate an impressive publication record and prominence and for a good bang for the buck. At the end of the day, in certain academic cliques, one will find that peer review means that a few powerful people see that it is in their interest to get papers published. This is not to say that the papers are wrong, or haven't been reviewed, but they may not be particularly innovative. It's an economics based on reputation and professional networking amongst the Players, and it depends on having a pipeline of junior people of various investment to do the work. The idea of taking mailing list discussions and converting it into a publication has a similar smell. Instead of having students do the work, there's the brainstorming, analysis, argumentation of the community as an energy source. It just needs to be refined.. where the `refinement' is presented as the crucial contribution of the grown-ups. I could go on, but it gets more cynical from here on out.. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
