I'm not wishing to start or continue an argument with Jan, but to post some philosophical musings prompted by his comment that he dislikes "mandates".
I disagree that mandates are always wrong. The so-called "publish or perish" "mandate" has severe negative consequences for academic, that most here will know about (least publishable unit, skewing research progress, particularly in fields that require significant groundwork before a flurry of publications of results, etc etc etc. However, the "mandates" placed by institutions on their staff and on staff and institutions by funders are not always negative. It seems quite right to me that funders mandate that the work they fund has its results disseminated widely. This means that they require (or, mandate) that papers be produced and, when published, be made available as widely as possible. Without them, some staff would indulge in potentially world-changing research which had its impact delayed or denied. Academic freedom, like many other freedoms, is not unbounded, and comes with responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to disseminate the results of one's work widely, balancing the need/desire to do further work with the necessity of transmitting the results already done. -- Professor Andrew A Adams [email protected] Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/
