Perverse Incentives and Hyper-competition in Academia
New Article Discusses Long-Standing Problems
The following article was just recently published in Environmental Engineering Science.
Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition
I like the title. I like their idea encouraging more discussion of this topic.
Altruism
But, I don’t much like their idea that altruistic behavior should be encouraged.
As I understand the meaning of altruism, it implies a lack of self interest. I think it’s unfortunate that so many otherwise intelligent people are so enamored of the idea that encouraging individuals to disregard their own self interest will somehow result in ‘greater good’. Altruism and selflessness are even listed as ideals or stated aims of scientific societies.
Incentives
Nor do I believe that ‘relying on incentives’ is problematic. A system that imposes perverse incentives will induce perverse behavior, and good incentives will encourage good behavior. It’s a matter of what incentives the academics perceive. The authors themselves acknowledge that academics (like all humans) respond to the incentives facing them. I think a major problem is that the bureaucrats who fund and manage academic research have imposed perverse incentives.
Whom are academics aiming to please?
Within the government-dominated systems of academic funding and the government-dominated systems of research universities, agencies, and laboratories in many countries, academics are not rewarded for pleasing members of the general public. They are rewarded with research funding for pleasing the bureaucrats who distribute that funding. They are also rewarded with publications for pleasing a small subset of their peers, the reviewers of publications and editors of journals. They are also rewarded with promotions for pleasing a different and still small subset of their peers, their fellow faculty members or other researchers at their institute.
A couple of years ago I wrote Incentives, nor merely an academic concern and shared some of my personal experiences. You can find more musings by academics about academia at The Thalassa Chronicles, a blog started by one of my close colleagues, Ago, who works in academia in Germany.
Could more productive incentives be devised
Certainly, yes, if the goal is indeed to generate results valued by many individuals from the ‘general public’, rather than a few bureacrats and a subset of academics.
How about new journals that allow the readers and subscribers to vote for the publications they value, just as we here on Steemit vote for the posts that we value?
S. Lan Smith
Kamakura, Japan
September 26, 2016
Thanks to Pixabay for the free images.
Read this article a few days ago. well i think scientists are ultimately human. Still need a roof, food, etc no matter how aspiring or how noble we are... still need the funding for project, pay people, etc
Of course! That's why scientists will for the most part follow the incentives that allow them to get more funding and advance their own careers.
Outreach and actions for the general public are more and more important. In France, we organize yearly events where scientists meet the general public, explain what they are doing, etc... I know similar actions are organized, for instance, in the US or in other European country.
The reward is of course not monetary, but rather the people we speak with being happy and learning about what we are doing. To me, this is enough as a motivation.
We do such events in Japan, too. I'm preparing a presentation for one next month, which will be the fourth year that I present to the public here. I find it a useful way to build up my presentation skills, and rewarding as well.
However, I'm not so convinced that such 'outreach' events provide sufficient incentive for scientists to conduct research that is if benefit to people in general.
I do not agree to the fact that one should only focus on research topics from which we could expect results benefiting to people directly.
Take all fundamental research, there is probably zero direct benefit to people. Would it be a reason not to conduct those researches? Knowledge per se is valuable.
Oh, I wasn't sufficiently clear.
I was not referring to immediate benefits, as from 'applied research'. I agree that basic research is valuable, and that the knowledge gained may have entirely unforeseen benefits.
However, I think it's important that scientists conducting such basic research be honest about that fact (that their research may not have immediate practical applications), and that the ordinary people who pay to fund 'public' research should have a say in deciding what should be funded, i.e., what they themselves value.
This reminds me a conversation I already have on steemit some time ago :)
The problem in having ordinary people deciding what is important and what is not is that one may end up refusing to fund research that looks boring and useless, but that is necessary as a potential building block for future applications. This is why reports written by each scientific community where the needs are clearly indicated (and why they are important) are necessary. The question being, will these reports be read and used?
I admit that at the end, it is a matter of replacing the governments taking decision by another entity (the general audience). But with the governments, we have clearly designed people to speak with and shout if necessary.
Oh, for the well connected centralised decision making is certainly better. The question is whether it's a good deal for the ordinary folks who actually pay for it, through taxes and inflation.
Your statements reminded me of this character from Animal Farm:
"Comrades," he said, "I trust that every animal here appreciates the sacrifice that Comrade Napoleon has made in taking this extra labour upon himself. Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure! On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be? " ---Comrade Napoleon
Hehe.... Comrade Napoleon :)
As I said, at the end of the day replacing some entity that sometimes makes crazy decisions by another entity that could sometimes make crazy decisions too (possibly differently crazy).
I however think that we owe something to tax payers. Explaining what we do is the minimum.
This post is inspired by my recent experience as a referee for a series of scholarly journals. A friend who is also a scientist asked me about the article I commented on the basic research that might be interesting to him. Here you click here and get more new skills for construction. I told him that I would send him a brief sketch. He was thrilled, but then his excitement quickly changed to disappointment after reading my summary.