- 1 Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University Lueneburg, Scharnhorststrasse 1, 21335 Lueneburg, Germany
- 2 Deakin University, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia
- Available online 20 June 2012. TREE 27(9): 473–474
- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.05.010,
We live in the era of
rankings. Universities are being ranked, journals are being ranked, and
researchers are being ranked. In this era of rankings, the value of researchers
is measured in the number of their papers published, the citations they
received, and the volume of grant income earned. Academia today is governed by
one simple rule: more is better.
The idea to reward
those who are productive seems fine at face value, but that idea has become
ideology. Metrics of quantity once were the means to assess the performance of
researchers, but now they have become an end in their own right. Ironically,
once individuals actively pursue certain indicators of performance, those
indicators are no longer useful as independent yardsticks of what they were
once meant to measure [1] and [2].
Only a few years ago, a
researcher publishing ten papers a year was considered highly productive. Now,
leading researchers in ecology and evolution publish 20, 30, or, in some cases,
over 40 papers a year, with a tendency for further increases. This volume of
papers is attained via large laboratory groups and research consortia, which in
turn require massive amounts of funding. Given that successful fundraising is a
trusted performance indicator in its own right, funding keeps going to some of
the biggest groups, keeping them big or growing them even further. However, a
bigger group of researchers does not necessarily produce better science, just
more of it [3]. Thus, some research themes of solid (but not necessarily exceptional)
quality can dominate the literature, just because they produce many papers. The
type of work that ecologists produce is also different compared with just a
decade or two ago: papers are shorter; reviews are increasingly quantitative
not qualitative; the scope of papers has shifted from local to global [4]; modeling papers are replacing field-based papers [5]; and more papers focus on black-versus-white analyses because there is
no journal (or mental) space for nuanced discussions. A recent high-profile
example is the polarized debate on whether policy should encourage land sparing
or land sharing [6] and [7].
The picture we paint
is, of course, stylized. We acknowledge that there are exceptions among the
most productive academics, the largest research groups, and the highest impact
journals. However, despite exceptions, the overall trend is deeply concerning.
Academics are increasingly busy with more papers, more grants, and more emails
to keep the machinery going. The modern mantra of quantity is taking a heavy
toll on two prerequisites for generating wisdom: creativity and reflection.
Creativity greatly
benefits from an environment that is supportive, collaborative, and facilitates
trialing new approaches, but suffers from working under excessive pressure [8]. Similarly, reflection is vital for questioning assumptions and
learning from experience [9]. The gradual loss of creativity and reflection necessarily will affect
our science. Many past landmark papers were full of good ideas, but were
speculative and discursive [10] and [11]. Would such papers be published today and, if they were, who would read
them in depth? Is it possible to obtain and communicate deep insights via
‘twitteresque’ research sound bites?
Beyond the science
itself, the quantity mantra is taking a toll on the quality of human
interactions and relationships. Supervisors are increasingly too busy to
discuss ideas at length with their research students. Academics work long
hours, a supposed requirement for success [12], as if insight, motivation, and wisdom could not also arise from more
balanced and family-friendly lives. The stressful environment of academia leads
to many talented young people opting out of academia, and can lead to burnout
in those who stay.
Along with political
and spiritual leaders, academic leaders have a responsibility to help society
move towards a better future, where we understand the world better, and use
that understanding to live a ‘good life’. However, how can we do this if our
professional rat race just mirrors the ills of society at large? Starting with
our own university departments (but not stopping there), it is time to take
stock of what we are doing. We must recreate spaces for reflection, personal
relationships, and depth. More does not equal better.
Acknowledgments
We greatly appreciate insightful comments by Dale Nimmo and Andrew
Bennett.
References
o
1. P.B. Landres et al. Ecological
uses of vertebrate indicator species: a critique
o
Conserv. Biol., 2 (1988),
pp. 316–329
o
o
2. D.B.
Lindenmayer et al. Indicators of biodiversity
for ecologically sustainable forest management Conserv. Biol., 14 (2000), pp.
941–950
o 3. C.J. Lortie et al. Good news for the people who love bad news: an analysis of the funding
of the top 1% most highly cited ecologists Oikos, 121 (2012), pp. 1005–1008
o
4. J. Fischer et al. Continental-scale
ecology versus landscape-scale case studies Front. Ecol. Environ., 9 (2011), p.
430
o
5. D.B. Lindenmayer, G.E.
Likens Losing the culture of ecology Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am., 92 (2011), pp.
245–246
o
6. J. Fischer et al.Conservation:
limits of land sparing Science, 334 (2011), p. 593
o 7. B. Phalan et al. Reconciling food production and biodiversity
conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared Science, 333 (2011), pp.
1289–1291
o
8. C.E. Shalley, L.L.
Gilson, What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual factors
that can foster or hinder creativity Leadership Q., 15 (2004), pp. 33–53.
o 9. D. Boud et al. Promoting reflection in learning: a model D.
Boud (Ed.) et al., Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, Kogan
Page (1985), pp. 18–40
o 10. H.A. Gleason The individualistic concept of plant association Am.
Midland Nat., 21 (1939), pp. 92–110
o
11. C.S. Holling. Resilience
and stability of ecological systems Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 4 (1973), pp. 1–23.
12. E.O. Wilson (Ed.), Concilience, Knopf (1998)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario