Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
I see we are doing academic productivity discourse again, but I suppose my question is why we are all accepting as right and proper the idea that the sort of once-common-in-the-mid-century kind of scholar who produced only a few (but significant) works is an unacceptable model?
The entire 'productivity' focus and the grind it creates strikes me as bad for the field. Some scholars churn out book after book. But look back and some scholars lumbered only slowly from one important work to another. Why a profession of all hares and no tortoises?
We all know the answer of course - the endless productivity grind is created by too many academics competing for too few jobs (and for status competition amongst the tenured). Fine, that is the cause. But do we need to accept that as good? As our model?
Does no one think that sometimes the slow, careful scholarship is the better scholarship? Or, put another way, that the diligent, slow careful scholar has something to offer, alongside the 'prolific' writer?
Isn't tenure a supposed solution to this problem? By taking away the necessity for "productivity" you can focus on your best work. Or does it devolve into being seen as a reward for having brought in plenty grant money?
I had an ex-advisor (I had to leave because he had no time for us) who got tenure in 2.5 years cus he brought in a metric fuckton of grant funding, so I'm inclined to think it's the latter.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
