Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
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?
I look forward to reading it when it appears in its own good time - I'm sure it will be "a possession for all time," which is, in the last account, what matters of a historian.
People are producing so much writing, that lot of it probably isn't even read! The situation is crazy.
Big survival bias here. Main problem: if you have no audience, it doesn't matter how "good" your scholarship is. Only specialists care, & they are biased against. Prolific can be quantified by non-expert, so it wins. Alternative: throw a lot of parties, I mean conferences.
If nothing else, I just know too many people who left the field because satisfying the demands of academia made them miserable. I've come close to that several times. We'd probably get more work done on the whole if we didn't drive do many people away like this.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
