. @candor is very good on this...https://www.radicalcandor.com
-
-
It's painful to watch those who are the most responsible/poster people for bad behaviour be the same as those who seem to (superficially) decry it. Like the classic case of the male ally to feminism being an abuser.
-
We're dealing with highly intelligent people (academics) who purposefully or just adaptively and without conscious realisation will find ways to continue as they are – being unkind in this case, or being outright abusive in others, it's a spectrum.
-
But also a system that enables it - we promote people on the basis of their scientific credentials, not their management / leadership credentials, and the two often reflect skills / dispositions that are in direct opposition (e.g., individual vs team focus).
-
In a world of hawks and doves, if you start to advantage doves even by a tiny bit... hawks will just kill a dove and wear its feathers. I see it happen even with the people who seem to be the least into playing games. The Ponzi scheme of science either ejects you or recruits you.
-
This just shows how this has to be an ongoing process - any change to the incentives will mean that behaviour gradually shapes around those incentives. So we can't fix things and walk away - we need to always be monitoring, tweaking, evaluating, etc.
-
For sure, it just doesn't appeal to me to help fix something I never broke for zero appreciation in return.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is why you need a systems perspective - they won't opt in to it, but you can mandate it, through more directive line management than is typical in academia, by including it as a requirement for promotion etc.
-
Academia is pretty unique in allowing a PhD to be the *only* qualification you need to get all the way to the top. Most other professions require some form of ongoing training / professional development. Academics need that too.
-
That's a step, but even that can be played and bypassed. Anybody can pass a "test for being inclusive" even somebody who thinks the whole idea is flawed. Gaming the system when the system is flimsy is easy.
-
No system will ever be perfect, but we can start to move in the right direction - be a *bit* better and start to build a culture that is healthier. But it will take a long time, and that will be frustrating.
-
I completely agree. But I'm not sure I have the ability (in many senses) to put in even more time while others take credit.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.