Here is a sample situation.
Professor A in Department B at University C wants to apply to funding agency D for a joint multi-million dollar research grant with Professor E in Department F at University G. There is also an industrial partner, company H. Obviously, if the application is successful then A to H will all benefit. But now comes the rub. All parties need to commit to contributing something: whether it is time, lab space, matching funds, intellectual property rights, reduced teaching or admin. responsibilities, hiring new people, giving someone a permanent job, equipment, infrastructure, ..... and they need to divide up the grant if they get it.
My frustration and concern are that I encounter cases where one or more of the parties are completely unreasonable about how little they should contribute, if at all. They seem to want something for nothing. Furthermore, they will persist in this even if it means the application won't proceed or has virtually no chance of success. They fail to believe that there will be other applicants who will have strong support and contributions from all the parties involved.
Do you encounter situations like this?
Trump fact check on Paris.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bmub.bund.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Klimaschutz/trump_im_faktencheck_des_bmub_en.pdf
This is off topic.
DeleteLets not get into politics.
ReplyDeleteWhat I see is somewhat the reverse: FAKE commitments to such proposals that everybody (including referees!) sees are fake, but the proposal gets funded, and everybody is happy. One or two proposers do all the work.
I think fake commitments are not the reverse but related. People are really not committing anything and hoping to get something in return. I also agree that too often people play along with the charade.
DeleteThis A to H which you have written. Is it Australia specific ? If so , then Terry Eagletons famous critical lines in this article in the chronicle which has been adapted in the foll web site is very relevant.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.socjobrumors.com/topic/the-slow-death-of-the-university-by-terry-eagleton-uk
"What has emerged in Britain, however, is what one might call Americanization without the affluence — the affluence, at least, of the American private educational sector"
It is good to follow the productive system of US, but as Eagleton points out for Britain becomes relevant for Australia and many other countries " Do you have the same affluence of US unis esp the pvt educational sector".
In an earlier piece , there was a post in critical thinking. There has been many critical thinkers in social sciences than in science. Post WW11 , Deluze, Bordieu, Foucault . The list is long. Unfortunately in science probably PW Anderson , physics and Roald Hoffmann chemistry come up as critical thinkers. The fall out of not having critical thinkers in science has been the great mess in biomedical science. There was posting of Edwards article on perverse incentives in academia posted in this blog, where the article had pointed out the credibility loss of research in biomedical science. This A to H will not happen if we have more critical thinkers in science globally.
My observations are largely based on my experience in Australia, where I think the problem is particularly bad.
DeleteThis has been scientifically deconstructed: https://www.amazon.com/Assholes-Theory-Aaron-James/dp/0804171351
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, there are many of them among us in academia.
Delete