Friday, June 3, 2016

Why does academia have so much politics?

Because success in academia is all about doing well in the very ill-defined market for recognition and credit.

Supreme case in point: Who discovered the double-helix structure of DNA? If you look at the Nobel Prize award, it was James Watson and Francis Crick. If you read Watson's book, "The Double Helix," then you develop an even deeper appreciation of Watson's own contributions. If you go back and look at the earlier literature, you realize that earlier contributions by Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins were slighted quite severely by others.

Credit and recognition matter! Become known as the biggest, brightest thinker in your field, and you get a bigger salary, the run of a full-fledged institute to develop your ideas (and brand), plus textbook contracts, high speaking fees, and maybe even a trip to Stockholm. Get overlooked, and you'll forever be at a disadvantage in seeking funding, getting your papers published, etc. You'll watch helplessly as the areas where you wanted to make a contribution are seized by more prominent people. These stakes are not small! Anyone who says academia is all about small squabbles hasn't spent enough time close to the stars of any discipline.

In capitalism, success is all about ownership -- which is carefully documented and as permanent as you want it to be. If you bought lots of Apple stock in 1998, you are very rich and completely sheltered from the jealous longings of people who wish they owned your stock at your price. You can be as prominent in the media as Warren Buffett or as reclusive as Kentucky cigarette king Brad Kelley (The Man With a Million Acres), and it doesn't matter. You don't need to keep campaigning for legitimacy.

In academia, fame and glory are being reallocated all the time. The pressure to keep burnishing your reputation -- or to lose standing -- is always there. The process by which that happens is pure politics. Academics constantly form alliances; help one another glide into more rarified circles; back-stab their rivals, etc. I believe that's the nature of any enterprise that creates a public good, yet chooses to reallocate rewards frequently and unevenly.


Read other answers by George Anders on Quora: Read more answers on Quora.

from Quora http://ift.tt/1TO3ChY

No comments:

Post a Comment