A recent study highlights the decline in disruptive science. I think most of this is due to the intellectual poverty of a #scarcity mindset of current day #academia.
It is well documented that poor people suffer from a scarcity mindset, which erodes core cognitive functions. This mindset clouds decisions, prioritizing small short-term gains over long-term larger profits by affecting planning ability. The same applies to creativity.
While college and university administrators focus on their legacies, building facilities for just about everything except learning, social science and humanities programs are deemed "useless" because we do not tell the powers that be what they want to hear and so we are starved for funding.
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs, on the other hand, produce ever more ways to extract profit from the poor. They are judged "useful."
That said, I would hesitate before extrapolating from studies of poverty, cognition, and decision-making to academic departments. Here, only adjuncts are likely to face the sorts of insecurity that afflict poor people.
Much of the research on scarcity also looks at time scarcity (not just money). I think the argument here is that the academic rat race makes academics relatively time-poor missing it harder to think long-term, which resonates pretty well with me. (Though you are right to caution about extrapolating from studies on monetary scarcity.)
@FantasticalEconomics@benfell@Runyan50@academicchatter I draw parallels, this isn't peer reviewed people. I write on my morning commute or when traveling in general. These are observations I make, which might (or might not) merit attention.
Fair qualifier but this, at least, is deserving of merit!
For those who are not time-poor, check out "Scarcity" by Mullainathan and Shafir.
"Busy people fail to manage their time efficiently for the same reasons the poor and those maxed out on credit cards fail to manage their money. The dynamics of scarcity reveal why dieters find it hard to resist temptation, why students and busy executives mismanage their time..."
The interpretation of the data in that "disruption" paper is deeply flawed. There is no loss of disruptive science. There is an increase in the publication of non-disruptive science. This is a GOOD thing. (Because both disruptive and non-disruptive science move our understanding forward and have important consequences for progress.)
If you look at figure 5 of this paper, you will find that the number of disruptive papers is NOT declining. Rather the number of "non-disruptive" papers has exploded.
This explosion starts in the 1950s, which is when the post-war science budget booms (NSF founded 1950, NASA founded 1958, science budget reaches 12% of GDP in 1960s) and the publishing companies realize that they can access publication money by making it possible to publish in lots of journals. The number of journals has been increasing exponentially since then.
This is a common phenomenon when it becomes possible to produce products more cheaply. We've seen this in literature, in video production, in painting and other art work, etc etc etc. When it becomes possible to mass produce lesser-quality products, the average goes down. But not because there is less of the quality, only because the distribution has expanded to include the lesser-quality products.
@koen_hufkens@academicchatter Isn’t if also the case that low hanging fruit has been lapped up? These days, research is incredibly expensive, because the equipment and expertise needed are out of reach for many would-be inventors.
@koen_hufkens@academicchatter
This seems like a variation on Goodhart’s Law, where the competition to demonstrate that your work is disruptive produces a culture that inhibits our ability to actually do disruptive work
@koen_hufkens@academicchatter
Does anyone have a non-paywalled version please? Sorry subscriptions are super expensive for my family and I. At least for now.
@koen_hufkens@academicchatter paywalled, but I am really wondering what they mean by “disruptive science” and in which field. Or rather how they measure it.
@andrei_chiffa@academicchatter The study itself I think is something to be discussed in its own right. There are different confounding dynamics at play.
BUT, there is no escaping the fact that scientists publish ever more work. And the rate does not track the number of new Phd applicants (which has been increasing as well).
Basically a whole lot of people are collectively running, to effectively stand still.
@koen_hufkens@andrei_chiffa@academicchatter I disagree with your conclusions from this article (although in themselves they may be valid) because the metric they use is highly questionable and was extensively discussed last summer…
@kraweel65@andrei_chiffa@academicchatter Fact remains that too many academics are chasing metrics, and too many people down the pecking order are thrown under the bus for it.
Both the Science and Nature laments on PhD student and post-doc well-being go back more than a decade with little improvement over time.
Getting back to not chasing our tail would do everybody a favour.
@koen_hufkens@andrei_chiffa@academicchatter You list quite a set of problems here… But it seems you are expecting every PhD is entitled to find a career in academia. This is and probably never was true. (PostDoc time IMHO is a purgatory to weed out those willing to sacrifice A LOT! I can not recommend it. ) Talking „disruptive science“ - is there an objective metric to that? Very much like „quality of science“ ? - might be the sorcerer‘s stone.
@koen_hufkens@academicchatter isnt't it obvious why a ever more compartmentalized academia doesn't allow for disruptive ideas to be received? Disruptive science exists, somewhere in the "long tail of ideas not amplified by normal science", and suppressed by gatekeepers that defend their orderly realm.
@koen_hufkens@academicchatter Reminds me of the other day at a seminar where an old professor explained that during their PhD, their advisor gave them the task to understand and explain a paper, it took him 5 years. If only we still had this kind of time to learn and reflect nowadays...
Add comment