Guest post: It’s about career continuity, not quality of thought
Originally a comment by Rob on Quick, hide the data.
There are days when I just wish I could tell someone to hand over their science card. There’s always been bad science (especially in medicine and social ‘sciences’ frankly), but the neoliberal trashing of universities, research institutions, and education to make nearly all science demonstrate a commercial applicability or to have regular output has been especially corrosive. Now, if you don’t publish on the regular you’re toast. If you publish negative or ambiguous results, you’re toast. If your work is interesting, but doesn’t have a commercial application, you’re toast.
It’s resulted in not just fraudulent work, but a massive rise in sloppy, poorly thought out work designed to deliver quickly produced small papers that appear to show a good or promising result, but require further study. It’s about career continuity, not quality of thought. A side effect is that there is far less fundamental and pure exploratory research being done in pretty much every field of endeavour. That’s a shame because many of our greatest leaps forward have been built on such seemingly abstract work, and then sometimes years or decades later. Knowledge does have an intrinsic value.
I think this is a good explanation of the situation, but not complete. My hunch is that a lot of researchers have taken to heart Marx’ dictum – or what they think is Marx’ dictum – about scholars having sought to understand the world when the point is to change it, and not realised that changing it requires understanding. Nor, really, do they grasp that one of the things that might change with greater understanding is their own set of intuitions.
Ironically, that’s a bit like the way that the Bolsheviks thought they could leap straight from feudalism to communism without all the bourgeois revolution stuff in the middle. It didn’t work out too well there, either.