Re:Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?
by erikerikson on Friday June 11, 2021 @11:05AM
(#27474361)
It seems you are thinking of industry as one might use the term "heavy industry" or "industrial manufacturing". It is also valid to speak of people being industrious or laboring for purpose in a similar manner. For example laboring with their attention and experiments on better understanding the world we live in. In other words, the research industry.
Sadly, would you imagine being said is a bit of what the incentives appear to demand. The "publish or perish" phrase is just one popular reference to that.
Re:Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?
by helloSam43 on Friday June 11, 2021 @11:15AM
(#27474490)
perish? or is this some theory of leaving academia for the cloth?
Re:Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?
by toyyodas82727 on Friday June 11, 2021 @11:24AM
(#27474597)
It's too bad that we don't have research positions similar to parish priest postings.
We could assign enthusiastic researchers to underserved primary/secondary school teaching positions relevant to their field. In exchange, the researchers could get an extra stipend and a classroom to use as off-hours lab space.
I guess the hard part would be setting up a good network of remote advisors to help everyone stay on track, without enabling the usual toxic power dynamics of academia.
Re:Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?
by erikerikson on Friday June 11, 2021 @11:36AM
(#27474746)
Indeed :D
I see this as an oxymoron, it's the kind of scenario that makes for bad science such that no amount of incentinves, discincentives, and/or "metrics" can fix.
From "research industry" I get the idea that they want industrial-scale scientific production. Industrial activities are all about roughly predictable outcomes and mostly steady productivity output.
On the other hand scientific research seeking real novelty is---because of the novelty, very unpredictable. So when I read "research industry" I think they refer to "industrial novelty-seeking".
I can imagine somebody saying "we need 10 completely, gound-breaking scientific research articles peer-reviewed every quarter for publication!"