Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse • Hacker News Board

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#41

Post by kesor » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 12:52 PM UTC

Back in 2010 there was an attempt to put Deliverology in place at California State University. It basically means that academia will be measured by targets. A horrible idea that made the California Faculty Association meet and decide on almost mutiny. They even invited John Seddon who wrote several books on the subject of how Deliverylogy twisted and perverted systems in the UK. Fortunately for us, the video of his presentation is available on YouTube at https://youtu.be/8EGMlCau6iU for part 1, and has about 5-6 parts.

If you liked that, then I would highly recommend watching John Seddon's presentation about how settings targets and implementing broken IT systems to enforce those targets are a horrible idea. https://youtu.be/hbNsQFd8DQw

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#42

Post by pdimitar » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 12:53 PM UTC

BoorishBears wrote: post #19

worldsayshi wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naive response: Throw out the bureaucrats. Leave those with subject knowledge. Tell them to do their work to the best of their ability? Stop measuring things. Talk to them once in a while.

What about the bureaucrats with tenure?

Your question contains a good chunk of our entire world's economic and bureaucratic problems -- namely people in power with the emotional intelligence and experience of a chihuahua.

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#43

Post by kesor » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 12:54 PM UTC

kesor wrote: post #41

Back in 2010 there was an attempt to put Deliverology in place at California State University. It basically means that academia will be measured by targets . A horrible idea that made the California Faculty Association meet and decide on almost mutiny. They even invited John Seddon who wrote several books on the subject of how Deliverylogy twisted and perverted systems in the UK. Fortunately for us, the video of his…

The full explanation of CFA Deliverology problem in 2010 is located on their page on the subject: http://www.calfac.org/resource/deliverology-etc-resources

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#44

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 12:54 PM UTC

erelde wrote: post #9

n4r9 wrote: post #8

I'm sure this resonates with university lecturers all over the Western world. The late writer and university academic Mark Fisher has some interesting points about this effect in his 2009 book "Capitalist Realism: Is there no alternative?"[0]. He saw it as an inevitable byproduct of the infiltration of neo-liberal ideology into the academic sphere. Setting targets and measuring performance indicators are justified wi…

I have often argued that "being realist" is a failure in and of itself. If people said "well, there's a king and that's what it is", we'd never have got to where we are now. Ideologies ( and ideas ) are, in my view, stronger than facts, which often only represent the past, while ideas shape the future. (these days the word "fact" is a bit of a trigger, but I thought about that well before all that jazz, and the curre…

[deleted]

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#45

Post by __roland__ » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 12:57 PM UTC

I think one way to 'treat' this would be to acknowledge that certain things just cannot be optimized easily with outside incentives, and to simply accept that there will be some inevitable waste when you let 'good people do their job as best as they can'.

It's ironic that we fret so much about professors that 'retire on the job', but at the same time think it is perfectly fine to steal time from the motivated researchers, by making them playing these silly games too.

Who really thinks the next breakthrough will come from a person that was forced into writing another paper, just to pass some arbitrary performance threshold?

If you consider research as a 'stochastic race', i.e. many people working on a problem with their own intuitions and approaches, it makes no sense to slow down those that are most likely to come up with a good solution (those that are self-motivated). IMHO, it does not really matter if those that are unlikely to contribute much (retired on the job) get a free pass. After all, even to receive tenure takes a lot of effort (and thus, ambition) nowadays, so at least in fields with a competitive job market (i.e. good salaries outside academia) it makes no sense to strive for a tenured position and then not do what you love (i.e., research).

BTW Daniel Lemire's blog has many interesting posts on the more absurd aspects of academia, including research grants (e.g. http://lemire.me/blog/2009/09/15/the-hard-truth-about-resear...). IIRC one of his suggestions was so fund people (for longer terms), not 'projects'. This may not always be possible (e.g., if you need expensive equipment), but in many fields it would make much more sense.

EDIT: language

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#46

Post by aaron-lebo » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 12:59 PM UTC

erelde wrote: post #9

n4r9 wrote: post #8

I'm sure this resonates with university lecturers all over the Western world. The late writer and university academic Mark Fisher has some interesting points about this effect in his 2009 book "Capitalist Realism: Is there no alternative?"[0]. He saw it as an inevitable byproduct of the infiltration of neo-liberal ideology into the academic sphere. Setting targets and measuring performance indicators are justified wi…

I have often argued that "being realist" is a failure in and of itself. If people said "well, there's a king and that's what it is", we'd never have got to where we are now. Ideologies ( and ideas ) are, in my view, stronger than facts, which often only represent the past, while ideas shape the future. (these days the word "fact" is a bit of a trigger, but I thought about that well before all that jazz, and the curre…

Can't you be a realist while still being idealistic? Isn't that a bit of an advantage, too - seeing the world for what it actually is?

Searching for historical examples, JFK was both?

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#47

Post by pdimitar » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 1:02 PM UTC

csneeky wrote: post #17

All employers want their employees to "do the job to the best of their ability". But the freedom given to you to decide how your success is measured is proportional to your experience and past performance. There are those in both academia and private industry that get a lot of freedom to do their work/research. But there is a hierarchy to this just like everything in nature. The exceptionally strong and bright animal…

Scientists aren't employees. They are given the tools, real estate and funding to do their thing, usually through research grants or private funding.

The fact that nowadays they are treated as employees is exactly the problem.

...Oh, and by the way, nature has no hierarchy.

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#48

Post by quantum_state » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 1:03 PM UTC

pdimitar wrote: post #35

dasmoth wrote: post #22

“If you pay a man a salary for doing research, he and you will want to have something to point to at the end of the year to show that the money has not been wasted. In promising work of the highest class, however, results do not come in this regular fashion, in fact years may pass without any tangible result being obtained, and the position of the paid worker would be very embarrassing and he would naturally take to…

I don't know where the quote is from but it represents my only hope for the future of research. Of course, the hardcore bean-counters would not let that middle ground happen either; they are people in power who absolutely positively won't give you almost any leisure. It's still a good idea however. And some managers would embrace it since the notion of "paying somebody for possible benefits 5-10 years in the future"…

In a university setting, it seems to me that teaching in combination with support from endowment (not research grants) can be one of the scenario for this ... key is still to have fundamentally good people with passion and joy for the endeavor ..

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#49

Post by Lxr » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 1:06 PM UTC

If a job is complex, multifaceted and involves subtle trade-offs, the best approach is to hire good people, pay them the going rate and tell them to do the job to the best of their ability.

Absolutely, could not agree more. This is the only way to beat gamification of metrics in my opinion.

There is a worrying trend of treating staff as equally capable but untrusted cogs in a wheel, and metricising performance. I fundamentally believe that no amount of rules or metrics can turn a bad academic into a good one, an unsafe doctor into a safe one or a crooked politician into an honest public servant. We have to calm down with the metrics, accreditations and regulations, and accept that some people are better than others at certain things, hire the right people and trust them to do a good job.

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#50

Post by mseebach » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 1:08 PM UTC

kev009 wrote: post #34

I think this is somewhat well understood in things like Sports Psychology. You don't tell a receiver to catch X number of throws per game, you just encourage them perform. Likewise, training that more accurately simulates performance is more effective than working toward some metric. I learned it from Pat McNamara who has a special way with words and delivery: "When we are consumed by the outcome it will sabotage our…

This works because both sides have a well-understood model of what 'performing' looks like. And if you don't, you'll be shown the door very quickly.