This may not have been your intention but I read this post as use of data to articulate the conundrum of assessing which papers contribute valuable information vs. the 'game' of academia.
"But as the number of papers (and metrics (and alternative metrics)) grows, it becomes increasingly difficult to find anything to grasp onto." So many times I've been lost down rabbit holes of paper searching, wading through rivers of studies on minute details to find something useful.
I reckon this is one of the curses of the 'new knowledge or die' mentality in Academia. New research should rightly focus on new knowledge but I often wonder about the questions that academics ask themselves when choosing research topics. e.g. Does the world need this? Is this advancing society's understanding of the world around us? Is this a self-indulgent niche that I've convinced myself is valuable but is really just a topic I'm obsessive about and don't want to leave my comfort zone?
To go a bit existential - Do researchers have an obligation to recognise their privileged position of being able to think all day for a living and focus their new research on where they could create the greatest impact? AND/OR Is the pursuit of any new knowledge through the scientific method valuable because, even though the research may not be profound in itself, it may lead a researcher or practitioner to genuinely impactful new knowledge in the future.
Thanks Mick. You raise lots of important questions. I find it hard to answer them all here - I might have to write a post. Or better, why don't you write a guest post for me? (No ChatGPT allowed)
So much information is buried in research papers, reports and inside the heads of seasoned straddlers of the science-policy interface. Whether or not it's the 'core business' of an academic, sifting through, bringing to life and sharing this information is really important.
We should do basic and applied research. And all of us in our own ways are striving for impact. Where we differ hugely is how we define that impact. The university is busy developing frameworks to explain all the different kinds of impact, but thus far seems agnostic as to which if any carries most value.
This may not have been your intention but I read this post as use of data to articulate the conundrum of assessing which papers contribute valuable information vs. the 'game' of academia.
"But as the number of papers (and metrics (and alternative metrics)) grows, it becomes increasingly difficult to find anything to grasp onto." So many times I've been lost down rabbit holes of paper searching, wading through rivers of studies on minute details to find something useful.
I reckon this is one of the curses of the 'new knowledge or die' mentality in Academia. New research should rightly focus on new knowledge but I often wonder about the questions that academics ask themselves when choosing research topics. e.g. Does the world need this? Is this advancing society's understanding of the world around us? Is this a self-indulgent niche that I've convinced myself is valuable but is really just a topic I'm obsessive about and don't want to leave my comfort zone?
To go a bit existential - Do researchers have an obligation to recognise their privileged position of being able to think all day for a living and focus their new research on where they could create the greatest impact? AND/OR Is the pursuit of any new knowledge through the scientific method valuable because, even though the research may not be profound in itself, it may lead a researcher or practitioner to genuinely impactful new knowledge in the future.
Thanks Mick. You raise lots of important questions. I find it hard to answer them all here - I might have to write a post. Or better, why don't you write a guest post for me? (No ChatGPT allowed)
So much information is buried in research papers, reports and inside the heads of seasoned straddlers of the science-policy interface. Whether or not it's the 'core business' of an academic, sifting through, bringing to life and sharing this information is really important.
We should do basic and applied research. And all of us in our own ways are striving for impact. Where we differ hugely is how we define that impact. The university is busy developing frameworks to explain all the different kinds of impact, but thus far seems agnostic as to which if any carries most value.