In our previous blog post, we addressed the systemic issues afflicting academia, ranging from subjectivity and bias in merit evaluations to overemphasis on competition and narrow focus on metrics, to the disregard for teaching and service.
This week, we delve into a series of countermeasures that could facilitate the transformation of the academic landscape. We discuss what needs to be done to bring about transformation and also propose ideas on how we participants in the academic game can contribute to making change even if we do not see ourselves as decision-makers.
Systems have a number of characteristics that we need to take a look at. They all come with problems that we can solve for.
- Systems are designed to achieve a specific purpose, goal, or objective.
Problem: The objectives we are currently pursuing in academia
We propose that the goals originally were or should be: knowledge generation, education, research, critical and creative thinking, skill development, innovation, documentation and preservation of culture and art, intellectual growth, interdisciplinary collaboration, public service, and societal impact. These are outputs that generate tangible and intangible value for individuals and society.
However, currently self-preservation, prestige, reputation, and levels of funding take precedence. Because of this, predatory practices like research paper mills or even the insane publication fees charged by “reputable” journals, the promotion of “buddies who are just like me”, thrive and the merit system is flawed.
Solutions:
To change the system, we must realign our academic work with the original, value-generating goals.
You and I can begin by asking to which extent our work is dedicated to one or more of the value-generating purposes and how much effort we spend feeding other aspects of the flawed system. If you think strategically, you are probably currently plotting your next grant submission (you have to if you want to stay in the game) or the next high impact journal submission instead of focusing on research, teaching, or the other value-adding goals outlined above.
By being transparent about what we’re actually doing and by striving to put more effort into value-generating activities, we can initiate change. While we may not be able to completely cease our “play the game” actions, we can always remind ourselves, our teams, our colleagues and hiring committees that we do what we do for the sake of science, teaching, and other meaningful pursuits—not for recognition, funding, or impact factors. The latter should be consequences of adding value, not the actual pursuit of your work.
- Systems often have feedback loops to regulate and control their function.
This aspect is equally crucial because feedback loops reinforce outcomes. Hence, if we pursue the wrong outcomes, we get more wrong outcomes.
Problem: The problem with our academic “merit” system is that it makes it easier for some folks than others to obtain funding and high-impact publications, not based on the value-adding results that they are generating right now but based on the reputation, geographical location, race, gender, and networks they built over time.
Solutions:
To overcome this, we need to develop measures that assess success in line with academia’s original goals. For instance, evaluations should consider the quality of a study, encompassing outcomes as well as structure, execution, clarity, novelty, and more, rather than solely focusing on the number of publications.
We require a more comprehensive approach that recognizes collaboration, scientific impact, and societal relevance. Imagine a world where financial decisions and promotions are based on the quality and depth of research, interdisciplinary collaboration, and contributions to the academic community as a whole.
Additionally, it is crucial to evaluate and address implicit biases in hiring and promotion processes to ensure a fair and equitable academic environment. By making biases transparent, such as those related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, we possess the power to change the system.
Numerous other measures can be considered. Start contemplating which ones should be applied to your work and measure your progress accordingly. Make your performance management team aware of these measures to initiate discussions about transforming the merit system within your institution.
- Emergent Properties: Systems can exhibit emergent properties or behaviors that arise from the interactions between the components, not the individual components themselves.
This is another intriguing yet potentially problematic aspect of systems.
Problem: Behaviors like harassment and bullying not only persist within academia but also emerge from the system itself. For instance, the system tends to favor individuals who prioritize personal gains, invest excessive time in networking and stakeholder management, and neglect or leave value-generating responsibilities to those of “lower rank.” These individuals may be uncooperative and resort to intimidation for personal benefit.
But you don’t have to start out as narcissist to end up behaving in undesirable ways as a result of a systems emerging properties. Regardless of how well-intentioned you are, the pressure to secure the next round of funding, generate data, or publish the next manuscript can push you into a “red alert mode,” prompting actions you wouldn’t take otherwise, such as fabricating data. The idea of “bad apples” being responsible for such misconduct has been updated to recognize that almost any individual can be driven to behave unethically when they feel like their livelihood or their loved ones are threatened, despite having very different values and standards under normal circumstances.
Solution:
Changing what we reward in the academic system alters the system’s preferences regarding behaviors that are being promoted. If we stopped using outcomes such as glamor-journal publications or the quantity of publications and instead paid attention to the quality of research outcomes, teaching, etc, we would encourage different behaviors. The challenge here is that it is easier to count pubs or use impact factor as proxy for quality than to evaluate the output directly.
- Hierarchical Structure: Systems can have a hierarchical structure, with subsystems nested within larger systems.
Problem: In a hierarchical system like academia, several negative behaviors can arise due to power dynamics and structural arrangements. In our previous article, we discussed authoritarianism, abuse of power, gatekeeping, exclusivity, perpetuation of inequality and bias, and other issues. A system with a flatter hierarchy would more easily overcome these problems.
Additionally, selecting the right leaders is crucial in a hierarchical system. We must consider not only vertical promotion but also horizontal advancement, as not every exceptional scientist aspires to lead a team, department, or larger unit.
However, within the current system, reputation, and ultimately financial stability heavily rely on rank.
Solutions:
- Generating career-paths for researchers and other contributors in academia that do not funnel to leadership positions alone. Some institutions are already implementing this, e.g. by creating staff scientist positions that make pay dependent on responsibilities and expertise.
- Offer support and guidance to early-career researchers and help them choose a career most suited to their strengths and passions.
- Share experiences, provide advice, and assist all contributors in navigating academia’s challenges.
- Actively seek mentoring and leadership training programs to enhance mentoring skills and foster a safe and stimulating environment for academics.
- Incorporate your entire team in decision-making processes.
- Train each team member to be an adept problem solver and leader, independently of rank and position.
- Keep the organization of your team flat instead of introducing hierarchy. Research shows that flat teams do more innovative work.
The good news is: There are also characteristics of systems that can help drive change.
- Adaptability: Systems can adapt and respond to changes in their environment or inputs.
and
- Interconnectedness: The components of a system are connected and interact with each other in some way.
In the preceding paragraphs, we made several suggestions for change and how to initiate it. These two properties of systems ensure that these countermeasures will make a difference.
Thus, we need to contemplate where to begin effecting change. Identifying the right starting point can trigger a series of transformative reactions of the systems.
However, keep in mind that complex systems are hard to predict!
As Jen Heemstra put it: “If you are working to chip away at a toxic culture to create a more positive future, that existing culture is likely going to chip away at you.”
Therefore, it’s essential not to undertake this endeavor alone. Given the growing awareness of toxic and unhealthy academic cultures, find allies who want change like you do and not only support your specific goals but also contribute to the cause.
Active participation in advocacy efforts focused on addressing systemic issues in academia is crucial for change. By joining forces with like-minded individuals, participating in discussions, attending conferences, and amplifying our voices, we can drive policy changes to promote equity, mental health, and overall well-being.
We need to remember to prioritize our own mental health and well-being as it enables us to effectively support others. By creating a supportive environment, checking in on colleagues, and promoting work-life balance, we foster a culture that values well-being and provides a foundation for a healthier academic system.
Let us stand in solidarity and advocate for a future of academia as an inclusive and empowering space for all!
–Robert