“Incrementing productivity” is oftentimes framed in terms of incentives. The simpler incentives are, of course, monetary incentives. Academia is in this respect not so different from the business world – or so think many university managers and administrators. Some well endowed universities pay a premium to productive researchers: for instance, €3,000 for an article in an A+ journal, or maybe a lighter teaching load. The intrinsic value of discovery, and the thrills of fame, are no longer or not only the principal movers for scientific production. Not everyone agrees.
Brian Martin, a social scientist at Wollolong, Australia, suggests to explore “less traveled paths”, starting from the observation that research is not the preserve of a few superproductive superstars, but of a more distributed system. If monetary incentives can indeed motivate a superstar, it is also a fact that they can discourage those who do not receive the incentives. Below a certain threshold, the less productive researcher can be so de-motivated that she does not invest anymore in innovating, considering that she is not really up to the job. Thus, in order to uncover the research potential below the superstar level, other paths ought to be followed. To enlist them: preferring regular, day-to-day writing to binge writing, using creativity improving techniques, accepting that chance plays a role and even considering oneself as a lucky researcher, pursuing individual happiness, doing physical exercise, trusting the wisdom of the crowds and encouraging group work. Martin relies on recent results of the cognitive sciences about creativity and optimal working conditions.
Consider, as an example, the first path. Writing is a necessity in scientific production, but the prototypical production sequence puts writing at the end of the “idea-planning-research-result-writing” process, as a mere expression or documentation of the work done. The alternate path consists in considering writing a s a “way of thinking”, which should start early in the research project. Martin quotes work from Robert Boice, showing that the scientific output of junior faculties with a habit of writing 15-30 minutes per day can be four to nine times higher than that of binge writers.
Research Productivity: some paths less traveled. Australian Universities’ Review, vol 51, 1, 2009, 14-20.
[ CC-licensed image courtesy of milopeng]
Tags: incentives, productivity, research productivity, Writing
Thanks! A very thoughtful post and a great reminder to get back to my daily writing habit.
btw, Brian Martin is at University of Wollongong in NSW, Australia.
Nice article and surely will push me to write something on daily basis.
I will look forward for ideas on writing as “way of thinking” ,
what researchers write on daily basis ( may be journal , summary ) , ideas etc. and how ?
Will be very useful.
[...] New paths to “research productivity†by Roberto [...]
Like your work quite a bit. I am an “evil” marketer so understand nothing about programming, unless it is programming people to become (even more) mindless over consumers of the earth’s limited resources. And good job that. If only.
However, am a “table pounder” for evidence-based biz stuff – mainly ‘cus I’m lazy. The pop stuff doesn’t work and burns a lot of energy. Also a total geek for all things brain related and social sciences. Also hate kats. I’m allergic.
On your productivity post. You strike a nice balance between not trashing the junk and asking productive questions. Let me punt in some additional ideas:
- All things pop are what’s easiest for our brains to process and superficially addresses a, largely unconscious, set of uncomfortable emotions. So a steady erosion of real income would, naturally, lead (some of our) our minds to personalize it and internalize the problem as “personal productivity.” Some have a Tea Party. Or go total emersion in celebrity gossip.
- The idea of going all science, collecting data, on pop stuff is (oxy) moronic – that’s why it’s pop babee. Remember, our minds don’t do well (HATE!) “principals over personalities” and excel at “my moods of this moment.”
- However, pop stuff as an indicator of underlying serious problems is probably right. Certainly real income erosion is only going to get worser. Pop culture will never be more interested or sentimental than when something is long past and truly dead. Like personal productivity. In fact, groups process, not individuals seem to determine productivity the individual contribution is meaningless.
We all “feel” that reality so pay time and attention for pop socio-cultural myths that deny it — aggressively.
Quips on your comments:
“the entire general public (‘the internet’) follows unproven advice” – Consume is different from behavior change. Behavior change pretty much never happens. We’ve got to do something with the excess money/time an affluent society throws off. Consumption of, nicely packaged, ideas takes the least energy. Change? Phooey!
“Studying Productivity With The Scientific Method” – Oh please, what a snooze fest! What’s on TV?
Our view is that science and the scientific method is for practically no one’s interest let alone consumption. Do not be fooled by pop media coverage. Media coverage is a sure predictor of absolute non-serious interest. Science is for scientists, sometimes policy makers and other experts and other “crackpots.”
No one (the consumer) is interested in the science or productivity any more than they are the science (evidence-basis) of business, politics, leadership or even medicine. I don’t see this as cynical since I don’t see empirically-based knowledge as of much interest to anyone and respect that.
Essay Formula (added to)
- Observe Something (mostly objective and obvious)
- Generalize to Myself(subjective leap)
- Expand – Construct a Pop Narrative Adhering to Popular Ideologies of the Moment (more subjective)
- Conclude & Recommend (very simple, cheap to do and very subjective)
- Let It Go Semi-Sortakinda Call to (In) Action (expose bullseye)
Style Rules –
- Keep it “happy talk,”
- less than 300 wrds
- include picture of cats or happy cute girls whenever possible
- NEVER refer to anyone or anyone else, especially peer-reviewed research/data (shudder) – that’s a sure attention killer
“So why are so many people taking advice with people who basically don’t test or test in impoverished conditions (n=1)?” The alternative is?
We would propose “conscious”/language-based behavior, in contrast to non-language based behaviors, serves mainly an immediate social signaling/bonding function. The bonding is always to support the status quo and targeting the in-group. It cannot be otherwise. To entertain other functions is fantasy – and charming.
If science/evidence supports these functions, it is accommodated. Otherwise it is basically despised as challenging all that is near and dear. Scientists feel this deeply and so huddle together for support and create their own in-group tools and feel deeply rejected. We’d suggest never the twain shall meet.
Galileo, not Carl Sagan, is the prototype scientist/evidence-based intellectual. Actually, probably Bruno.
The challenge is the current intellectual bugaboo – cheap information. In fact, information is never cheap. So what is this stuff?
Our minds will do pretty much anything, including subjecting ourselves and loved ones to harm, to avoid science. The human brain lives on two things – meat and myths. However, sometimes we have to get in an airplane and have surgery and drive a car so, OK, but that’s enough already!
You didn’t say it so I will – life hackers are just hacks. The cult of personality – which our brains crave. But apparently that’s very adaptive, since (effectively) nobody listens to or cares about science. Thank Buddha.
As for a researcher it is very important to keep up with the daily updates in their respective fields. It doesn’t matter whether the researcher is a superstar or not , what matters is their research.
If one does lots of studies, make notes of new stuff on daily basis, communicate with real people and does the things mentioned in the article above, they can make a huge difference in their working methods and soon become superstars.
Ardent Smith
[...] Based partly on a reflection on what “productivity” really means: quality of research needs to be improved as well as quantity18. See my post: http://www.academicproductivity.com/2010/new-paths-to-research-productivity/ [...]
I think life hacking is a good thing. Who doesnt want to cut out the things in life that bother them or are unrpoductive.
more people should take this on as a practive
So true! I think so many thing in life are about daily habits. Weather it be with writing, eating well, exercising, connecting with our spouse or children, etc… The true beauty is in the daily activities within everything we do, it’s how we truly accomplish our goals.