In 2008, I noted the “quantitative revolution,” which replaced the romantic academia many dream about with a discovery factory:
Both the old Academy and the Leftists, however, are under even more heartless attack from the Quantitative Revolution, the measurement-and-control movement that subjects everything to test-and-reject, measure-and-fund, quantitative certainties.
The romantic academia that lives in our heart is dying or dead. Given a future between the Tyranny of Leftists and the Tyranny of the Quantitative Revolutions, my sympathies go to the quantitativists. They save what can be saved, submitting the universities to Research, Application, and funded Goals.
Last year, I formalized that description of how academia works:
Professors, like most people, respond to the incentives of power, influence, and money.
The institution of tenure reduces uncertainty regarding money, and focuses the incentives on power and influence.
Power in academia comes from the number of bodies a professor has under him. These bodies might be apprentices (graduate students he advises), journeymen (post-docs who have a PhD and work at the lab, or staff researchers), or simple workers (lab technicians, etc).
Influence in academia comes from the extent to which one is successful in influencing oneâ€™s peers. This is typically measured in terms of influence scores, which are a product of how often the academic is cited, weighted by how important of a publication he is cited in.
The best route to both power and influence is to earn grant money.
Daniel Allington must read my blog, as he writes the same thing:
Even among successful players of the funding game â€“ and certain digital humanists have been very successful players, of late â€“ one may find disquiet at the game itself, at the disproportionate importance now attached to it, and at the negative impact it is having on the careers of new researchers and (in the long term) on access to the profession as a whole by accelerating the casualization of both teaching and research. The underlying problem â€“ regretted by practically everyone with a genuine love of scholarship â€“ is the ongoing reconstruction of all disciplines on the social model of the natural sciences and the creeping abandonment of â€˜autonomyâ€™ (in the sense used by Bourdieu, 1993 ) in the academic field through tacit acceptance of the principle â€“ shared by university administrators, government ministers, and hiring committees alike â€“ that knowledge can and should be valued primarily for its moneymaking potential. In
Allington is particular worried about the “digital humanities” which provides a road out of the ghetto for humanities students. Allington criticizes this as revealing “the corrupting agenda of our paymasters” — apparently he sees nothing wrong with the old boys network that progress-based research replaces.