Do other bloggers ever stalk you in real life?
OK, maybe it doesn’t count if (1) it’s someone you know from real life (and I think even an online course counts as real life here), and (2) it’s someone who actually has business to transact in the building in which you run into her. Besides, Julie‘s a pretty cool blogger by whom to be stalked.
Anyway, Julie was kind enough to chat with me as I walked to class, and something like the following exchange took place:
J.M.: So how’s that ethics in science class of yours going.
Dr. F-R: Love! The students are really sharp and they seem really engaged by the challenges of being ethical and doing good science.
J.M.: That’s great.
Dr. F-R: Yeah. It’s hard, though, because it’s not just a matter of not being evil. To survive in science, you have to figure out the institutional structures of the community. And, we’ve somehow ended up with these institutional structures that pit scientists against each other, like we think high-stakes competition will automatically lead to better science. It’s an environment that doesn’t do nice things to human nature.
J.M.: And it’s not like human nature is all that great itself.
Dr. F-R: Granted. But some of the institutional structures make it look like the most rational strategy to throw your competitor under a train, or to make stuff up, just to stay in the game. When backed into corners, academics can be mean mofos.
J.M.: Something to look forward to.
Dr. F-R: But lots of them are good people, too. I think we just need to … rethink some of the institutional structures that are in place and get rid of the ones that pit folks against each other but don’t bring about any improvement in the knowledge that’s being produced.
J.M.: To look at the academy, you’d never imagine that the academic blogosphere could be as wildly cooperative as it is.
Dr. F-R: Word! Real life has some catching up to do …
Indeed, it is very refreshing to be *here* when the academic blogosphere hasn’t been ruined by academia (yet). Wait until you can claim blogging as part of your annual report of scholarly effort for performance evaluation (who links to you, your hit rate, establishment of an impact factors of hits from certain IP addresses, etc.) – the camaraderie might change then.
I’ve “met” some of the nicest and most thoughtful folks (especially you, Janet!) through the networking that science blogging affords. Now that my primary appointment is at a non-profit secondary to my adjunct academic appointments, my 4 months of blogging has made me feel more engaged academically than in my previous 12 years in academia.
I knew, the moment I said “hi, I’m stalking you,” that it would end up on your blog. I just knew it.
See if I ever come to your end of the building again! Just you wait and see!
When backed into corners, academics can be mean mofos.
Actually, you don’t have to corner ’em before they get mean.
In re: Abel’s notion that “the cameraderie might change”, I hope the blogosphere will change the academy rather than the other way around. (It’s forlorn and it’s feeble, but it’s hope.)
Try this idea: The problem in academia is that “scientific” status is dependent on negotiating for resources in a real-world venue where those resources are in gravely short supply, and largely controlled by the current dominance heirarchy. This comes across as “unfair”, because the scientific community has been running under a “gift economy” for a couple or three centuries, and now that’s being threatened by exploitative and competitive forces.
Strangely enough, the Internet favors the “traditional regime” in this case — because the ‘Net has been running largely as a “gift economy” since it got started! (Q.v. Open Source, P2P, support lists, et many al.) For both science and the Internet, the basic reason why they favor gift economies is the same: A gift of information enriches others (ultimately, the community), without impoverishing the donor. Of course, this is anathema to anyone who wants to play “rainmaker”, or otherwise seeks control of either venue….