Researchers of all ages continue to complain that anyone who gets involved in popularising science can end up on the receiving end of sniffy comments from colleagues who see such activities as at best a distraction from real work, and at worst dumbing down. The naysayers don't quite say the same thing about teaching, but that is probably only because to come out of that particular closet would be to court professional death. After all, education is in the job spec and is supposed to be as important as research.
So there isn't likely to be much support for an idea put forward by Larry Page, whose main claim to fame is that he set up Google. Page put forward his ideas at the recent annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The AAAS has put out a News Release on Page's ideas, along with a video of the presentation, some of them would cause fits among the opponents of public dissemination.
Take the suggestion, as reported in the release, of "tying tenure and grant money to the media impact of research". Can you imagine it? Along with details of what you have done over the years, you have to include newspaper clippings about your earlier projects.
They haven't gone that far, but in the UK at least, some of the public bodies that fund research require recipients to devote some of their efforts to Public Engagement with Science and Technology (PEST). This seems to be influencing at least some scientists.
I recently helped run a two hour session on dealing with the media for young and mid-career scientists at Sussex University. One of the people who attended said that she was reluctantly coming to the conclusion that she should join in the PEST game. As well as the growing pressure from research funders, she also thought that being more visible might get people to take her research more seriously, buried as it usually is in obscure journals.
It wasn't just potential the fame and glory, or even the need to keep the grant income flowing, that interested her. Working as she did on important issues for youngsters with a disability, she felt that the people who could pick up her ideas and use it needed to understand what she does.
This may be some way from Larry Page's arguments, but it is certainly a case worth considering, especially if you are of the view that most of the science writers who write for large audiences ignore this sort of thing in favour of the usual safe stories.
26 February 2007
Page turns to science
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Well I would think that one has to be more public than in a corner of a pub to get "the rant income flowing" (above).
What kind of "rant income" comes to those at Hyde Park Corner?
Still there is the bias to the English language and surely the other founder of Google, Mr. Brin, might have something to say about that, Da!
Main item edited to make this anonymous (from an academic?) comment even more incomprehensible than it was originally.
The naysayers don't quite say the same thing about teaching, but that is probably only because to come out of that particular closet would be to court professional death.
Among their immediate peers they do, Michael, and for some it's a badge of honour.
In my experience, the whingers fall into two camps. There are those who genuinely hate teaching, and only do it because they wouldn't have a proper job without lecturing. And then there are those who whinge about teaching and admin responsibilities, saying that they are a distraction from research. The reality is, however, that teaching is for them a welcome distraction from research, as they dislike the detail of the latter. Directing PhD students and postdocs is one thing, but crunching data and debugging computer code? I don't think so.
I'm sure, though, that the majority of university faculty enjoy both research and teaching, and while they may struggle to achieve a proper balance between them, they do so in good humour.
Is the use of "PUST" now deprecated? I'm not sure which acronym is worse: PUST or PEST.
I'm afraid that PUS, which became PUST, has given way to PEST, partly because I picked up the acronym from someone at the Wellcome Truest and liked it.
The argument was that "understanding" is a condescending word. Engagement is more inclusive.
I think the time has come to move on to PIST. Involvement.
As to the academics, sad, but probably true. Then again, I have never understood why we require academics to be good at teaching, research, working with industry, and admin, let alone management.
It is only snobbery that forces good teachers to pretend to do research. And over estimating research – much of which is glorified stamp collecting – makes it possible for the truly second rate to be good at not much.
Cynical? Moi?
Engagement is more inclusive.
For whom – the stakeholders?
Stakeholders? You are falling into PEST jargon.
I interpret this as the public. On the grounds that "understanding" is condescending. "If only the public understood science, they would love everything it produced."
Engagement give a pretence of being able to influence things.
Involvement is effectively the same thing, perhaps suggesting real influence, but with a better acronym.
Stakeholders? You are falling into PEST jargon.
Actually, I was being ironic.
Post a Comment