Can anyone find me the article someone posted a link to a month or so back, from some moron claiming that because articles in English literature aren't cited as often as (say) articles in Engineering therefore all research in English literature was pointless because nobody was reading it, and literature profs should be forced to stop researching and just teach twice as much? I have an urgent need for this article. It may have been in the Crampicle, but I don't think so.
Perhaps I will be proven to have poor memory, but that article does not sound familiar to me... Maybe another blog?
ReplyDeleteNo, honest, it was on here. For one thing, i don't read any other blogs. But I distinctly remember someone commenting that this failed to take into account all of the instructors who read articles in order to prepare courses, or as part of their background reading for their own research, whether or not they engage with a specific article sufficiently to cite it. The practice in my field is only to cite the articles you directly engage with, so citation rates are low and don't tell us much about the reading rates. In other fields, where the practice may be to cite everything ever written on the subject, citation rates would be higher.
ReplyDeleteI believe this is the article you are seeking.
ReplyDeleteBauerlein, M. (2011, December 4). The Research Bust. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Research-Bust/129930/
The Little Professor wrote about the subject lately, and referenced this from the Center for College Affordability and Productivity (a very efficient bs machine, especially when it comes to defining "productivity"; they're behind some recent misery over a report on UT-Austin). Searching on the Center's name in the CM archives yields several posts, one of which may well be the one you're thinking of; if not, the Little Professor's discussion and/or links might yield something similar enough to serve your purpose.
ReplyDeleteJ and H, above, is on the same track (we posted at the same time); TLP was riffing on Bauerlein.
DeleteExcellent! Thanks.
DeleteThat blog is very useful too.
Deletethank you! This is the one.
ReplyDeleteGood! Can you tell us what you're working on? Now I'm curious (but don't, of course, want to ask for information that could out you).
ReplyDeleteMy university is talking about "evaluative metrics" and wants our input. We want to make damn sure they don't start using a citation index.
ReplyDeleteAh! A preemptive strike! Sounds smart to me.
DeleteI can see number of monographs, peer reviewed articles, etc, as a reasonable thing to be counting; it's actual research output. And there may be disciplines where impact points as measured by a citation index actually work. But they don't in Humanities, yet.
DeleteAnother thing it doesn't make sense to count (towards research 'productivity') is grant money awarded; because grant money is not research. Grant money FACILITATES research. IN the sciences, you can't function without it. But in the Humanities, we're fine if we've got a library. We can "produce" fine without grant money.
And of course, when and if we *do* get a grant or fellowship, it often specifically excludes "overhead," or even expects the university to chip in something to bring the level up to the awardee's regular salary, cover health insurance (in the States), etc. At least in some administrators' eyes, that defeats the whole purpose of a grant, which is to inflate the university budget (not necessarily, I think, actually raise revenue, since grant-getting and grant-administering do create expenses. In fact, with the growth of administrative positions and/or offices devoted to grant-getting, grant administration, and publicity about research, I'm wondering whether "research" of the grant-getting sort isn't becoming the new athletics: supposedly a revenue generator; actually a drain on university finances).
DeleteIn short, sometimes the whole grant-getting thing seems like one more version of "mine is bigger than yours" (with the budget being the thing measured in this case -- but money/conspicuous consumption is hardly an unusual stand-in for other things that might be measured).
DeleteOops; am I being misandrist?
sometimes grants build in an administrative budget for the university, though - if you get $60,000, the university automatically gets another $10,000 to administer it - depends on the grant; but that goes over very well with administrations.
DeleteWhy does nobody point out the fundamental differences in the research modes? In science and social science, you can co-author a study where the answer is "no." In humanities, you work alone, and the answer must always be "yes."
Delete"therefore all research in English literature was pointless because nobody was reading it"
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say it's pointless but it's not going to get much attention because it's a subject that isn't much relevant outside academia.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA--OhMyFUCKINGGod, SS, that is your very best to date!
Delete"I wouldn't say it's pointless but it's not going to get much attention because it's a subject that isn't much relevant outside academia."
ReplyDeleteBecause there are no human beings, with lives, thoughts, fears, joys, doubts, anxieties, and emotions outside of academia?
Okey-dokey, then.
Wait a minute... you are disagreeing with StockStalker????????
ReplyDeleteWhat is this world coming to?
Ahhh, StockStalker. Embodying the very reason people should experience and think about literature and the other arts, without even knowing it! It's too rich, really.
ReplyDelete