A busy twitter discussion on research funding has followed from The Conversation piece, Science funding should go to people not projects.
I’ve opened this short post for those that might want to try discussing in a medium more suited to longer remarks.
This is a huge topic, one of great concern with pressure from all directions.
Factors that might be considered include:
- Career breaks – allow movement in/out of academic (v. ‘continuous career model’)
- Different types of contributions, e.g. publications (and citations), grants, talks, students, mentoring, teaching, science communication roles, etc.
- Diversity of staff (incl. approach to research)
- Switching fields
Marguerite Galea has suggested an eTrack record, a ‘report card’ of sorts. She also suggested writing software to help process these.
I’ll step back and let people offer their thoughts! If it’s your first time commenting here, I’ll have to approve your first comment; after that you can comment at will. I’ll stick around for a couple of hours, so you’ll get approved promptly — besides I want to see the leap second in!
Best to read The Conversation piece and the articles it links first, if you can, but plow anyway on if you haven’t time!
Other’s thoughts (available on-line)
I’ll try add related links at the end of this posts as this progresses, below:
Michael Hendricks was asked by Ethan Perlstein for his views and offered them as a letter in Google Docs. (See tweet above.) Discussion followed his tweet.
Mel Thomson has created a Storify account of the twitter discussion that prompted this post. (I suggested blog comments might offer people a chance to elaborate on their tweeted ideas; that was ‘favourited’, which, at the time, I took to be an indication that setting up this would be useful.)
Other articles on Code for life: