[core-questions]

> protested when version control was suggested

Academics are strange like this. The root reason is fear: fear that you're complicating their process, that you're going to interrupt their productivity or flow state, that you're introducing complication that has no benefit. They then build up a massive case in their minds for why they shouldn't do this; good luck fighting it.

Doubly so if you're IT staff and don't have a PhD. There's a fundamental lack of respect on behalf of (a vocal minority) of academics about bit plumbers, until of course when they need us to do something laughably basic. It's the seeds of elitism; in reality we should be able to work together, each of us understanding our particular domain and working to help the other.

[BeetleB]

> The root reason is fear: fear that you're complicating their process, that you're going to interrupt their productivity or flow state, that you're introducing complication that has no benefit.

Yes, but how does it compare to all the complicated processes that exist in academic institutions currently? Almost all of which originated from academics themselves, mind you.

[core-questions]

It's not that complicated. No one individual process is that bad. The problem is that there's so many that you need to steep in it for ages to pick everything up.

This means it makes most sense to pick up processes that are portable and have longevity. Learning Git is a pretty solid example.

[gowld]

I think this is why industry does better science than academia, at least in any area where there are applications. Generally, they get paid for being right, not just for being published, so they put respect and money into people that help get correct results.