[542458]

The thing that I don’t understand is that:

* Academics say publish or perish is terrible and produces warped incentives.

* Academics say they need tenure to protect senior researchers from the publish or perish system.

* But academics seem to be the ones building grant and advancement systems that enforce “publish or perish”.

I don’t get it - it certainly sounds like tenure mostly protects senior academics from systems they built themselves. If publish or perish is so bad why don’t senior members of departments build advancement opportunities that don’t rely on impact factor? Cynically, it almost feels like tenure is enforcing publish or perish, because those with tenure set the rules and the current system protects those who are tenured.

Furthermore, I don’t see why the sort of “deep study” research that the idealized tenured researcher does would need special protection. If the researcher has a track record of success surely the department would tolerate a brief lull in publications while they work on their Magnum Opus? Private industry frequently does multi-year deep research projects without the need for tenure systems.

[DrSAR]

I think your incorrect assumption is that tenured faculty are running and shaping the universities. Much has been written about the rise of different class in the academy: administrators. For a somewhat extreme position look here [1]. And even tenured faculty are subjected to the performance assessments that can seriously hinder their research agenda. As the saying goes: Tenure has never protected those who really needed it.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2018/05/10/kill-a...

[robwwilliams]

Ahmen!