In my previous post, I wrote about different kinds of applications for funding in the academic
world and criticized the rhetoric of success present in the ‘descriptive’ type
of applications. One has to admit, however, that the ‘descriptive’ type has one
huge advantage over the purely ‘factual’ one: not all important information can
be contained in bullet points, listed under specific categories of
achievements. For instance, only in the descriptive applications, one can make
the evaluator aware of the amount of work that is required to obtain results in
a given discipline. If a researcher’s success is measured by sheer number of
publications and the quality of a given journal, as it is often the case, then e.g.
an archaeologist will be from the outset disadvantaged compared to, let’s say, a
literary theorist. The former needs to commit much more time to fieldwork and
travels, before he is ready to publish his results. In a longer description, he will have the opportunity to remind the evaluator of such
special circumstances regarding his profession. The same is true of perfecting
research skills, especially at the beginning of one’s career. If, for instance,
one’s research requires extensive knowledge of a number of foreign languages,
he, in terms of points earned, will stay behind his colleagues who need only
Polish and English in their work. So once more the ‘time is money’ catchphrase
proves to be true.
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz