Final nail in the coffin for tenure in Florida

[jimbogumbo]

dismalist, you keep saying the same thing with no evidence that it applies to the natural sciences and mathematics. For high level universities in these areas you simply have to have been promoted to Associate (which at many is essentially tied to tenure) to have the grad students and labs to support getting these grants. If you wish we can restrict the discussion to the AAU membership (of which the University of Florida is currently a member), and I can guarantee that this is the case. The bulk of that important research occurs after promotion and tenure, and requires those grants.

All that may well be true, but alas, there is no systematic empirical evidence for this that I know of.

But, you're making a far stronger claim that there is no evidence that tenure is essential for long-term research productivity in STEM fields.

What's STEM got to do with the price of fish?

Look, there is evidence that tenure lowers research productivity in a couple of fields. This is consistent with researchers' self interest. I don't expect STEM to be different because, after all, STEMmers are human, too, and so respond to incentives.

The tests have only been done for the United States. Maybe it's different in Greece. I would expect not, for Greeks are humans and respond to incentives.

Of course, if you believed otherwise, find some tests. Otherwise this is an evidence free belief.

This discussion is inconceivable outside the academy. Non-academics would see through the incentives right away.

I gave you a citation and you dismissed the article (seemed a little bit quickly, but what do I know). You've mentioned research, but I don't remember a citation. Most of your arguments have been centered around Econ and Soc. Looks to me like you have beliefs based on experience, and so do some of us in STEM. But you insist that you're correct and we are wrong. To me it seems like a typical argument structure you would find outside academia as well.

[jimbogumbo]

Sorry for the double. Echoing what marshwiggle just noted. That is EXACTLY my experience. Tenure, plus the infrastructure of labs and grad students.

[mleok]

Look, there is evidence that tenure lowers research productivity in a couple of fields. This is consistent with researchers' self interest. I don't expect STEM to be different because, after all, STEMmers are human, too, and so respond to incentives.

STEM is different, because big grants tend to be awarded only to tenured faculty members, and productivity is not predicated on one's individual efforts, but rather on having an army of graduate students and postdocs.

[mleok]

I think a whole bunch of us just made the same point.

I'm still waiting to see links to actual studies...

[dismalist]

dismalist, you keep saying the same thing with no evidence that it applies to the natural sciences and mathematics. For high level universities in these areas you simply have to have been promoted to Associate (which at many is essentially tied to tenure) to have the grad students and labs to support getting these grants. If you wish we can restrict the discussion to the AAU membership (of which the University of Florida is currently a member), and I can guarantee that this is the case. The bulk of that important research occurs after promotion and tenure, and requires those grants.

All that may well be true, but alas, there is no systematic empirical evidence for this that I know of.

But, you're making a far stronger claim that there is no evidence that tenure is essential for long-term research productivity in STEM fields.

What's STEM got to do with the price of fish?

Look, there is evidence that tenure lowers research productivity in a couple of fields. This is consistent with researchers' self interest. I don't expect STEM to be different because, after all, STEMmers are human, too, and so respond to incentives.

The tests have only been done for the United States. Maybe it's different in Greece. I would expect not, for Greeks are humans and respond to incentives.

Of course, if you believed otherwise, find some tests. Otherwise this is an evidence free belief.

This discussion is inconceivable outside the academy. Non-academics would see through the incentives right away.

I gave you a citation and you dismissed the article (seemed a little bit quickly, but what do I know). You've mentioned research, but I don't remember a citation. Most of your arguments have been centered around Econ and Soc. Looks to me like you have beliefs based on experience, and so do some of us in STEM. But you insist that you're correct and we are wrong. To me it seems like a typical argument structure you would find outside academia as well.

I mentioned research. If anybody had been interested, I would have cited. It didn't take me long to figure out that your citation was not good. Everybody evaluates for themselves in the time they wish to spend.

We should all try very hard to not let our own experience determine our conclusions. This is about systematic stuff, not about lived experience.

Many, many people believe lot's and lot's of things without evidence. Sometimes that's OK, and sometimes not.

My arguments are implied by self-interest. Such arguments are common in my neck of the woods, and such insights are common in the practical world.

[dismalist]

I think a whole bunch of us just made the same point.

I'm still waiting to see links to actual studies...

You stated that there was a large literature on this and easy to find. If it's easy, provide some citations.

You're not citing, so I'm not citing. I'm not here to convince, but to convey.

[mleok]

dismalist, you keep saying the same thing with no evidence that it applies to the natural sciences and mathematics. For high level universities in these areas you simply have to have been promoted to Associate (which at many is essentially tied to tenure) to have the grad students and labs to support getting these grants. If you wish we can restrict the discussion to the AAU membership (of which the University of Florida is currently a member), and I can guarantee that this is the case. The bulk of that important research occurs after promotion and tenure, and requires those grants.

All that may well be true, but alas, there is no systematic empirical evidence for this that I know of.

But, you're making a far stronger claim that there is no evidence that tenure is essential for long-term research productivity in STEM fields.

What's STEM got to do with the price of fish?

Look, there is evidence that tenure lowers research productivity in a couple of fields. This is consistent with researchers' self interest. I don't expect STEM to be different because, after all, STEMmers are human, too, and so respond to incentives.

The tests have only been done for the United States. Maybe it's different in Greece. I would expect not, for Greeks are humans and respond to incentives.

Of course, if you believed otherwise, find some tests. Otherwise this is an evidence free belief.

This discussion is inconceivable outside the academy. Non-academics would see through the incentives right away.

I gave you a citation and you dismissed the article (seemed a little bit quickly, but what do I know). You've mentioned research, but I don't remember a citation. Most of your arguments have been centered around Econ and Soc. Looks to me like you have beliefs based on experience, and so do some of us in STEM. But you insist that you're correct and we are wrong. To me it seems like a typical argument structure you would find outside academia as well.

I mentioned research. If anybody had been interested, I would have cited. It didn't take me long to figure out that your citation was not good. Everybody evaluates for themselves in the time they wish to spend.

We should all try very hard to not let our own experience determine our conclusions. This is about systematic stuff, not about lived experience.

Many, many people believe lot's and lot's of things without evidence. Sometimes that's OK, and sometimes not.

My arguments are implied by self-interest. Such arguments are common in my neck of the woods, and such insights are common in the practical world.

Let's see the work you're citing.

[dismalist]

I think a whole bunch of us just made the same point.

I'm still waiting to see links to actual studies...

You stated that there was a large literature on this and easy to find. If it's easy, provide some citations.

You're not citing, so I'm not citing. I'm not here to convince, but to convey.

[mleok]

I think a whole bunch of us just made the same point.

I'm still waiting to see links to actual studies...

You stated that there was a large literature on this and easy to find. If it's easy, provide some citations.

You're not citing, so I'm not citing. I'm not here to convince, but to convey.

No, you're here to pontificate.

[mleok]

Predicting Research Productivity in STEM Faculty: The Role of Self-determined Motivation

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11162-022-09718-3

[dismalist]

I think a whole bunch of us just made the same point.

I'm still waiting to see links to actual studies...

You stated that there was a large literature on this and easy to find. If it's easy, provide some citations.

You're not citing, so I'm not citing. I'm not here to convince, but to convey.

No, you're here to pontificate.

That's a very convincing argument.

[mleok]

I think a whole bunch of us just made the same point.

I'm still waiting to see links to actual studies...

You stated that there was a large literature on this and easy to find. If it's easy, provide some citations.

You're not citing, so I'm not citing. I'm not here to convince, but to convey.

No, you're here to pontificate.

That's a very convincing argument.

Likewise.

[jimbogumbo]

Here is another: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-021-03957-4

[dismalist]

Here is another: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-021-03957-4

Now, that's good stuff, jimbo!

There's really too much in there to digest in a half hour. What I would say, skimming, is that while it seems STEM is special, one can argue about where a book chapter comes from [from one's friends], even where a book comes from [from one's past]. The authors know that they aren't considering quality, usually measured with citations. Such was criticized -- properly -- upthread.

After a quickie, I would say the hypothesis of tenure promoting research productivity is not confirmed. All is possible, of course, as I said to you upthread, but there is not sufficient cause for insisting that tenure promotes research productivity.

Again, people follow incentives, even STEM researchers do, for they are people.

One good turn deserves another, jimbo: This, naturally,  https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.32.1.179 was what I saw first upon foraging. It cites the studies whose results I mentioned.

[Kron3007]

Here is another: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-021-03957-4

Now, that's good stuff, jimbo!

There's really too much in there to digest in a half hour. What I would say, skimming, is that while it seems STEM is special, one can argue about where a book chapter comes from [from one's friends], even where a book comes from [from one's past]. The authors know that they aren't considering quality, usually measured with citations. Such was criticized -- properly -- upthread.

After a quickie, I would say the hypothesis of tenure promoting research productivity is not confirmed. All is possible, of course, as I said to you upthread, but there is not sufficient cause for insisting that tenure promotes research productivity.

Again, people follow incentives, even STEM researchers do, for they are people.

One good turn deserves another, jimbo: This, naturally,  https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.32.1.179 was what I saw first upon foraging. It cites the studies whose results I mentioned.

You fail to recognize other incentives beyond base salary and job security that are common in STEM.  Where I am, we can't pay extra salary from Grants, but I understand this is common in the US.  However, even where I am I can generate, own, and profit from, IP that I develop in my research program.

To get grants and/or generate IP, you need to do research and publish.  So, tenure doesn't take incentive away in STEM as it may in some fields.  This doesn't even factor in the drive many academics have for non-monetary items.