I'm not wishing to start or continue an argument with Jan, but to post some
philosophical musings prompted by his comment that he dislikes "mandates".
I disagree that mandates are always wrong. The so-called "publish or perish"
"mandate" has severe negative consequences for academic, that most here will
know about (least publishable unit, skewing research progress, particularly
in fields that require significant groundwork before a flurry of publications
of results, etc etc etc.
However, the "mandates" placed by institutions on their staff and on staff
and institutions by funders are not always negative. It seems quite right to
me that funders mandate that the work they fund has its results disseminated
widely. This means that they require (or, mandate) that papers be produced
and, when published, be made available as widely as possible. Without them,
some staff would indulge in potentially world-changing research which had its
impact delayed or denied. Academic freedom, like many other freedoms, is not
unbounded, and comes with responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is
to disseminate the results of one's work widely, balancing the need/desire to
do further work with the necessity of transmitting the results already done.
--
Professor Andrew A Adams aaa_at_meiji.ac.jp
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/
Received on Tue Aug 31 2010 - 03:17:08 BST