Hi,
Over the years, I have encountered all sorts of academics. I have met the high-functioning academic. I have met the one who avoids administrative work. I have met the committed teacher. I have also met the prolific writer. I have met the politically charged scholactivist. I have also met the genius — the kind who speaks once and leaves the room thinking.
One thread, however, runs through all of them: they produce scholarship: loads of it. Sometimes I find myself wondering what the endgame is. How many of these papers are actually read? Are we, in truth, writing to satisfy our own egos?
I know someone who told me they have student research assistants who help with their projects, paying them a nominal stipend because these students are based in a developing country. I do not fully understand how this arrangement escapes being deemed exploitative. Perhaps I am too naive. Perhaps this is the “way forward.”
But do people not stop and ask: what is the point of writing this? Just because one has an idea does not mean one must publish it. I believe a large part of this overproduction stems from the fact that, particularly in the social sciences, academics can produce and promote ideas with little accountability. In short, many academics operate from a position of commentary, insulated from the consequences of their ideas.
What if there were some sort of condition? That if you promote an idea and it makes its way into public policy, and the policy fails, then you are held accountable? I suspect this would drastically alter the academic output we see today.
This tendency toward overproduction increasingly blurs the line between academics and content creators. Imagine an academic investing months, sometimes years, into an article, only to measure its success in “likes” on LinkedIn. I have heard that the scholarly community still recognises those who do not self-promote. “They know.” I am not suggesting otherwise. But the rate of visibility is different. Those who are able to promote their work relentlessly on social media receive more opportunities. Word of mouth travels, but not as fast as social media platforms.
So, are academics also content creators? Perhaps. I do not disparage those who recognise this and lean into it. There is honesty in acknowledging the shift.
Still, I wonder about the quality of the work produced in this hurry to “get the next one out.” Is this truly a research trajectory, or merely a checklist? Maybe I am envious because I cannot do the same. But deep down, I believe some of this work will, in future, be akin to what is already called “AI slop” : writing for the sake of writing. Writing for the next promotion. Writing for the next line on a CV. Often through shoddy and exploitative means. What is the point?
I do admire those who write less, but when they do, they create waves. This, in my view, is a more meaningful way to engage in academic life. I believe early career researchers should take inspiration from senior professors who now actively work to change the culture — mentoring junior colleagues, not only writing about their area but also about how to navigate academia, reflecting on the changes in knowledge production, and placing student learning at the centre of their academic practice.
I hope I become one. Be the change you want to see in the world rings true till date.
Life is so rich,
Justin
PS: Sometimes, I look back on my life and I feel really grateful for what I have. Even if I come off as someone who complains in this newsletter, I am really really lucky thank 99% of the Earth’s population.