3 ms·
I would imagine that it's the metrics universities and funding agencies apply in promotion decisions. For example, my (well-known) university decided to measur
by YorkshireSeason 4y ago
I would imagine that it's the metrics universities and funding agencies apply in promotion decisions. For example, my (well-known) university decided to measure impact, and takes "Twitter engagement" as one proxy metric for impact -- against my explicit recommendations. I'll leave the consequences to everybody's imagination.
- dekhn 4y agoYes. In fact many scientists post to twitter but don't look at the replies (Emily Bender is an example) or even block you if you disagree with them. That's not engagement and I wonder what the dean would do about a promotion where the scientist just sort of blathered on twitter and had lots of followers, but wasn't actually providing any real scientific value (again, Emily Bender is an example).
- YorkshireSeason 4y agoDeans typically lack detailed technical knowledge to evaluate candidates (not to mention time), they just go with the flow, and want to run the department smoothly. I think the real mechanism is this: those who make the decision (those with the most power, i.e. those who bring in the most funding and can threaten to leave if they don't get their way) already know whom they want and they cherry-pick data, eg "impact" figures, to bolster their case. That enables the dean then to justify the decision in public with those cherry-picked figures ... (the dean can hardly say we are hiring X because otherwise top funding getter Y will leave) I think Twitter is less important in STEM subjects than in social sciences or humanities, as STEM has more clearcut results.