6 ms·
The ivy/state dichotomy is unnecessary for research quality as it depends more on the research capacity and capability of an institution, e.g. if its an R1 vs.
by lusus_naturae 3y ago
The ivy/state dichotomy is unnecessary for research quality as it depends more on the research capacity and capability of an institution, e.g. if its an R1 vs. R2. You're probably right that perverse incentives degrade or corrupt research anywhere--it's a systemic problem. Moreover, any discussion of research ethics that doesn't include industry or industry-sponsored work is incomplete.
If scientists had more than a citation index to establish productivity so that they can justify getting or keeping funding, the community could probably make some headway towards addressing behavior such as Gino's. Outright fraud is less prevalent than bad science or misinterpreted or misunderstood results. Personally I am in favor of a replication index for all original work, at least.
- th230603 3y agoGino worked for a business school, as did several of her collaborators. Often for business school profs, their work will be judged less on academic acceptance (peer-reviewed publication, etc) and more on its 'real-world impact'. You are seen as a good academic of marketing if you can market yourself into Ted talks, pop science publications, and ultimately, influence on 'decision-makers' (the sort of politicians and thinktanks who believe that eg healthcare can be solved by painting hospitals orange). So there are strong incentives to falsify results but they are quite different from those which bear on actual scientists.