Leaving behind the big business and bureaucracy of academic science

I have written several posts in past years about my preference for small organizations/companies and small research groups in the world of scientific research, be they in the public or private sector. It wasn’t always so; when I was starting out in the work world, there was something enticing about working for a large company, e.g. a pharmaceutical company. There was something attractive about being a small fish in a large pond, so to speak. Even though you could be surrounded by an ocean of people, it still felt as though there were possibilities as long as you worked hard and did your job. It felt like the world was your oyster. That was in 1980s America, specifically Manhattan. I have not physically experienced the changes that have occurred since that time because I moved abroad and began working in Norway in 1990. But I have kept abreast of the different changes both there and here via books, the news and social media. And the academic scientific workplace has changed enormously in Norway since 1990. One must expect change, I know that. I know too that the changes I’ve witnessed here in Norway are not specific to Norway, although Norway puts its own stamp on them. They are global changes--the huge growth of bureaucracy, the emphasis on mergers that result in huge organizations/companies, the loss of individuality in the workplace, the dominance of program-driven research, the emphasis on huge research groups (think centers of excellence), the inability to obtain funding for non-program-driven research and the demise of small research groups, scientific publishing as big business, to name a few.

I have worked in the public sector for most of my research career, over thirty years here in Oslo and at least three years in Manhattan. I have seven years of research experience working in the private sector (a well-known cancer hospital). There are advantages and disadvantages to working in both the public and private sectors. I know this from my friends in the USA who have worked in the private sector (doing R&D for pharmaceutical companies) for most of their careers. Very few regret working in the private sector. They were well-paid, recognized for what they did, and when they retired, they left knowing that they made a substantial contribution to their workplace. I doubt any of them felt like a fifth wheel (superfluous or burdensome). The main complaint they had was not that there was lack of money for research projects; rather that there could be pressure on them to produce results, and when those results were not forthcoming fast enough, projects were cancelled in favor of new and more promising projects. But the public sector is no better. I know this to be true. There, many projects don’t even get that far, because they don’t get funded from the start. Many good ideas die on the planning table because there is a lack of funding to implement them. Why? Because academic research is big business now; huge sums of money get tossed around, and tossed to those who have great ambitions and five-year plans that promise the delivery of great (innovative and marketable) results. It’s often the same researchers who lead program-driven research centers who get funding; small research groups or researchers with less lofty ambitions do not get funded anymore. ‘Bigger is better’ in all respects. Actually, ‘bigger is best’, because if you think ‘big’, you are thought to be an ambitious scientist, a market- and innovation-driven scientist, a high-flyer. If you don’t think big, you’re less employable because you’re considered second-best, mediocre, unambitious, or not good enough. Many small research groups have innovative ideas and good plans for how to translate and implement them; it doesn’t matter because they no longer get funding to do so. Most research in the public sector is done by large centers of excellence (populated by project groups that are protected and funded by the center heads). Academic science is big business now, with emphasis on big. We’re talking tens of millions of dollars in grant funding to program-driven research alone at present. Some of that money goes to actual research; some of it goes to the bureaucracy needed to run these huge centers—secretaries, accountants, advisors, human resources, etc. Just a decade or two ago, a researcher working in a small group doing non-program-driven research could obtain fifty to one hundred thousand dollars per year in funding to carry out his or her small research projects independent of large centers of excellence. That meant a lot to those researchers. But no more. The government doesn’t want small research groups anymore, even though many of the top researchers in the USA have stated publicly that the best ideas often come from small research groups. It doesn’t matter here in Norway. They know best, and big is the politically-correct mantra, in all things.

Eventually, facing this overwhelming hugeness at all turns takes its toll on researchers who work in small research groups and who want to pursue non-program-driven research. There are only so many times they can apply for funding and get continually rejected in favor of the centers of excellence and program-driven research. There are only so many times they can be told to keep plodding on—‘one day you’ll get funding’—when everyone who understands the system understands that this is just lying. There are only so many years they can keep working as post-docs or junior scientists, waiting for their chance to finally ‘belong’. There are only so many years they can deal with the rejection, the loneliness, the demotivation, the lack of recognition for what they do. Keeping their heads above water, competing with the centers of excellence for funding, being told by department research leaders that they’re mediocre because they don’t get funding (when they can’t get funding because they don’t do program-driven research), all these things are counterproductive at best. None of it is good for mental or physical health, and none of it is good for sanity. If all these scientists ever hear is negative feedback, then they become cynical, demotivated, and demoralized. Most research leaders don’t seem to care about that; some few do. Some few are fighting for a return to non-program-driven research and for the survival of small research groups. But I doubt that they’ll get far. One could ask why these ‘small’ scientists simply don’t hop on the program-driven research bandwagon, why they don’t become politically-correct scientists. The answer is that not all scientists are the same; they are individuals with different motives and goals. That should be respected and encouraged; at present, it is not. I no longer encourage small scientists to stay in academia. I am retiring soon and can now speak the truth. It is a waste of their time and of those precious years when they could be doing good research, preferably in the private sector, where their skills and talents will most likely be more appreciated than in the public sector, where after some years of not ‘measuring up’, they become the fifth wheels, superfluous and bothersome to their institutions, and unwanted.

Gobbledygook or Newspeak in Modern Workplaces

From time to time I write about the modern workplace; the well will never run dry when it comes to finding ideas to write about when it comes to such workplaces. I am especially interested in public sector workplaces, since they seem to embody (or aim to embody by design) the worst business philosophies and ideas that crawl out from under the slimy rocks where they’ve sprouted. Modern workplaces in Norway and elsewhere often adopt such philosophies and ideas uncritically and put them into operation without much discussion or rational consideration. I’ve written about them before, e.g. New Public Management, which is (fortunately for us) on its way out after its decade of tyranny. Ask most employees if they’ve been comfortable in their workplaces that uncritically adopted this philosophy, and their answers will be a chorus of No’s. 

The uncritical adoption of bad business philosophies into modern public sector workplaces goes hand in hand with the language of gobbledygook to support and defend them. If company leaders don’t want their employees to know what it is they are being subjected to, then gobbledygook is the language they use. Let’s call it Newspeak for modern workplaces (with apologies to George Orwell). It can be defined as a language that makes no sense whatsoever, either to its users or to its unfortunate listeners. Its aim is to create a smokescreen so that employees become confused or left in the dark about what is really going on. If you have ever been the recipient of emails that make no sense whatsoever, if you’ve asked a question and gotten a ‘non-answer’ that passes for an answer, then you have experienced gobbledygook. If you attempt to make sense of the enormous bureaucratic system around you, e.g. how to deal with the billing department, you will be met with a wall of people, all of whom are cc-ing each other in the myriad of emails sent back and forth to answer one tiny question—how do I bill so-and-so for the service performed for them. One tiny question is ‘non-answered’ by at least six or more people, none of whom can or will take responsibility for providing a substantive answer. This is cowardice by design, inbuilt into a system that is itself designed to dilute out responsibility so that no one can be taken for any wrongdoing that could arise down the road. How would anyone be able to track the countless email paths, conversations, etc. that are attached to one miniscule billing situation?

In this vein, it was interesting to read the remarks of a Norwegian leader (of a public sector workplace that deals out money to researchers) concerning his organization’s philosophy, translated here from Norwegian:

When the sectoral principle so strongly influences Norwegian research funding, it is all the more important that XXX has a real opportunity to create synergies of funds given with different logics, then we can create win-win situations where we can deliver both on goal A and Goal B for the same money.

For God’s sake, what does this mean? And it’s not the translation; it was just as difficult to understand the meaning in Norwegian. This is how we are ‘talked to’ on a daily basis, from leader’s commentaries to emails that makes no sense or that provide no answers whatsoever. This is what we face at every turn. Meaningless pronouncements with bloated language that create a world of nonsense. Nonsense—literally, non-sense. Lewis Carroll would be proud (the author of Alice in Wonderland for those of you who wonder, whose Alice fell down the rabbit hole into a world that made no sense). It would be alarming if it wasn’t comical. It is no longer comical in my opinion. This is how many public sector workplaces operate on a daily basis. I pity those employees who prize speaking clearly and getting the job done as their goals. It is nearly impossible to cut through the jungle of gobbledygook on the way toward those goals.