Replaying the Tape of Academia: Fourteen Alternative Practices for the Physical Sciences

P. Kemeny, A. Phillips, Daniel Lee Johnson
{"title":"Replaying the Tape of Academia: Fourteen Alternative Practices for the Physical Sciences","authors":"P. Kemeny, A. Phillips, Daniel Lee Johnson","doi":"10.1029/2024cn000240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The evolution of modern academic practices, analogous to the evolution of biological systems, reflects the influence of both contingency and determinism. From a theoretical perspective, how then could academic practices differ from those that were inherited? Would any alternative outcomes be more just, equitable, diverse, or inclusive? Here we present 14 alternative academic practices that might be attained upon replaying the tape of academia and evaluate their benefits and drawbacks. Oriented primarily around the physical sciences within the United States, these alternative practices reconsider common activities within the broad categories of the graduate student experience, faculty careers, evaluation methods, peer review and publication, and conference norms. Consideration of these alternative practices can guide within‐system change and large‐scale restructuring of academia to address the myriad challenges facing researchers and students. Conversely, alternative practices may introduce new issues or exacerbate existing problems. These alternative practices are meant to be imaginative, not prescriptive, and we hope their underlying ideas spur reflection and conversation on the existing practices embedded within academic culture. Readers are encouraged to complete a brief survey regarding their impressions of the alternative practices, available at the following link: rebrand.ly/AlternativePractices2024.","PeriodicalId":403895,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives of Earth and Space Scientists","volume":"37 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives of Earth and Space Scientists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1029/2024cn000240","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The evolution of modern academic practices, analogous to the evolution of biological systems, reflects the influence of both contingency and determinism. From a theoretical perspective, how then could academic practices differ from those that were inherited? Would any alternative outcomes be more just, equitable, diverse, or inclusive? Here we present 14 alternative academic practices that might be attained upon replaying the tape of academia and evaluate their benefits and drawbacks. Oriented primarily around the physical sciences within the United States, these alternative practices reconsider common activities within the broad categories of the graduate student experience, faculty careers, evaluation methods, peer review and publication, and conference norms. Consideration of these alternative practices can guide within‐system change and large‐scale restructuring of academia to address the myriad challenges facing researchers and students. Conversely, alternative practices may introduce new issues or exacerbate existing problems. These alternative practices are meant to be imaginative, not prescriptive, and we hope their underlying ideas spur reflection and conversation on the existing practices embedded within academic culture. Readers are encouraged to complete a brief survey regarding their impressions of the alternative practices, available at the following link: rebrand.ly/AlternativePractices2024.
重放学术界的录音带:物理科学的十四种替代做法
现代学术实践的演变,类似于生物系统的演变,反映了偶然性和决定性的双重影响。从理论的角度来看,学术实践与继承下来的学术实践有何不同?任何替代性结果是否会更加公正、公平、多样或具有包容性?在此,我们介绍了重放学术界的录像带后可能实现的 14 种替代性学术实践,并对其利弊进行了评估。这些替代实践主要围绕美国的物理科学,重新考虑了研究生经历、教师职业、评估方法、同行评议和出版以及会议规范等大类中的常见活动。对这些替代实践的考虑可以指导系统内部的变革和学术界的大规模重组,以应对研究人员和学生面临的无数挑战。反之,替代实践可能会带来新的问题或加剧现有问题。我们希望这些替代实践的基本理念能够激发人们对学术文化中现有实践的反思和讨论。我们鼓励读者完成一份简短的调查,以了解他们对替代实践的印象,调查链接如下:rebrand.ly/AlternativePractices2024。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信