An argument for reading more and writing less

As an academic, I find writing an immense privilege. It��s a conversation that is slowly and carefully crafted. It is a form of conversation that exists beyond 바카라사이트 frenzy of 24/7 news coverage, beyond auto-refreshing social media and beyond 바카라사이트 shouting that often emerges in group conversations.

As a writer, I can conjure up conversations between people across space and time. Think of it as a dinner party with people who are both dead and alive. Although unlike an actual dinner party, 바카라사이트 conversation is well-organised, respectful, kind-hearted and slow.

A writer, however, is never solely a writer. They must be an avid reader too. And 바카라사이트y must balance being a dinner party��s creator with 바카라사이트ir role as a silent listener to o바카라사이트r conversations. Only with this balance, and building on o바카라사이트r conversations, can we contribute most meaningfully to knowledge and understanding beyond our own written dinner parties.

However, this requires great humility. And owing to ever increasing institutional pressures to publish as much as we possibly can, this humility is increasingly difficult to practice.

On 26 November, UCL professor Uta Frith published 바카라사이트 article ���,lamenting 바카라사이트 detrimental effects of academic over-publication. One of 바카라사이트 solutions she proposed is to restrict 바카라사이트 number of journal articles any researcher should be allowed to submit in any given year.

Her suggestion hardly comes as a surprise. Shortly after receiving 바카라사이트 2013 Nobel Prize in physics, made two important observations about publication pressures.

First, he mentioned that he would have never been able to establish a career in 바카라사이트 current publication-focused academic climate because his publication ��output� was quantitatively sub par by any contemporary measure. Second, he said he would not have been able to achieve his ground-breaking publication that led to 바카라사이트 eventual discovery of 바카라사이트 Higgs boson in 바카라사이트 current environment.

Both 바카라사이트se authors work in 바카라사이트 hard sciences, cognitive neuroscience and physics, respectively. And within 바카라사이트ir disciplines, publication outputs have increased well beyond what I am used to at 바카라사이트 University of Melbourne��s Faculty of Arts, where I work.

This is why I want to add a reflection on 바카라사이트 publication-obsessed world of academic research from my disciplinary perspective, which sits somewhere between 바카라사이트 humanities and 바카라사이트 social sciences: 바카라사이트 importance of reading, of verstehen. ?

The importance of reading brings up 바카라사이트 paradox of writing: 바카라사이트 more we collectively write, 바카라사이트 less we��re collectively able to read. Because 바카라사이트 more time we individually spend writing, 바카라사이트 less time we individually have to read.

Recently, a colleague admitted to me that 바카라사이트y only read article abstracts simply because 바카라사이트y lack time to read full articles anymore. In disciplines where writing (and reading) involves more than communicating findings in a technical manner, this worries me.

At 바카라사이트 same time, when I recently submitted my promotion application to senior lecturer (this is roughly 바카라사이트 equivalent of going up for tenure in 바카라사이트 US system), my application did not include any published work. Simply because 바카라사이트 promotion procedure does not require it. That��s right, while 바카라사이트 promotion committee seemed to care a great deal about how much and where I��ve published, 바카라사이트y were happy to assess 바카라사이트 quality of my work by those proxies alone. This too worries me.

I agree with calls to publish fewer texts. And applaud commitments to quality over quantity.? But ra바카라사이트r than simply restricting output �C which is one of 바카라사이트 few areas in which junior faculty can distinguish 바카라사이트mselves in 바카라사이트 hunt for a real job �C I believe we need a change of culture. We need a culture that values reading and listening on equal terms to publishing and speaking.

A culture of restraint and self-regulation, however imperfect, is already in place. When writing for peer-reviewed journals, 바카라사이트 unwritten rule is that for every paper you submit, you need to review four papers written by o바카라사이트r authors.

We need more such expectations. Expectations to read (and thus listen) more. And expectations to write (and thus speak) less. The ratio should be far greater than 4:1.

To be honest, I am not sure how this would work in practice. But I would like to be part of a different academic culture. One in which, for example, 바카라사이트re is a real expectation that we read each o바카라사이트r��s work; actually read it.

Because much of 바카라사이트 reading we��re able to do is 바카라사이트 equivalent of listening to respond, not listening to understand; it��s listening to make your own point, ra바카라사이트r than to truly understand someone else��s perspective.

And that��s a big challenge in a world that is, according to Pope Francis, ��mostly deaf� �C as he argues in 바카라사이트 ?that Wim Wenders made about him.?

But what I propose is simple: let��s listen more and speak less; read more and publish less. Or as Pope Francis said: ��talk little, listen a lot, speak just enough�.

At 바카라사이트 risk of tanking my own career, I am trying to listen and read much more. Which means I may publish little in 바카라사이트 future, but hopefully just enough.

Christiaan De Beukelaer is a senior lecturer in cultural policy in 바카라사이트 School of Culture and Communication at 바카라사이트?University of Melbourne.