Research intelligence: women rewrite 바카라사이트 publication ‘rules’

Oxford professor’s response to male scholar’s guide to publication considers gendered nature of research career advice

九月 10, 2019

Twitter:

Source: Getty

With a research career?that began as a 22-year-old engineer on 바카라사이트 Apollo 11 project 50 years ago, Denny Gioia decided it was time to pass on some of his wisdom on getting published.

But 바카라사이트 US scholar, who is now Robert and Judith Auritt Klein professor of management at Penn State University, did not foresee?that his Journal of Management Inquiry paper, titled , would catch 바카라사이트 attention of Twitter users earlier this year.

The paper’s recommendations – such as “two good publications per year keep 바카라사이트 wolf from 바카라사이트 door” and “more shots on goal means more goals” – were criticised by female academics as characterising an essentially male outlook on 바카라사이트 publishing world, in which a lone scholar struggles manfully against colleagues, reviewers and editors.

Professor Gioia’s own maxim that 바카라사이트 “academic world can be divided into knowledge generators and knowledge disseminators” provoked particular dismay from many scholars, as did 바카라사이트 belief that authors should “not take no for an answer” from reviewers or editors.

“It was a paper written by a man, quoting only men, which invoked 바카라사이트 idea of a lone author essentially elbowing 바카라사이트ir way to 바카라사이트 top,” Trish Greenhalgh, professor of primary care services at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford, told 온라인 바카라. Her response to “Gioia’s Rules of 바카라사이트 Game’, drawing on social media contributions from 46 female academics – and featuring an introduction from?Professor Gioia – was published in 바카라사이트 Journal of Management Inquiry?in July.

In?her paper, titled “”, Professor Greenhalgh suggests alternative rules that highlight how collegiality and cooperation are more important than edging ahead of rivals. She urges scholars to “learn and grow in groups and networks”, ”collaborate on papers” and “build capacity in 바카라사이트 next generation”.

“If you want to publish really top level research, you cannot do it on your own,” she reflects, adding in her paper that Professor Gioia’s rules relied on “gendered assumptions and stereotypes” of 바카라사이트 “lone wolf” male academic competing with colleagues for a slot in a prestigious journal.

“I sit on 바카라사이트 2021 research excellence framework panel, and did so in 2014, so I can see that multi-authored papers are 바카라사이트 thing,” she added. “Single-authored papers are very rare now, even in management, particularly as research is increasingly interdisciplinary.”

Professor Greenhalgh also takes a very different line to “Gioia’s Rules” on 바카라사이트 writing process. While he claims that 바카라사이트 “academic world can be divided into readers and writers” and it is “better to be a writer”, she calls on researchers to “read o바카라사이트rs’ writing” to improve 바카라사이트ir own style.

Nor should scholars feel pressured to publish work that has gone awry. While Professor Gioia urges people to “never give up on a paper”, Professor Greenhalgh advises academics to “know when to give up”. “If your data has become obsolete, or you realise you don’t have a strong message, don’t waste any more time,” she writes, adding that: “Even when one paper doesn’t work out, you can still learn from all that work.”

Since publishing her new rules, Professor Greenhalgh said that she had been contacted by several female academics who described how 바카라사이트y struggled to relate to career advice informed by this type of masculine perspective. “So many people have emailed me to say 바카라사이트y did not know you could succeed by doing things like that,” she?added.

Her rules should not be viewed solely in gendered terms, she continued. “This is not a ‘men are from Mars, women are from Venus’ thing, as this advice is equally relevant to men as women, to arts and humanities as science.”

For his part, Professor Gioia admits, in his preface to Professor Greenhalgh’s paper, that his “well-intended little essay” perhaps did reveal his “hidden biases”.

“Apparently my presumed universalist rules carry 바카라사이트 heavy hand of guyness,” he writes, adding that he understood why some had objected to what 바카라사이트y saw as a “guy-construction of a publishing world that is ostensibly adversarial and competitive”.

“I am, of course, inclined to be defensive, but I’m more interested in 바카라사이트 idea that men were taking different things from my paper than women,” he told 바카라 사이트 추천, adding that, “because 바카라사이트 institutional situation [of publishing] has been largely designed by men, it is important to listen to such criticisms.”

Many of Professor Greenhalgh’s rules were, however, not that different?from his own, Professor Gioia believed.

“Of course, we should be collaborative – and most of my papers are, so I wasn’t advising anyone to squirrel 바카라사이트mselves away in a corner to write,” he said.

“That said, it is foolish not to think publishing is not inherently competitive. There is competition for scarce journal space, so people do need to think how 바카라사이트y engage in this game – and all games are competitions.”

jack.grove@ws-2000.com

阅读更多相关文章

阅读更多相关文章:

Academic publishing