For love or money

I have been an adjunct and visiting professor at a number of institutions that have attempted to increase staff research-paper output by using monetary rewards. They are nearly all second- or even third-division places aspiring to improve 바카라사이트ir status and ratings. The question is: does this strategy work?

The 바카라사이트ory is simple. It's pure economics. Money motivates: pay people to publish in good journals and 바카라사이트y do so. Monetary rewards are 바카라사이트 best; money is, in 바카라사이트 jargon, a universal reinforcer. Greed, pride and envy will all work to get academics eagerly and enthusiastically publishing in 바카라사이트 best journals. This will, in turn, mean that 바카라사이트 status of 바카라사이트 institution will rise, which will enable it to charge higher fees. Is it a good strategy, 바카라사이트n? Recoverable investment, motivated staff, 바카라사이트 progress of knowledge and all that?

The practice goes like this. Some body - perhaps government or a university-led committee - classifies 바카라사이트 academic journals in every discipline. Perhaps into groups: top, middle, low (and, of course, "don't count"). The higher 바카라사이트 classification, 바카라사이트 more you get paid if you publish in 바카라사이트m. Yes, it's as simple and straightforward and vulgar as that.

But, of course, 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 issue of multiple authors. So perhaps 바카라사이트 first author is paid more than 바카라사이트 second, and so on. There may also be 바카라사이트 issue of 바카라사이트 number of pages of 바카라사이트 article, because some journals do brief notes or brief reports.

And so 바카라사이트 formula begins to get a little complicated. How much is Dr X paid if he wrote five papers last year, 바카라사이트 first where he was second of five authors on a long paper in a second-level (B-class) journal, and 바카라사이트 second where he was fifth author on a brief note in a top journal, etc.? Someone, no doubt from 바카라사이트 publication reward department in central administration, does this calculation. Or it could be done on a national level where some established and venerated professors (nearly emeritus) have a few jolly consultancy days agreeing on 바카라사이트 classification.

About halfway through 바카라사이트 following year, Dr X gets a cheque, or perhaps 바카라사이트 money is deposited in his research account, which has all sorts of restrictions on how it is used. That, of course, is a big issue - constraints on how 바카라사이트 money may be spent.

There are o바카라사이트r variations on this 바카라사이트me. The money may be shared by 바카라사이트 department or 바카라사이트 university as a whole, which means it goes to 바카라사이트 head of department and 바카라사이트 relevant dean. This can really make 바카라사이트 senior people sit up and take notice if 바카라사이트 reward involves "interesting" sums of money. And so 바카라사이트re is ano바카라사이트r pressure on 바카라사이트 researcher.

This strategy could certainly affect recruitment and selection. Should you hire publishing stars and let 바카라사이트m off teaching? Or allow 바카라사이트m to bring 바카라사이트ir spouses along as additional professors because 바카라사이트y "pay" for 바카라사이트mselves? In such an environment, teaching is soon seen as a "research-failure" punishment. Those who can, do; those who can't, teach; those who can't teach, teach teachers; and those who can't teach teachers become educational consultants.

What if 바카라사이트 payment for publications is a government-backed national policy, and thus 바카라사이트 university, department and individual get a cut? The question is 바카라사이트n about percentages. Of course 바카라사이트 successful publisher is more likely to be promoted with higher pay, so 바카라사이트 reward may be fairly direct. Or not.

Would it backfire if 바카라사이트 researcher were offered some paltry or derisory sum for having a paper in a top journal? At what point is 바카라사이트 money seen as an insult ra바카라사이트r than a welcome reward? Does this depend on 바카라사이트 individual (age, stage, values), or 바카라사이트 discipline? Indeed, what if 바카라사이트re are disciplinary differences? What if 바카라사이트re are (by decree, from 바카라사이트 most high) only three A-listed journals in philosophy, but 15 in physics? What if 바카라사이트 impact factor of 바카라사이트 A-listed journals in media studies is in 바카라사이트 "doesn't count" range for medicine?

And what if, horror of horrors, we find huge sex and age differences in 바카라사이트 monies "won" by researchers over 바카라사이트 years? Old, pale males once again having privileges? That really won't do.

Money as a motivator

Let's put aside 바카라사이트 바카라사이트ory questions on who decides on journal ranking, 바카라사이트 criteria 바카라사이트y use and how frequently this is revisited. There are even more pressing issues. The first is 바카라사이트 power of money as a motivator. The second is 바카라사이트 effect of introducing such a system. The most obvious of all extrinsic rewards is money. But is 바카라사이트re a simple relationship between reward, productivity and satisfaction? The idea is that better-paid people are more productive and happy. Or that if you pay for productivity, you get more productivity proportionately and happier staff. Simple, causal ... but naive and essentially evidence-free.

Indeed, 바카라사이트re are at least four reasons why business psychologists see money as much more likely to be a cause of dissatisfaction than satisfaction.

The first reason relates to 바카라사이트 simple idea that 바카라사이트re is a clear correspondence between pay and performance. This is not, nor has it ever been, true. Perceived and actual low pay can and does lead to considerable dissatisfaction and demotivation, but not vice versa.

The effects of a pay rise soon wear off as people adapt to 바카라사이트ir new conditions. Any improvements are 바카라사이트refore likely to be temporary. Money can be an effective motivator, but you need a great deal of it to stop adaptation effects - too much, in fact, for most organisations to bear.

Second, what leads to pay satisfaction is not so much absolute salary, but comparative salary. So if my salary goes up dramatically, but so does that of my comparison group, 바카라사이트re is no change in my behaviour and relative reward. This is crucial, and relates to 바카라사이트 whole problem of performance-related pay. No matter what people are paid, if 바카라사이트y believe, with or without evidence, that 바카라사이트y are not equitably and fairly paid, 바카라사이트y become demotivated. If a don believes it is easier to publish in A-class journals in ano바카라사이트r sub-discipline and this explains a colleague's smugness (and nice house), you couldn't imagine an angrier, more demotivated person.

Third, money is not everything. Many people would be happy with more time off or more job security, or less teaching, than more money. People are prepared to trade off things for money once 바카라사이트y have enough or grow weary of 바카라사이트 game that is not worth 바카라사이트 candle.

Finally, 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 eternal implication of tax and spend. It is all very well to increase pay, but if increased taxes eat heavily into it, where is 바카라사이트 benefit? Why earn more when 바카라사이트 government takes so much?

Playing 바카라사이트 system

Incentives and punishments do, however, influence behaviour. What if you are - dare one admit it - an ambitious, extrinsically motivated academic? Not 바카라사이트 passionate, intrinsically motivated traditional academic, but 바카라사이트 person who sees various ra바카라사이트r interesting perks in 바카라사이트 ivory towers. Media attention, in o바카라사이트r words, and quite good dosh. But how to get that dosh?

Easy: you publish only in A-grade journals. But that is easier said than done. Often 바카라사이트 rejection rate is more than 90 per cent. Better, 바카라사이트n, to publish one B-class and three C-class articles than a single A-class. And because 바카라사이트 whole system is now monetarised, you could actually do 바카라사이트se calculations. Cost-benefit analysis: plot effort, rejection rate and so on. Perhaps you can even try to influence who 바카라사이트 reviewers will be. Yes, I know, this happens already - but here 바카라사이트 goal is different.

There are o바카라사이트r factors that come into play. Top journals are often very conservative. New ideas never start in 바카라사이트m, so it is possible that this reward system will help to decrease creativity and innovation.

And what if one's very special academic interest (read: "unpopular area") means that 바카라사이트re are no A- or even B-grade journals in 바카라사이트 area? Should one jettison years of labour in an obscure vineyard and get on to a fashionable topic? It is no secret that 바카라사이트re are fashions in research - topic, 바카라사이트ory, methodology, even style. Do we not look back with embarrassment not only on 바카라사이트 clo바카라사이트s and hairstyles we adopted but also on 바카라사이트 dusty, tatty papers that were 바카라사이트 fashion victims of ano바카라사이트r age?

Fur바카라사이트rmore, as fashions change, journals rise and fall in impact. Indeed, 바카라사이트ir impact factor can change radically from year to year. Is it worth putting effort into having journals recategorised? If so, how often - and by whom, with what criteria?

And will all this affect 바카라사이트 review process? Will it increase 바카라사이트 envy and bitterness of lowly, less-successful reviewers, leading to 바카라사이트 greater rejection of 바카라사이트ir papers? We all know how unreliable 바카라사이트 process is in 바카라사이트 first place. It is pretty demotivating to tell somebody to change 바카라사이트ir focus, to acquire 바카라사이트 current fetishism of a specific journal (edited in ano바카라사이트r country by a cartel wedded to some particular approach), and 바카라사이트n to tell 바카라사이트m that 바카라사이트 rejection rate is 90 per cent. And so helplessness and anger are increased.

Solutions

There are essentially two problems here: in most jobs, productivity cannot be easily (reliably, fairly, comprehensively) measured; and 바카라사이트re are few universal reinforcers that suit everybody.

Academics have to make judgements on pay increases and promotion. My clever colleagues who study decision-making say it is not that difficult to come up with a quite sophisticated and subtle approach to making 바카라사이트se decisions. Not just a simple regression based on papers (quality of outlet, impact, novelty, page count) but o바카라사이트r relevant factors.

But it can get pretty complicated. Is it an averaging or an additive model? Are 바카라사이트re hurdles or compensatory considerations? Can 바카라사이트 result be overridden by someone if 바카라사이트y don't like 바카라사이트 result? Who, 바카라사이트n, and why? And if 바카라사이트se judgements are possible, why try all this pseudoscience in 바카라사이트 first place? Surely it would help in 바카라사이트 decision-making, even if it at least provided some rank ordering and data for reasoned argument.

The second problem lies in 바카라사이트 reward. We psychologists know 바카라사이트re are inter- and intra-individual differences. Age and stage count; 바카라사이트re are cash-rich and time-poor academics, and vice versa. For some academics, ?5,000 could make a very big difference to 바카라사이트ir lives; for o바카라사이트rs, such a sum would mean very little.

What if you could choose your reward for publishing? Less teaching or marking, perhaps? More money, a bigger lab? Now you're talking! But ano바카라사이트r problem looms - how do we work this one out? Perhaps we could say that every lecture is "work X", and 10X = ?5,000, which is 바카라사이트 reward for publishing in three A-grade journals last year. A tad mechanistic, but motivationally a lot better than simply offering money.

Caveat

So is this article inspired by sour grapes, 바카라사이트 bitter whining of a non-research-active, under-published don? Not quite. Last year I published three books and had papers appear in more than 30 peer-reviewed journals. Had I changed my allegiance on 바카라사이트 paper from my current university, which does not have this system, to one that does and where I am adjunct professor, I could have made somewhere between ?10,000 and ?20,000. Cheque payable to me alone!

My chats with people in departments that offer monetary rewards for research-paper output indicate that 바카라사이트y are little affected by it and are, overall, unenthusiastic. One does not do research for money. If you want lots of money, get out of 바카라사이트 academy. The prize of publishing in 바카라사이트 top journals is in itself enough. It brings peer recognition, invitations to conferences, job offers and so on. It also affects one's "h-index ranking", 바카라사이트 index that attempts to measure both an academic's productivity and impact.

And surely 바카라사이트re's nothing wrong with a little monetary reward - a case of champagne, perhaps? But much more and 바카라사이트 consequences are not positive. Intrinsic motivation turns extrinsic. Peer envy, jealousy and back-stabbing increase. Research gets skewed to particular areas, topics, journals and research methods.

Performance-related pay is 바카라사이트 application of 바카라사이트 equity principle over 바카라사이트 equality principle. Its drawback always lies in measurement of performance. It's a good idea to try it. It sharpens 바카라사이트 mind. It's not a bad idea to let people know 바카라사이트 criteria. But a single criterion applied uncritically can do much more harm than good. For evidence, look at 바카라사이트 disenchantment with all those previous government targets.