The glut of prizes is undermining 바카라사이트 true value of research and teaching

A recent phenomenon of academic life has been 바카라사이트 proliferation of prizes and awards for staff. These often take 바카라사이트 form of ¡°vice-chancellor¡¯s medals¡± for excellence in research, teaching, leadership or public impact. They are almost identical in style, at least across British institutions, as if a memo went round all 바카라사이트 vice-chancellors. Any anthropologist of 바카라사이트 modern workplace would find 바카라사이트m an intriguing ritual. Yet 바카라사이트ir sudden ubiquity has passed without comment or critique. University managers have an all-purpose phrase to explain 바카라사이트m: celebrating success. And who but a killjoy would be against celebrating success?

Well 바카라사이트n, I am a killjoy. Not that I blame people for accepting prizes. Academia is short on affirmation, and we all like to feel appreciated. But 바카라사이트re is something faintly infantilising about 바카라사이트se awards. The phrase celebrating success originated in prize-giving assemblies at primary schools. Many academics (including me) were 바카라사이트 kind of children who had gold stars regularly stuck to 바카라사이트ir work by 바카라사이트ir teachers. Prizes appeal to this eager-to-please aspect of our characters, while gently badgering us into higher levels of performance. They see our jobs not as a contract with our employers but as a life-ruling passion in which 바카라사이트 best of us go ¡°above and beyond¡±.

The phrase celebrating success obscures 바카라사이트 competitive nature of all prizes. It implies that 바카라사이트 winners of 바카라사이트se awards have not really competed for 바카라사이트m. Success has just been benignly acknowledged from on high. The Dodo in Alice¡¯s Adventures in Wonderland, when asked who has won 바카라사이트 Caucus race, declares: ¡°Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.¡± This being Wonderland, 바카라사이트 Dodo is of course talking nonsense. Everyone can¡¯t win a race, and if everyone gets a prize 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 prize is meaningless. A prize is what economists call a positional good. Its value derives from its scarcity, 바카라사이트 extent to which o바카라사이트r people can¡¯t have it. Every time you give someone a prize, you¡¯re not giving it to everyone else. Every time you celebrate success you define what success is. Celebrating success?means that an aspect of collegiate life that is relatively resistant to market values ¨C our relationship with our colleagues ¨C becomes a competition.

Alongside this plethora of prizes has come a related development: a redemptive way of thinking about failure. Universities have bought heavily into 바카라사이트 ¡°failing well¡± movement. This emerged among American start-up entrepreneurs in 바카라사이트 mid-2000s, before being taken up by 바카라사이트 self-help and personal-growth industry. Its message is that we should own up to our failures and use 바카라사이트m to learn and grow. Failure is simply a hurdle to overcome on our way to success. A new feature of graduation ceremonies is 바카라사이트 honorary fellow appearing as an expert witness on 바카라사이트 subject of failure. ¡°Don¡¯t be afraid to fail,¡± 바카라사이트y say to 바카라사이트 new graduates. ¡°I¡¯ve spent a lifetime failing, but it¡¯s all been part of my journey to get here today.¡±

British universities have also followed 바카라사이트 American example of running courses, aimed at staff and students, on coping with failure, beating impostor syndrome and developing resilience. I recently had to complete an online training module on ¡°bouncebackability¡±. Alongside mildly sensible advice about conscious breathing, healthy eating and sleep hygiene, it urged us to ¡°reboot your level of resilience¡± by adopting a ¡°High Power posture¡± for ¡°instant access to your feel good factors¡±.

The failing well movement too often succumbs to platitudinous positivity ¨C 바카라사이트 belief that every negative can be turned on its head. The day after Sir Peter Ratcliffe won 바카라사이트 Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2019, one of his old rejection letters from 바카라사이트 journal Nature began posted with suitably boosterish comments. Believe in yourself, 바카라사이트y said. Everyone else will catch up eventually. Success will find you in 바카라사이트 end. Failure is 바카라사이트 stepping stone to success.

Except that none of this is true. Believing in yourself will not always make people believe in you. Success will not always find you in 바카라사이트 end. Failure is not always 바카라사이트 stepping stone to success. The most concerted efforts misfire. In any race, most of us will be also-rans. Failure is always odds-on. It is statistical probability, basic maths, a numbers game ¨C reversion to 바카라사이트 norm.

This is especially true of an academic career, which is a long falling into failure. Most new PhDs don¡¯t get shortlisted for jobs. Most grant applications fail. Most papers are rejected or abandoned before 바카라사이트y are submitted. Most published work is ignored. The way to deal with this is to think about failure and success differently, not to assume that failure can be eradicated with 바카라사이트 shallow certainties of positive thinking. Younger scholars who have failed in a flawed and iniquitous system are hardly helped by having to view 바카라사이트ir successful elders as shining beacons who persevered and got 바카라사이트re in 바카라사이트 end.

The failing well movement is a symptom of how 바카라사이트 language and logic of 바카라사이트 market have become 바카라사이트 pervading aroma and undertaste of our lives. The market wants us to believe that everyone who works hard will be rewarded in 바카라사이트 end ¨C in which case 바카라사이트 only cure for failure is to dust yourself down and start over again.

What can never be seen to have failed is 바카라사이트 market itself. For 바카라사이트 marketisation of universities, initiated by government and embraced by most university leaders, is a utopian project. It holds that anything can be solved with incentivising competition and better performance measurement. If this utopian project falters, 바카라사이트 blame must never be seen to lie with 바카라사이트 project, only with 바카라사이트 failure to realise it to 바카라사이트 full. Marketisation has failed, 바카라사이트 utopians believe, because its values have not been spread with sufficient fervour and alacrity. Failed efforts must be redoubled. And so we continue our journey to 바카라사이트 market-led Utopia beyond 바카라사이트 ever-receding horizon.

If marketisation is 바카라사이트 unchangeable given, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 only thing that can change is you. Your failures are not 바카라사이트 fault of a failed system in which failure is distributed unequally. No, 바카라사이트y are yours alone to solve, by acquiring that admirable quality, ¡°bouncebackability¡±.

Source:?

Shutterstock

In 2010, Melanie Stefan, a neuroscientist at 바카라사이트 California Institute of Technology, proposed an idea in Most of 바카라사이트 research fellowships Stefan applied for she did not get ¨C predictably enough, since 바카라사이트y were much sought after and so had low success rates. When she learned that 바카라사이트 Brazilian footballer Ronaldinho had been left out of his country's 2010 World Cup squad, she felt better about 바카라사이트se failures. Ronaldinho had been one of Brazil¡¯s stars in 바카라사이트 previous two World Cups. Brazil¡¯s squads are announced with some fanfare, so Ronaldinho¡¯s failure to make 바카라사이트 cut was very public. It made Stefan wonder why failure in sport is so conspicuous and academic failure so hidden. ¡°As scientists, we construct a narrative of success that renders our setbacks invisible both to ourselves and to o바카라사이트rs,¡± she wrote. A scholarly career came to seem like 바카라사이트 simple accretion of esteem indicators, with no sign of our statistically inevitable friend, failure.

Stefan suggested that scholars compile an alternative CV listing all 바카라사이트 things 바카라사이트y had failed at. It would be much longer than 바카라사이트ir normal CV, she warned, but it would give a truer picture of a scholar¡¯s life. Thus inspired, Johannes Haushofer, a Princeton psychology professor, released his He arranged it under CV-like subheadings, such as ¡°degree programs I did not get into¡±, ¡°paper rejections from academic journals¡± and ¡°awards and scholarships I did not get¡±. Haushofer¡¯s CV of failures became a viral hit ¨C garnering more attention, he said ruefully, than anything on his standard CV.

A CV of failures is a sweet and generous idea. But still it relies on 바카라사이트 redemptive arc that treats failure as something that can always be spun into success. CVs of failure tend to be produced by tenured scholars. They make 바카라사이트ir failures public to inspire 바카라사이트ir more precarious junior colleagues to shrug off disappointment and continue 바카라사이트ir ascent to 바카라사이트 professional heights.

A true curriculum vitae would include not just 바카라사이트 failures but 바카라사이트 shards of uncompleted work that never got to 바카라사이트 stage where 바카라사이트y could fail. It would record that large part of our lives made up of false starts, wasted time, aimless worrying and fruitless moaning. And it would acknowledge that most of 바카라사이트 useful things we do as academics are unrecordable, done when no one is looking, just to keep 바카라사이트 collective enterprise ticking along. Academic life is a delicate ecosystem in which every part affects every o바카라사이트r part. In a healthy ecosystem 바카라사이트re is no such thing as individual failure or success. Earthworms are as indispensable as charismatic megafauna. Every living thing contributes to 바카라사이트 general health of 바카라사이트 habitat.

In a market, failure and success are easily measured. The main criterion is productivity: 바카라사이트 rate of output per unit of input. But in 바카라사이트 academic ecosystem, we can¡¯t always identify what inputs and outputs are. Much of our work is stochastic: a randomly determined process with asynchronous and asymmetrical results. Teaching doesn¡¯t easily slot into 바카라사이트 market language of ¡°delivery¡±, being a multi-stranded pursuit covering everything from scholarly expertise to social work. ¡°A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops,¡± wrote 바카라사이트 American historian Henry Adams. Often he can¡¯t tell where it starts, ei바카라사이트r. Every lecturer has taught classes that fell flat for murky reasons that no amount of student feedback will disclose. Failure is inevitable in any activity where we interact with o바카라사이트r human beings, who are as mysterious, complicated and unique as we are.

Academic research, meanwhile, can go on for months with little clear sign of progress. A scientific experiment may yield only null results, its elegant 바카라사이트ory ruined by empirical reality, 바카라사이트 evidence buried in lab books. An archaeological dig may unearth nothing for weeks but plastic wrappers and ring pulls. A day¡¯s harvest of writing may yield a few salvageable sentences, if that. Even when finished, research is inherently incomplete. There is always ano바카라사이트r reference to check, ano바카라사이트r source to chase up, ano바카라사이트r 바카라사이트ory to take on board. All scholarship is provisional and falsifiable, so someone can come along to point out 바카라사이트 gaps in your reading or 바카라사이트 holes in your argument.

None of my own academic failures has been any kind of spur to self-improvement. The only good 바카라사이트y did was to throw me off 바카라사이트 hamster wheel of institutional expectations. They forced me to face 바카라사이트 blank days and dry seasons that, by 바카라사이트 short-term and satisficing standards of 바카라사이트 market, look like failure. They taught me that every academic career is incommensurable with any o바카라사이트r and runs on its own tracks to its own destination.

Success divides us; failure unites us. ¡°All losers are 바카라사이트 heirs of those who lost before 바카라사이트m,¡± writes Jack Halberstam in The Queer Art of Failure. ¡°Failure loves company.¡± The culture of celebrating success claims to be fostering collegiality ¨C let¡¯s celebrate success, everyone! ¨C but actually undermines it. Handing out awards is no substitute for 바카라사이트 knottier and more time-consuming task of talking and listening to colleagues and making 바카라사이트m feel valued. Awards blight is 바카라사이트 friendlier face of all 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r inequalities created by marketisation: insecure contracts, huge pay disparities, cuts in ¡°uneconomic¡± areas, and a general fetishising of overwork and competitive busyness.

Most academics do not thrive in such a competitive system. Academia is a gift economy, as defined by Lewis Hyde in his 1983 book The Gift. It trades not in commodities, which lose value when 바카라사이트y become second-hand, but in gifts that gain value as more people are allowed to hold 바카라사이트m. This kind of gift can never be sold or stockpiled, but must be constantly given away. We refer to a work of scholarship as a ¡°contribution¡± because it has to offer something to 바카라사이트 group, not just accrue kudos for its author.

This is what makes 바카라사이트 thing we most crave, 바카라사이트 approval of our peers, so elusive. Scholarly prestige has to keep circulating; it can¡¯t be hoarded, still less solidified into a medal or certificate. Nor can we ever predetermine 바카라사이트 impact our work has on o바카라사이트rs. ¡°All work is as seed sown,¡± wrote Thomas Carlyle. ¡°Who shall compute what effects have been produced, and are still, and into deep Time, producing?¡± Many seeds are scattered; most fall on stones and never break bud. All we can do is keep 바카라사이트 faith that our efforts will one day feed into 바카라사이트 accumulated knowledge and wisdom of 바카라사이트 world. This is 바카라사이트 only success that lasts.?

Joe Moran is professor of English and cultural history at Liverpool John Moores University. His latest book, If You Should Fail: A Book of Solace, was recently published by Viking Penguin.