"The whole episode left me wondering what purpose it serves to penalize those who want to stay at the same institution for multiple career stages. It’s often said in academia that 'moving around a lot is necessary.' But the reality is that moving is a huge barrier for many scientists, including those with spouses, children, aging parents, disabilities, and cultural backgrounds that emphasize a close-knit extended family community—the kinds of people academia is actively trying to recruit to its ranks."
Pushing those rules to extremes is always bad. So I do agree with all the arguments above to not force people to move, *but*… we have also to consider the problems with the other extreme, of having all the local academics being graduates and PhDs of the local university—something that used to be common 30 years ago.
It's bad for openness and dissemination, also bad for interpersonal relations (enduring subordination to advisor, feuds,...)
1/2 @academicchatter
Now I think in most countries/fields these situations are a minority, so I agree those policies should be relaxed.
In #France, we have 2 flavours of #UniversityProfessor openings: "article 46-1" which is mostly towards outside applications, and "46-3" mostly for insiders, with different criteria. Also, "#repyramidages" are in-place career progression, from early-stage lecturer to professor.
Not to say all who have reason to stay locally can…
2/2
@jocelyn_etienne @MamanQuechua @cyrilpedia @academicchatter
And some funder still thinking the same old way @snsf_ch 🤷
https://social.anoxinon.de/@snsf_ch/111374814126155542
There is a large amount of data that cross-pollination prevents stagnation in the sciences (see, as one good example, David Kaiser's Drawing Theories Apart). There is good evidence that moving between fields is often the key to breakthroughs. There is good evidence that people blossom more when they get out from the space created by their mentors. And scientists, like artists, often do better work when forced out of their comfort zone. So there is lots and lots of good data that moving institutions is good for the science being done.
The question is how to balance the usefulness of moving across institutions at career stages with the difficulties it creates for the individuals (which are sometimes very real).
There are things that can be done to encourage shifting within an institution (such as requiring individuals to shift mentors and to demonstrate independence from their old mentors if they stay at the same institution).
But we should not lose sight of why the shifting institutions helps the science. There is good meta-science reasons for it.
@cyrilpedia Yeah when people stay in the same place, the institution gets a memory, even a History, and an identity and we hate this, because it makes people strongers toward the stupidity of the institution.
We don't want any collective ideas or strength , we only want individuals faced to their individual responsabilities.
Now that turn-over is set at the speed of a driller, research staff doesn't have the time to think about what we are doing to them, and that's what we want. ♥️