After an extended xmas break that featured such excitement as setting up other people's webcams, transporting paintings on ferries, and building Ikea flatpack furniture, I'm now back in my (underheated) office to tackle all those projects I didn't want to start last month.
Not being one for New Year's resolutions (starting on a Tuesday in February works better for me), I've instead been reflecting on what I've learned about academia in the past year and what further insights I hope to gain.
Research Grants or Publications?
I now know that it's perfectly possible for me to do good research on the cheap (i.e., without external funding) because most of what I do does not require expensive technical equipment or support and can use undergraduate students as participants. In other words, I can get papers published in good journals with my time and brain power as the only cost.
- What is the optimal balance of grants versus papers? If I can run a study and write it up in the same length of time that it takes to make a full grant application, which should take precedence? Obviously, I need both on my CV, and one grant will lead to multiple publications, but at this early stage of my career I feel I should be prioritising paper-writing. At the moment, I have something like a 4:1 papers:grants submission ratio but is this balance right?
Following or Ignoring Local Research Directives?
I now know that my university and faculty issues consecutively conflicting directives on a regular basis. Only apply for research council funding! No, apply to whichever funding source is most likely to give you money! Stop writing books or chapters and only submit to high-impact journals! No, publish in whatever outlet will be most highly cited in your subfield! Collaborate with people in other university research groups! No, collaborate with people inside your own research group! No, collaborate with people outside the university!
- Should I pay any attention to these directives? To date, I've been following a policy of nodding and smiling at the relevant people but then blithely continuing with my carefully-planned research programmes as if nothing had happened. Will this have negative repercussions in my career progression? As an early-career, fairly disposable lecturer, should I toe the party line even if it keeps changing direction until I'm in a more senior position? Or is the only sane policy to ignore the nonsense and do whatever is best for me?
Shotgun or Rifle Publishing?
I now know that short papers are faster to get out than long papers. Yes, it can take more time to run and write up three separate studies than a series of related experiments, but the reviewing process is snappier for brief papers. In sum, shorter papers hit the presses in shorter time, longer papers in longer time.
- Is it better to target research towards a selection of short studies or a single, long monograph? Short papers mean a longer list of publications and have a better chance of being cited in passing if they report an interesting empirical result, but can seem rather minor and throwaway. Long papers mean a detailed theoretical position can be presented that can potentially make a major contribution to the field, but they can be ignored (and not cited) if the theory doesn't open up interesting avenues for other researchers. When taking into account personal effort, reviewing/publication lag time, and potential for scientific impact, which type of output will most benefit this stage of my career?
Sometimes I wish my university had more than a token mentor system for junior academics, but then I can't quite imagine anyone in my department being in a position to advise me on these very subject-specific issues. The only person to know enough about all the relevant variables to make these decisions is ... me.
