The proposition behind 'solve for x': "What would it take to create a moonshot factory? A place that was dedicated not to publications or patents or profits but directly to the idea of radical thinking, radical problem solving, and driving radical levels of positive impact." These, of course, are the three icons of contemporary research. How would we assess and measure researchers without these measures? Of course - none of these (publications or patents or profits) motivate my own work either. So Michael Crow, president of Arizona State University, wants to transform it "into a new highly innovative, high speed adaptive knowledge enterprise which combines academic excellence, inclusiveness, and societal impact." Ah - but you listen to the video and you find it's not so new after all - entrepreneurship is a "core value", and you are measured by "impact". It's what they're doing in my own organization as well. It's the 'latest thing' in innovation management. It's research and innovation as envisioned by managers. I'm happy to drop counting pubs and hits and cites, and happy to reimagine the organization of the disciplines - but to wreck "the social construct of the discipline itself" is to erase an important base of knowledge. And "impact" is a subjective and elusive metric, the like of which have a questionable history, as it seeks to align science and innovation with a particular social or political agenda.
Today: 4 Total: 169 [Direct link] [Share]
