Nov 1, 2023·edited Nov 1, 2023Liked by Liz Haswell
I relate to much of what you say here, as an academic in my 21st year. I work at a small liberal arts college where research is expected but definitely not at the R1 level, and instead teaching is the main aspect of our jobs (5 four credit classes a year). Your concerns about whether our work matters have been on my mind for most of my career -- even before tenure! While I don't have an ongoing program of research, I have to ask myself: Do the little one-off student-focused studies matter at all? Does teaching about my discipline (Cognitive and Developmental Psychology) make the world a better place? Over the years I have tried to make my work answer these questions in a positive frame.
There have been times when I've felt like the answers are "no" and "no" and have seriously considered leaving academics (indeed, have even applied for a handful of non-academic jobs). But then I will come up with an idea of how to change what I am doing and I stay (note: I haven't ever gotten a job interview query either though, so kinda have to stay).
I believe that doubt about my effectiveness and my constant challenging of the discipline for how to make the work "authentic" is key to remaining motivated and satisfied. About my research -- I try to make sure that if I am going to invest the time to do a study or a series of studies that there is some clear applied purpose to them, but honestly I find that overall my sense of purpose is satisfied more in my teaching. Before covid I started changing what the course goals were for all my classes, where I selected content to teach that has the most clear application value, and I changed my approach to assignments as well, where each assignment has an application to aspect too. Changing from "literature review" to "literature application" makes the work harder for students [and for me, truthfully] but it also gives us all a clear sense of purpose that feeds motivation. I keep my eye on what the "business trends" are for entry level skills as well, and I make sure to incorporate those into assignments too, within reason. I challenge students (and myself) to get creative while staying true to the content they are applying, which is also really hard but very valuable.
Despite all the critiques about higher ed in the media right now (much of them warranted) I do still believe in the value of higher ed when it's done in a thoughtful manner. But I do still think about leaving on a pretty regular basis, even though I am really good at it, at this point! But I stay because I feel like what I do is mattering. Rather than making a direct impact on the world's problems, I am preparing others to do that work. It's a weird space to be in, but it's also an important one! And even if the research I do is relatively inconsequential for promoting / advancing Cognitive or Developmental Science, when I involve students in the process, they are acquiring important and transferable skills, so it does still matter.
This, in a nutshell, is how I see it. About those "21st century skills" -- I find that my students are generally *not* adept at using a variety of software tools (i.e., the "digital native" idea is a myth -- GenZ has grown up with tech, but they have not learned about how it works behind the screen, nor have they been challenged to use it to create) so rather than *just* fine tune their writing with essays and research reports, I am challenging them to utilize software and digital publishing tools to disseminate what they are learning about and how to apply it online. I started a digital catalogue of student works - every "project" is public. If you are curious, here's a link: https://sites.google.com/pacificu.edu/authentic-learning-with-prf-k/home
When I revamped my plant genetic engineering class from focusing on the basic biology of the technology to the outcomes of the technology, the students loved it. But it was also very low on content, so I never really loved it. But who knows, the students probably retained a lot more biology because it was in context, even though there was less presented in the course!
Thank you for this wonderful article! It is very brave to give voice to that unspeakable anxiety many STEM researchers have but never admit: "Does what I do *matter*???
I think one of the only ways around it, and one funding agencies seem to endorse (at least tacitly), is the notion that basic science research CAN lead to breakthroughs in the applied sciences; the rub is it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict WHICH of those will be useful in advance. It is only by casting a wide net of research questions that we can stumble our ways in the dark towards those groundbreaking "Eureka!" lightbulb moments. What seems obviously genius in hindsight never is in real time.
The revolutionary gene editing system CRISPR was discovered by yogurt scientists at Danisco! Green fluorescent protein (GFP) was purified from jellyfish by a grad-student in the 1960s who thought it looked cool, and it has gone from footnote of history to Nobel-prize winner and integral tool of molecular biology. The NASA jet propulsion laboratory generated the work that led to camera phones, scratch resistant lenses, CT scans, memory foam, LED lights, and countless other gadgets, all secondary to their core mission of exploring the vast and empty galaxy. Katalin Karikó's basic research understanding mRNA insertion into cells become the basis of life-saving vaccines that got us out of the covid-19 pandemic years ahead of schedule, but was unrecognized and under-funded to the point where she couldn't find success in academia.
We all cling to the hope that our data, no matter how niche or obscure, matters, to someone, somewhere. Perhaps years in the future it will be the key to something revolutionary. It's a nice thought, and even if a bit self-protective fantasy, it's not wrong.
I relate to much of what you say here, as an academic in my 21st year. I work at a small liberal arts college where research is expected but definitely not at the R1 level, and instead teaching is the main aspect of our jobs (5 four credit classes a year). Your concerns about whether our work matters have been on my mind for most of my career -- even before tenure! While I don't have an ongoing program of research, I have to ask myself: Do the little one-off student-focused studies matter at all? Does teaching about my discipline (Cognitive and Developmental Psychology) make the world a better place? Over the years I have tried to make my work answer these questions in a positive frame.
There have been times when I've felt like the answers are "no" and "no" and have seriously considered leaving academics (indeed, have even applied for a handful of non-academic jobs). But then I will come up with an idea of how to change what I am doing and I stay (note: I haven't ever gotten a job interview query either though, so kinda have to stay).
I believe that doubt about my effectiveness and my constant challenging of the discipline for how to make the work "authentic" is key to remaining motivated and satisfied. About my research -- I try to make sure that if I am going to invest the time to do a study or a series of studies that there is some clear applied purpose to them, but honestly I find that overall my sense of purpose is satisfied more in my teaching. Before covid I started changing what the course goals were for all my classes, where I selected content to teach that has the most clear application value, and I changed my approach to assignments as well, where each assignment has an application to aspect too. Changing from "literature review" to "literature application" makes the work harder for students [and for me, truthfully] but it also gives us all a clear sense of purpose that feeds motivation. I keep my eye on what the "business trends" are for entry level skills as well, and I make sure to incorporate those into assignments too, within reason. I challenge students (and myself) to get creative while staying true to the content they are applying, which is also really hard but very valuable.
Despite all the critiques about higher ed in the media right now (much of them warranted) I do still believe in the value of higher ed when it's done in a thoughtful manner. But I do still think about leaving on a pretty regular basis, even though I am really good at it, at this point! But I stay because I feel like what I do is mattering. Rather than making a direct impact on the world's problems, I am preparing others to do that work. It's a weird space to be in, but it's also an important one! And even if the research I do is relatively inconsequential for promoting / advancing Cognitive or Developmental Science, when I involve students in the process, they are acquiring important and transferable skills, so it does still matter.
This, in a nutshell, is how I see it. About those "21st century skills" -- I find that my students are generally *not* adept at using a variety of software tools (i.e., the "digital native" idea is a myth -- GenZ has grown up with tech, but they have not learned about how it works behind the screen, nor have they been challenged to use it to create) so rather than *just* fine tune their writing with essays and research reports, I am challenging them to utilize software and digital publishing tools to disseminate what they are learning about and how to apply it online. I started a digital catalogue of student works - every "project" is public. If you are curious, here's a link: https://sites.google.com/pacificu.edu/authentic-learning-with-prf-k/home
Thank you for these comments--I'm so interested in the experiences of non-R1 researchers.
When I revamped my plant genetic engineering class from focusing on the basic biology of the technology to the outcomes of the technology, the students loved it. But it was also very low on content, so I never really loved it. But who knows, the students probably retained a lot more biology because it was in context, even though there was less presented in the course!
Thank you for this wonderful article! It is very brave to give voice to that unspeakable anxiety many STEM researchers have but never admit: "Does what I do *matter*???
I think one of the only ways around it, and one funding agencies seem to endorse (at least tacitly), is the notion that basic science research CAN lead to breakthroughs in the applied sciences; the rub is it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict WHICH of those will be useful in advance. It is only by casting a wide net of research questions that we can stumble our ways in the dark towards those groundbreaking "Eureka!" lightbulb moments. What seems obviously genius in hindsight never is in real time.
The revolutionary gene editing system CRISPR was discovered by yogurt scientists at Danisco! Green fluorescent protein (GFP) was purified from jellyfish by a grad-student in the 1960s who thought it looked cool, and it has gone from footnote of history to Nobel-prize winner and integral tool of molecular biology. The NASA jet propulsion laboratory generated the work that led to camera phones, scratch resistant lenses, CT scans, memory foam, LED lights, and countless other gadgets, all secondary to their core mission of exploring the vast and empty galaxy. Katalin Karikó's basic research understanding mRNA insertion into cells become the basis of life-saving vaccines that got us out of the covid-19 pandemic years ahead of schedule, but was unrecognized and under-funded to the point where she couldn't find success in academia.
We all cling to the hope that our data, no matter how niche or obscure, matters, to someone, somewhere. Perhaps years in the future it will be the key to something revolutionary. It's a nice thought, and even if a bit self-protective fantasy, it's not wrong.