Then you must tell them that when they do “non-core-work“ they are essentially wasting their time; at least if they intend to stay in academia.
Sure there is some technical housekeeping necessary to get research done and papers written. But it must be kept to an absolute minimum.
It is nice to have students who polish the web site or set up CI on GitHub. But these students will almost certainly have fewer research results to show at the end of their PhD, compared to their officemates who just focus 100% on their research.
I don’t like it either but it’s the painful truth. I’ve seen way too many PhD students wasting their time doing incredibly valuable work for the lab but failing to publish their own work. It‘s the responsibility of the PI to make it absolutely clear to those students what is happening and that they should focus on a career outside academia if they enjoy doing such things.
I only partially agree with you there---as a PI, I also have an option to reward these sort of activities. I understand that it is not a good idea to employ someone for the wrong role, so any 'non-core work' activities need to be at least discussed with respect to potential ramifications.
However, I find it somehow weird that we only ever measure success along one axis. Moreover, these students often serve as facilitators, making it easier for others to finish projects. Navigating this precarious space is not an easy task for me, I admit that.
> as a PI, I also have an option to reward these sort of activities.
But honestly, your options are very limited, especially in Germany. You cannot pay them more, and you also cannot offer them a permanent employment contract. Most of the time it’s even hard to extend an existing contract. You can perhaps send them to nice conferences, but then you would send the principal author to the conference, too.
But I totally agree that academia fails at rewarding people who facilitate the work of others. There is some perversion to this, since the key part of academia is precisely to spread and exchange knowledge.
In this light it is funny to see that in many universities (especially in Germany) teaching is not valued much for career progression.
> But I totally agree that academia fails at rewarding people who facilitate the work of others. There is some perversion to this, since the key part of academia is precisely to spread and exchange knowledge.
What you’re describing is glue work[1].
Until recently, glue work tended to be invisible and unappreciated across a good majority of the industry. While it’s starting to get visibility, there still isn’t consensus on how to recognize it and/or reward it.
> But I totally agree that academia fails at rewarding people who facilitate the work of others. There is some perversion to this, since the key part of academia is precisely to spread and exchange knowledge.
Yes. I saw quite a few talented people turn the backs on a career in academia for exactly this reason.
> In this light it is funny to see that in many universities (especially in Germany) teaching is not valued much for career progression.
Also yes---but that part is at least changing a little bit (even though the predominant thinking is still 'Yeah, who cares?') in the younger generation of PIs.
> that part is at least changing a little bit (even though the predominant thinking is still 'Yeah, who cares?') in the younger generation of PIs.
Things are changing extremely slowly in academia. It’s always the old faculty that decides who becomes new faculty, and their decisions tend to be very conservative. What’s worse, I have seen very progressive young PIs become complacent and conservative once they had tenure. I wouldn’t bet on academia changing its tenure criteria.
> What’s worse, I have seen very progressive young PIs become complacent and conservative once they had tenure.
That's what I am worried about in myself, having seen this in others as well. I'll try to be more introspective.
> I wouldn’t bet on academia changing its tenure criteria.
No, I am not doing that either, but in this case, there's always the 'War Games' games response: 'A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.'
Then you must tell them that when they do “non-core-work“ they are essentially wasting their time; at least if they intend to stay in academia.
Sure there is some technical housekeeping necessary to get research done and papers written. But it must be kept to an absolute minimum.
It is nice to have students who polish the web site or set up CI on GitHub. But these students will almost certainly have fewer research results to show at the end of their PhD, compared to their officemates who just focus 100% on their research.
I don’t like it either but it’s the painful truth. I’ve seen way too many PhD students wasting their time doing incredibly valuable work for the lab but failing to publish their own work. It‘s the responsibility of the PI to make it absolutely clear to those students what is happening and that they should focus on a career outside academia if they enjoy doing such things.