{"id":3255,"date":"2019-04-10T15:29:43","date_gmt":"2019-04-10T14:29:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/?p=3255"},"modified":"2019-04-13T12:43:24","modified_gmt":"2019-04-13T11:43:24","slug":"how-to-value-what-cannot-be-measured","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/2019\/04\/10\/how-to-value-what-cannot-be-measured\/","title":{"rendered":"How to value what cannot be measured?"},"content":{"rendered":"

This post is a transcript of my opening remarks at the a Great Debate<\/a> held earlier today at the European Geosciences Union 2019 meeting in Vienna. The debate asked us to consider the question:\u00a0What value should we place on contributions that cannot be easily measured?\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Update (13\/04\/2019):\u00a0<\/strong>A video of the whole debate is now\u00a0available online<\/a>. My opening remarks start at 20:43 but if you have time I would recommend listening to the whole session.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"190410-EGU-GreatDebate.Curry.001\"<\/a><\/p>\n

As scientists, measurement is what we do. It is how we have built our disciplines and won the admiration and respect of our peers and the public for the many wondrous ways in which we have illuminated the world.<\/p>\n

It is only natural therefore that we would seek to turn our rulers and compasses on ourselves.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

But while numbers have done so much to help us understand the natural world, they are far more difficult to apply to the more complex world of human affairs, science included.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

So we are here today to debate this question because of the stresses and strains that an over-enthusiastic and ill-considered application of numbers \u2013\u00a0or metrics \u2013 in research evaluation has brought to the academy.<\/p>\n

Now\u2026 when trying to figure my way out of a problematic situation, I like to think about death. And I would encourage you all do do the same.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"190410-EGU-GreatDebate.Curry.002\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This quotation is number 1 of the top five regrets of people who have reached the end of their lives (according to a book by former nurse Bronnie Ware). I suspect it resonates, perhaps a little uncomfortably, with many of us in this room.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The difficulty we face every day is how to be true to ourselves. How do we cling to our ideals and highest aspirations in a world that seems daily to distract us from them?\u00a0 <\/span>This problem is perhaps particularly acute for academics because we need to forge a reputation<\/em> for ourselves if we are to succeed in our careers.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"190410-EGU-GreatDebate.Curry.003\"<\/a><\/p>\n

And the problem with that, according to Thomas Paine, is that a reputation is what others<\/i> think of us \u2013\u00a0how they<\/em> evaluate us. It does not seem to be enough to be true to oneself. We have to convince others or our scientific worth.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

And the problem with that<\/i>, is that our system of research evaluation as a whole seems to have made us prisoners of numbers.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"190410-EGU-GreatDebate.Curry.004\"<\/a><\/p>\n

We have been captured by citation counts, JIFs, and h-indices. And while these indicators are not entirely devoid of information that might be of some utility in research evaluation, they have taken over to an extent that is dangerous to the health of scientists and to the health of science.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In brief we can list the problems with metrics:<\/p>\n