Every so often, I’ll read something or other about how the culture of work in academia is toxic, encouraging people to work 24/7/52 (why do people say 24/7/365?) and thus ignore all other aspects of their existence and in the process destroying their life. As I’ve written before, I think this argument gets it backwards. I think most academics work hard because they want to and are immersed in what they are doing, not because of the “culture”. It is the conflation of hours and passion that lead to confusion.
Look, I know people who are more successful than I am and work less than I do. Good for them! That doesn’t mean I’m going to start working less hard. To me, if you’re thinking “I need to work X hours to get job Y/award Z”, well, then you’re in the wrong line of work. If you’re thinking “I really need to know about X because, uh, I just need to know” then academia might be for you. Sure, sometimes figuring out X requires a lot of work, and there is a fair amount of drudgery and discipline required to turn an idea into a finished paper. Most academics I know will make the choice to do that work. Some will do it at a pace I would find unmanageable. Some will do it at a pace I find lethargic. I don’t think it really matters. I read a little while ago that Feng Zhang goes back to work every day after dinner and works until 3am doing experiments himself in the lab (!). I couldn’t do that. But again, reading about Zhang, I think it’s pretty clear that he does it because he has a passion for his work. What’s wrong with that? If he wants to work that way, I don’t see any reason he should be criticized for it. Nor, conversely, lionized for it. I think we can praise his passion, though. Along those lines, I know many academics who are passionate about their work and thus very successful, all while working fairly regular hours (probably not 40/week, but definitely not 80/week), together with long vacations. Again, the only requirement for success in science is a desire to do it, along with the talent and dedication to finish what you start.
I think this conflation of hours and passion leads to some issues when working with trainees. To me, I most enjoy working with people who have a passion for their work. Often, but not always, this means that they work long-ish hours. If someone is not motivated, then a symptom is sometimes working shorter hours–or, other times, working long hours but not getting as much done. If we’re to the point where I’m counting someone’s hours, though, then it’s already too late. For trainees, if your PI is explicitly counting hours, then that means either you should find a new PI or carefully consider why your PI is counting your hours. What’s important is that both parties should realize that hours are the symptom, not the underlying condition.
I agree with the live and let live attitude - people who want to and can work long hours because they are passionate about their questions, good for them! I'm personally peeved by the beancounters who then show it off over beer ("I worked over 140 hours last Sunday, all alone in a freezing lab, uphill, etc."), but usually shrug and move on. What does cause harm is the perception that this is pervasive and required, which I have seen dissuading amazing potential colleagues from the career path, since they are concerned with being able to live a balanced life. Science is a more boring enterprise if people with interests outside the lab are (even implicitly) selected against.
ReplyDeleteAnd the Feng Zhang story is a bit scary...
Yeah, as my postdoc was saying, bragging about how much you work is really boring. As to the harmful perception, I've honestly not really encountered this, and I certainly haven't seen it scare away anyone who I think could have otherwise made it in academic science. I have seen it scare away those who in my opinion didn't have the drive required for the job, though.
Delete(Different Anonymous here)
DeleteI find it exceedingly difficult to distinguish between those that have "the drive required for the job" and those who just express themselves differently than a traditional academic.
But I have seen said perception scare away a few people who in my opinion have the achievement record required for the job, but didn't want to commit to unreasonable work loads. It's not a large sample, but they were all female. I think this is a problem.
If you have small kids working even 60 hours is only possible if you are dumping your kids on someone else, usually your spouse.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this plan is that the salaries academic scientists are paid, and especially trainees, are not enough in many cities to support having a stay-at-home spouse. This makes science fundamentally different from other fields, like finance or consulting, which expect many hours of work but provide the compensation to afford another person (nanny or spouse) to do a lot of the other work.
Some people, it seems, can get by by living on very little sleep. But a career in science should not require a vow of monasticism or the acting fiscally irresponsible.
+1 to that.
DeleteI guess then just work 40 hours a week. If you are passionate, talented and efficient, you will do just fine. It's totally possible and doesn't require monasticism or financial irresponsibility. Not saying it's easy, just that it's possible.
Delete"Too often I would hear men boast of the miles covered that day, rarely of what they had seen." Louis L'Amour
ReplyDeleteHi Arjun,
ReplyDelete1. Workaholism exists in other jobs as well, including the ones without any larger purpose, so perhaps the love to work long hours could be evaluated in that context as well. Then we will see the point about work life balance.
2. As we know, there's the academic game out there, publish or perish and all, diminishing # of vacancies, tenure, etc, so, it cannot be that it is simply a matter of inherent passion in general?
3. In most of Europe the hours put in is more like 40-50 hours per week,with occasional, need based exceptions, and working on weekends is more an exception than routine. They do have a decent quality of output by conventional metrics, Nobel prizes etc. I feel 'work culture' is local, relative and can be changed for the better.
"For trainees, if your PI is explicitly counting hours, then that means either you should find a new PI or carefully consider why your PI is counting your hours"
DeleteI feel one has to also think of the case where the trainee is sincere and hardworking and talented, but is working on a problem that's unimportant or has reached a dead end (or something similar), but cannot find a way out and is forced to continue on the same path, by circumstances. In this case, often, the trainee themself might improvise, find new problems they are passionate about while continuing working on the dead one, etc, and the situation might improve itself. Or, a honest discussion with the PI, who is an approachable person, will help, both the trainee and the lab. The point is, I feel, one should not just give up on a trainee, things can be improved with some understanding.
Interesting conversation all. I'd like to introduce a slightly different take on this because I see a parallel between the attitude of a scientist and the attitude of an entrepreneur (as opposed to a someone that works "for" someone else.) Successful entrepreneurs, like successful scientists tend to be self starters and self motivators. Why? One reason is that unlike the person that gets a certain degree of validation from regularly receiving a pay check from "the company" as a way of being validated, the size and reliability of a "paycheck" for an entrepreneur is directly related to whether they are being effective in what they do. In short they are forced by circumstance to be self validated. So... entrepreneurs tend to work harder than salaried employees because they are constantly pushing themselves because of this self-validation/self-survival dynamic. No one else is pushing them. I assert that people that choose to be academic scientists drive themselves for a similar reason; they get their sense of validation from their accomplishment as scientists, not so much from their magnanimous paycheck from the university. The paycheck from the university, in and of itself, is not really a significant component of their self validation.
ReplyDeleteIn this sense, one might argue that the "culture" of work in academia has this "self validation" requirement about it. Which raises the other issue Arjun talks about; whether a person is cut out to be a scientific academic. The fact of the matter is, if you are NOT a self-motivating, self-starting individual, you will not typically be a successful entrepreneur. I assert that the same is the case for scientific academics.
So perhaps you should all go a little easier on the poor academic sod that brags about his or her hours. Perhaps they are just a little bit insecure or still so early in their academic careers that the acknowledgement of their accomplishments has not yet been demonstrated by the recognition of their scientific accomplishments. And so they tout their effort trying to get there. Besides... it's in keeping with the holiday spirit ;-)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete