I have been doing quite a bit of reviewing, refereeing and chapter/paper draft reading lately, and I find myself struggling to be equal-handed in my commenting and evaluating. This isn't about the time of day or month when I read, the presentation or lack thereof, or even whether they cite my work admiringly or ignore it disgracefully. It's about different kinds of science. There are all sorts of taxonomies of science, and my field like many younger areas sprawls messily across the lot. I like Ball's three-stage model, where knowledge in an area moves from descriptive to narrative to analytical, and I admit a personal preference for the two ends of the spectrum: "wow look what we saw it's totally new!" or some really beautifully argued and designed experimental testing of formal hypotheses. Which may have something to do with the fact that I spend most of my science time poking away in the assumption-undergrowth of my sub-sub-field, muttering about why no-one ever tidied up in here before they started building pretty looking castles on top and are they aware of just how wobbly these foundations are and kicking the trusses holding it all together and picking away at the places that have been rather hastily painted over...
The kind of science that I find it really hard to treat equally is the shiny-machine kind. The sort of project where someone got money to buy a Gadget, or maybe spent their PhD being trained on ExpensivePieceOfKit, and now they are running around grabbing any kind of sample they can find to put into Gadget, or claiming that ExpensivePieceOfKit will solve All the Outstanding Issues in Major Sexy Topic Area, if only they are allowed to spend several years putting samples through it. Yeah. technology-driven, yeah, Shiny Machines, yeah... where's the question? Especially, being in a subject with a strong field dimension, where's the understanding of the system, the organism, the processes? Just because Gadget has options for putting in Hot Springs, Mangoes, Kangaroos, and Space Dust, it doesn't necessarily that measuring the amount of unicorn gumdrops in those different samples will MEAN anything. This sort of science is usually, to my cynical gaze, either neat technology looking for a purpose or a PI jumping on a bandwagon which is shiny and impressive (here there is usually a PI with expertise in Some Big Issue and a post-doc (or buddy of PI newly appointed to post) with the ShinyMachine Experience) even if totally irrelevant to the actual problem. And it's very boring to read, since the papers usually consist of a small number of measurements and a large amount of arm-waving speculation about how the Field Will Be Revolutionised Once Everyone Sends Us Their Samples. Sigh.
eta: anyone who thinks that I might be reviewing THEIR work, or is thinking 'so that's why my last grant failed, all referees are biased ignoramus luddites' - I write this stuff to get it off my chest and enable me to go back to my reviewing in a fairer frame of mind. i probably if anything am a little over-generous to work which strikes me as tedious because I over-compensate...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not sure I understand why you think that this would be an "unfair" basis for assessing the quality of a research proposal or manuscript. If your opinion is that the science isn't interesting, that is a completely valid criticism. This is what is referred to as "Signficance" or "Impact".
ReplyDeleteIt's an issue if I let my opinion that this TYPE of science isn't interesting get in the way of my making a judgement on the piece in front of me on its own merits.
ReplyDeleteIf you think a certain TYPE of science isn't interesting, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with expressing that judgment. Being a species of a type *is* an aspect of the merits.
ReplyDelete