Oct 3, 2022 01:08 AM
https://bigthink.com/the-present/attenti...e-damaged/
EXCERPTS: . . . Science and scientists are part of society. Neither sit on a lofty perch that makes them impervious to societal shifts. More than 50 years ago, it was projected that, as science grew larger, its structure would shift from community-driven to individual-driven. Along the way, there would be a rise in quantitative metrics to evaluate scientists. Initially, metrics were limited to attention amongst peers, via citation counts.
That has expanded. The attention a scientist’s work gains from the public now plays into its perceived value. Scientists list media exposure counts on résumés, and many PhD theses now include the number of times a candidate’s work has appeared in the popular science press. Science has succumbed to the attention economy.
Scientists have always wanted to have their work noticed. That’s not new. However, when attention becomes currency, the ecosystem changes. And that changing ecosystem encompasses universities, academic publishing, and the way science is communicated to the public.
Universities have adopted business models that follow economic market forces. As the market has become one of attention, universities have dived headfirst into attention games. Faculty now receive messages to “brag about yourselves.” [...] Universities encourage science faculty to become self-promoting entrepreneurs in the attention market, and the value of a scientific paper is connected to how much attention it garners. That attention, in turn, feeds into a university’s academic profit — namely, in terms of rankings and external funding.
Academic publishing is now dominated by for-profit companies. [...] Publishers provide authors with game plans for getting their papers attention on social media, in the popular science press, and on podcasts. These attention generating schemes are packaged by publishers using phrases like “get your science the attention it deserves...”
[...] This brings us to science communication in the attention economy. Historically, scientists would communicate results to their peers in the scientific community. Once properly assessed, verified, or refuted, influential results would gain traction — a process that takes time. Those that were breakthroughs were proclaimed as such to the public (and the contributions of others were acknowledged).
But the attention economy has changed the ecosystem. Results are now presented to the public as influential well before community assessment can take place...
[...] And herein is the paradox of science in the attention economy: The things that are seen as being of value to individual scientists or institutions ... are undermining public trust and devaluing science as a collective resource (that is, as a common good). This can push science toward a tragedy of the commons in which individual actions, done with no ill intent, can cause the collapse of a common resource or, at the least, a systemic restructuring of science as a societal resource... (MORE - missing details)
EXCERPTS: . . . Science and scientists are part of society. Neither sit on a lofty perch that makes them impervious to societal shifts. More than 50 years ago, it was projected that, as science grew larger, its structure would shift from community-driven to individual-driven. Along the way, there would be a rise in quantitative metrics to evaluate scientists. Initially, metrics were limited to attention amongst peers, via citation counts.
That has expanded. The attention a scientist’s work gains from the public now plays into its perceived value. Scientists list media exposure counts on résumés, and many PhD theses now include the number of times a candidate’s work has appeared in the popular science press. Science has succumbed to the attention economy.
Scientists have always wanted to have their work noticed. That’s not new. However, when attention becomes currency, the ecosystem changes. And that changing ecosystem encompasses universities, academic publishing, and the way science is communicated to the public.
Universities have adopted business models that follow economic market forces. As the market has become one of attention, universities have dived headfirst into attention games. Faculty now receive messages to “brag about yourselves.” [...] Universities encourage science faculty to become self-promoting entrepreneurs in the attention market, and the value of a scientific paper is connected to how much attention it garners. That attention, in turn, feeds into a university’s academic profit — namely, in terms of rankings and external funding.
Academic publishing is now dominated by for-profit companies. [...] Publishers provide authors with game plans for getting their papers attention on social media, in the popular science press, and on podcasts. These attention generating schemes are packaged by publishers using phrases like “get your science the attention it deserves...”
[...] This brings us to science communication in the attention economy. Historically, scientists would communicate results to their peers in the scientific community. Once properly assessed, verified, or refuted, influential results would gain traction — a process that takes time. Those that were breakthroughs were proclaimed as such to the public (and the contributions of others were acknowledged).
But the attention economy has changed the ecosystem. Results are now presented to the public as influential well before community assessment can take place...
[...] And herein is the paradox of science in the attention economy: The things that are seen as being of value to individual scientists or institutions ... are undermining public trust and devaluing science as a collective resource (that is, as a common good). This can push science toward a tragedy of the commons in which individual actions, done with no ill intent, can cause the collapse of a common resource or, at the least, a systemic restructuring of science as a societal resource... (MORE - missing details)