[Xmca-l] The discovery of slowness

Wed Feb 28 23:14:20 PST 2018

Check out this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Discovery_of_Slowness

Cheers,

Yrjö Engeström

On 01 Mar 2018, at 03:20, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu<mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>> wrote:

Some fare better than others in the system that Greg points us to. The
phrase that all that's solid turns into air comes to mind.

There is certainly something to slow science. I believe that Jean Lave
initiated such a center
a few years ago at Berkeley, although I am not sure of its current status.

mike

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com<mailto:wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>> wrote:

Greg, not all people will think being publishing machines. Some, like
myself, enjoy spending many hours a day writing, analyzing etc. and turning
all of this into peer-reviewed articles.

I referred to my earliest experience before, when I was told I would not
make tenure; and I felt I would not be able to make the 2 articles or so
per year in high quality journals.

But after an absence from academia, it changed. I started doing research
for myself initially, and then wrote it up. From then on, it was different,
writing was something I wanted to do, and the more I did, the better I got
at it. (Not that the peer-review process would have gotten easier.)

I do admit, though, that the system as set up right now then tends to
reward people who publish more than others, and in "better" journals.

And it depends on context. In the department that I am affiliated with,
there are people promoted and tenured without at least a handful of
articles in commonly recognized journals. And if you are happy with an
average increase in your salary, you don't have to get stressed in our
place either.

Michael

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com<mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
wrote:

I once toyed with the idea of "slow scholarship" and I remain entirely
convinced that this is a virtue. But once I was entered into the
competition/race of academia, it was all about how fast you can get to
the
finish line (aka "publications").

Perhaps there is something good about this (assuming that it is better to
publish something than to not publish anything), but it also has the
nefarious effect of turning scholars into cogs in publishing factories.

And, continuing in this cynical spirit, I might add that the Science
article about "Slow" actually seems to be making the same case for speed
-
maybe it isn't a sprint, but it is still a race and first one to the
finish
line wins, so you better pick up the pace! Fast!

And re: the man whispering in his ear as he runs:
"We see how in this way the mode of production and the means of
production
are continually transformed, revolutionised, *how the division of labour
is
necessarily followed by greater divisions of labour, the application of
machinery by still greater application of machinery, work on a large
scale
by work on a still larger scale.*

"That is the law which again and again throws bourgeois production out of
its old course and which compels capital to intensify the productive
forces
of labour, *because *it has intensified them, it, the law which gives
capital no rest and continually whispers in its ear: 'Go on! Go on!'"
(Marx - Wage Labour and Capital).

-greg

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com<mailto:wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi all,
this article "In praise of slow" appears to be fitting the discussion.
The
author uses a nice analogy with running. Michael
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6375/602

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 8:40 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
wrote:

"Assessing their abilities and accomplishments in this regard was a
matter
of judgment and so could not be quantified; it could be exercised
only
by
those capable of it."

I would say, "cannot be quantified simply".

Best,
Huw

On 26 February 2018 at 15:05, Greg Thompson <
greg.a.thompson@gmail.com<mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>

wrote:

And here is a nice article that speaks to the bureaucratic logic
that I
was
mentioning (the author refers to "the all-administrative
institution"):
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/whose-university-is-
it-anyway/#!

A quote from it:
"The revolution is over and the administrators have won. But the
persistence of traditional structures and language has led some to
think
that the fight over the institution is now just beginning. This is
a
mistake. As with most revolutions, open conflict occurs only after
real
power has already changed hands."

-greg

On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Martin Packer <mpacker@cantab.net

wrote:

On STEM and social science:

<<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/24/opinion/sunday/
doctors-revolt-bernard-lown.html?action=click&pgtype=
Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-
left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=
opinion-c-col-left-region <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/
02/24/opinion/sunday/doctors-revolt-bernard-lown.html?
action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&
module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-
left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region>>>

On measures of learning:

<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/opinion/sunday/colleges-
measure-learning-outcomes.html?action=click&pgtype=
Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-
left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=
opinion-c-col-left-region <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/
02/23/opinion/sunday/colleges-measure-learning-outcomes.
html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-
heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-
col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region>>

Martin

On Feb 25, 2018, at 8:15 PM, Glassman, Michael <
glassman.13@osu.edu>
wrote:

Hi Huw,

Perhaps the opposite is also true though.  STEM researchers can
better
understand what they are doing if they are well versed in the
social
sciences. Understand the history and the meaning of what they are
doing
so
they do not act as androids (sorry, been watching the Aliens
trilogy
of
late). Perhaps we made the wrong calculation. We have lost
control
of
our
great STEM innovations because the people using them don't
understand
the
social webs that they create.  So we have people pushing xMOOCs
(whatever
happened to MOOCs anyway) as saving education (and also a bundle
so
everybody gets tax cuts, wheeee!), saying that they are good
because
they
can reach many, the proverbial long tail, with great education
(Harvard,
Stanford).  Yet nobody asks the question, "Why is this a good
thing."
There
really isn't much supporting this in earlier distance education.
There
is
actually more evidence of how dangerous it is (Participatory
Action
Research).

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw Lloyd
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 7:32 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: (non)grieving scholarship

I would ask, what makes you think you have an ecology (or
niche)?
It
seems that the notion of topologically derived ecologies is still
bandied
about since Bronfenbrenner (1977), though I do not know whether
he
managed
to refine (overhaul and improve) his notions into something
integrated
and
agent-centric. One does not provide an ecology or an environment.
The
environment is different for everyone, a simple consideration of
a
rock-face or climbing wall is sufficient to grasp this -- the so
called
environment (the rock face) is different to each climber, their
environment
is that which is appropriate to them which includes contexts well
beyond
what is established in an institution. From what I can gauge,
historically,
slack was deliberately introduced into courses to afford personal
enquiry.
There was the basic work and then there was the genuine
enquiry.
Who
in
their right mind wants to write an exam essay on a question they
are
expected to pre-write and repeat by memory? Why would someone who
enjoys
thinking about their subject want to go through that kind of
impoverished
tedium? These systems are obviously geared for "delivery".

Perhaps the biggest cultural shift can be achieved through
instituting
joint and personal enquiry. A teacher that stands before their
class
and
delivers their subject inevitably obscures and obstructs the
process
of
enquiry, although many students will have learnt from a young age
that
this
is what to expect and demand. Engagement with genuine problems
rather
than
what students are expected to do is the basic orientational
issue.
Dispose
of grades, then anyone who isn't interested is free to go home.

The advance of STEM research is probably a good thing for
social
science.
For productive work, social science must understand the
structure
of
STEM based work, in addition to bureaucratic processes and
circumstances
for creative work. Sticking one's head in the sand over STEM-like
research
serves merely to perpetuate the impoverished side of social
science.
It
reminds me of the scene in Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance in which a couple lack the wherewithal to fix a
dripping
faucet
that gives them grief and instead choose to ignore it. Though it
was
a
very
long time ago, Pirsig's book may have contributed to my
understanding
of
quality and might be thought of as an exploration of some social
issues
pertaining to technical enterprises. Another good text to
appreciate
quality more directly, probably outside the formal area of STEM,
is
Alshuller's Innovation Algorithm.

Warm regards to you Henry, Greg, Alfredo.

Best,
Huw

On 25 February 2018 at 22:39, Alfredo Jornet Gil <
a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
wrote:

Greg, Huw, and others, I do often get worried that in the
formals
and
informal meetings at our department (department of education),
conversations tend to focus on the "micro" developments that
you
mention (students, grades, getting a next grant, getting that
paper
published, making sure you've got enough) most of the time,
and
not
so
much on what society we would like to have, and how our
institution
could/should contribute to that. I do not have any suggestions
on
the
type of studies that you ask about—dealing with how ecologies
of
scholarship in academia lead to given developmental
dynamics—other
than the classical studies in STS, like Latour & Woolgar's on
laboratory life, or S. L. Star's. But when I look forward at
what
lies
between me (or anyone in my institution) and a change in the
way
this
institution has impact in the life of many, what I see is lots
of
routines, habits, documents, and paperwork entangled in the
middle,
such that the idea "mediation all the way through" makes all
the
sense. And seeing things that way (from the ecological
perspective),
makes the possibility of changing things to look actually
feasible,
or
more accurately perhaps, imagine-able. I'd like to continue
being
part
of the ecology to be able to be also be part of its changing
it. I
hope others will bring more specific literature to bear. I am
already
downloading some of Peter Sloterdijk's to read.

Alfredo

________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Greg Thompson
<greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
Sent: 24 February 2018 17:45
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: (non)grieving scholarship

I appreciate Huw's concern about academia and the push to
orient
to
a
broader and more systemic concern with "development". I think
that
this is what institutions of higher education are supposed to
have,
right? - at the very least a concern for the development of
individual
"students", but also, one would hope, a concern for
"development"
at a
longer timescale (e.g., how to be a better society, a better
world).
They certainly tout these in their promo materials.

And yet, in practice, these institutions often fall back on
bureaucratic or economic logics. Bureaucratic logic goes
something
like, "just publish (in "good" (i.e., high impact factor)
journals),
who cares what you publish so long as we can count it to
determine
its
(and your) 'value'(!)".

As for the economic logic, I was just talking with Rick
Shweder
the
other day about this issue and he expressed the concern about
the
push
towards STEM education at the expense of all else and the way
that
STEM buildings are slowly starting to take over his campus
(the
University of Chicago - a place that was long held to be a
hold
out
of
liberal arts education - apparently they now have an
engineering
program). He suggested that this is tied to an early 80's
court
decision that gave universities ownership of patents developed
on
their
campuses.

To my mind, this calls to mind a concern with ecologies of
development
(across the shorter and longer timescales). What are the
ecologies
(social, economic, political, etc.) within which development
(at
these
various
timescales) occurs in our world today? This is really a
question
of
what is possible and/or what is likely with regard to
becoming.
What
are the forms of life and forms of development that are
sustainable
given the larger ecologies in which that development happens?

And for thinking through that problem, I've had a hard time
thinking
of anyone who has better thought through this problem than
Marx
-
at
the longer timescale of development, that is (Vygotsky would,
of
course, be better at thinking through development at the
shorter
timescale of ontogeny).

I'd love to hear others' thoughts on those who have studied
activities
that can begin to shed light on these ecologies of development
(particularly at the longer timescale). Any
thoughts/suggestions?
I
would imagine this work considering various kinds of
institutions
that
run the gamut - from venture capitalist firms to non-profits
to
governmental institutions to institutions of higher
education. I
would
presume that each of these kinds of institutions would have a
local
ecology within which they work, but I am tempted to imagine
some
kind
of global meta-ecology (perhaps Marx's "global
capitalism"?) within which each of these local ecologies
operates.
I'd
be curious about actual research that has been done
documenting
the
nature of these ecologies - e.g., what kinds of resources are
available to be exploited? What kinds of possibilities are
there
for
different forms of life? What institutional organisms can
thrive?
Which are dying off? (and just to be clear, I am intending a
biological/evolutionary nature of the metaphor).

It seems that this kind of work would be most likely to have
been
done
by folks in the CHAT world, but perhaps the scale (of time and
space)
is a bit beyond the scales that CHAT folks prefer to consider?

(I should add that I've recently discovered the work of Peter
Sloterdijk's Bubbles trilogy and am curious if anyone has any
thoughts
on the value of his approach - it seems to fit very well with
Marx
and
with CHAT/Vygotsky, my only initial concern was that he seems
to
fly a
little fast and loose with pyschoanalytics at times - not a
serious
problem, but perhaps in a few places).

Sympathetically,
greg

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Huw Lloyd <
huw.softdesigns@gmail.com

wrote:

Well, I would say there is more to it than simply
transfer-ability,
which might be thought of as a good bureaucratic requirement.
Really
what is required is genuine development -- reorganisation of
thought
and
learning.
That is what is significant at a personal level, which is
also
the
basis
of
insights and creative work (i.e. personal knowledge rather
than
second
hand
knowledge). The researcher in the blog article does not
evince
this
(with allusions to the nature of her training). There is the
history
school children learn, which largely concerns the use of
memory,
and
then there
is
the history of conditions, relations and processes, which
concerns
protracted thought. This developmental emphasis is what is
lacking
in institutions which is why I have frequently pointed it
out.

This principle apples to "secure" jobs too. The jobs I have
walked
away from have been due to the overly narrow scope, where I
felt
it
was necessary to be far more ambitious to achieve modest
satisfaction, an ambition which included achieving the wider
scope
within the norms established. Similar issues pertain to my
peripheral engagement with academia. Twenty years ago, after
completing a masters in cognitive
science
(a good year), I decided against pursuing any further formal
education
with
any immediacy due to my sense that what I was encountering in
the
subject (and related subjects) was fundamentally wrong or
inadequate, but I couldn't quite discern what that was. So,
for
me,
I had no interest in furthering the academic course at the
time,
because I was concerned with understanding, doing,
discovering
and
development, not being a "good researcher". I was and am
uninterested in the trappings of academia, what it looks like
from
the outside (with dubious ethics of promoting those in
society
who
least need it) -- hence I am not too bothered about where the
experiences come from. After all, if you want sound knowledge
then
it should be validated in places where it counts (in action),
not
in
an echo chamber of words.

From my (developmental) perspective academia appears to be
chockfull of
unproductive thinking. The lack of systems understanding in
the
social sciences (which has been pointed out by key persons
for
two
generations)
I
find to be quite incredible. This, as far as I can see, is
the
panacea to the stasis and lethargy that I have seen in
certain
institutions, where there are people in secure jobs with no
interest
in revitalising an institution (perhaps the same people who
rely
upon their status for authority). In the UK, in the social
sciences,
the whole social science infrastructure is built upon a
notion
of
quality that is ignorant of systems -- that is the degree to
which
unproductive thinking has
penetrated
social science.

Yet there is much more to it still. Recently I have also come
to
a
surprising awareness that developmental prerogatives have
rather
a
significant amount in common with spiritual ones. So I would
offer
broader
advice than Michael's of staying clear of hardship. It may be
that
in
that
"nadir" something surprising may be discovered. For anyone
with a
passion "job security" is not a goal, at best it is a means
to
an
ends, at worst
it
is an obstacle.

Over and out. :)

Best,
Huw

On 20 February 2018 at 07:12, Alfredo Jornet Gil
<a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
wrote:

Huw, Helena, and all,

thanks to you both for taking the discussion where I was
hoping
it
to
go
further: first, towards a reflection on the nature of
training
academic scholars go through as it concerns the classical
problem
of learning "transfer"; and then, as it regards the question
of
academic freedom
(which
actually may be the same question, just taken in a language
more
adequate
to an ecological understanding of the problem). This is
absolutely
not
just
an individual problem. And, on that matter, I should be
clear
that
I
am a
privileged in a privileged land, where, despite all
uncertainty
and
pains
that my family have gone and go through, I have today a good
background
and
network, and probably better prospects than the majority of
junior
scholars
out there. Not that I have earned this privilege for
nothing:
my
migrant
history and that of my family is all connected to an effort
and
quest
to
get better chances of academic opportunity in this market
Helena
talks about. But my personal story, as that of the historian
in
the article shared or of my French astronomer friend, are
relevant
in as far as
they
help us reflect on just those questions. They really also
make
one
wonder
on the sense of the term "academic freedom", for the latter
term
cannot
be
about doing whatever research you want to do independently
of
some
market
conditions and societal needs and economy. We may then pose
the
questions,
what type of "freedom" is the "freedom" current systems (of
incentives,
of
ISI lists) afford, and what type of system could allow for
another
meaning
of the term "freedom"?

Not to get too abstract, I guess that those reflections may
be
best pondered along concrete cases, if people is willing to
take
on Helena's suggestion to share particular stories of all
that
goes into getting
into
secured academic job positions, or else, of pursuing
(in)dependent
careers
outside/at the borders of/across academia.

Alfredo

________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu

on behalf of Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
Sent: 19 February 2018 19:19
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: (non)grieving scholarship

In the interests of widening the discussion:

I’ve described my work history before on this list —
basically,
moving from teaching literature and writing (with stopovers
in
landscape architecture and theater production) to concern
about
the working conditions of teachers, especially academics in
higher
education, the
75%
who are contingent/adjuncts. The concern is both for the
people
employed
this way and for the integrity of the institutions that
employ
them. I eventually engaged this concern by working with and
for
the labor
movement,
ending up first working for the garment/apparel workers
union
in
Philadelphia and then at the Labor Educaiton Program at the
U
of
Illinois,
from which I retired in 2010.

The new twist to this story is about the employment of
academics
on short-term contracts in Viet Nam, under conditions that
seem
to
be increasingly frequent in the “developing” world, where
the
market for education is booming. University World News
http://www
.
universityworldnews.com/  tracks this phenomenon and
includes
occasinal
critical articles about the competition for rankings. The
university
where
my husband and I have been teaching on and off since 2015,
Ton
Duc
Thang
in
Ho Chi Minh City, recruits professors from all over the
world
with
a promise of $2,000 per month US — but extending their
contracts
depends
on
producing articles published in journals on the ISI list;
the
nature of this list is worth taking a look at. The impact of
this
practice on the culture and student body is not all bad.

My point here is to place the issue of the challenge of
getting
a
tenure-track job in a global context. This is not just an
individual problem.

I’m willing to go further down this line of discussion.
However,
academics
are often reluctant to reveal and compare their working
conditions
on
an
“academic” discussion list. Maybe by putting up the issue of
what
academic
freedom requires, and how these requirements fare in the
global
market
for
higher education, we can shed the embarassment of revealing
information about our own experiences with getting the brass
ring
of a full-time, secure job.

Let’s see if anyone picks up on this. Maybe I’m being too
vague.

Helena Worthen
helenaworthen@gmail.com
Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745
Blog US/ Viet Nam:
helenaworthen.wordpress.com
skype: helena.worthen1

On Feb 19, 2018, at 9:19 AM, Huw Lloyd
<huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
wrote:

The article describes accumulating large amounts of
knowledge
pertaining
to
history, which (the author maintains) cannot be turned to
other
endeavours.
This, no doubt, is true for her. If, however, her approach
to
studying
history had been systemic, then there would have been a
powerful
form
of
re-application and continuity in any work that was turned
to.
Perhaps
the
same can be said for "phd/postdoc training". If it cannot
be
reused
or
isn't enabling, what, substantively, is it?

Best,
Huw

On 18 February 2018 at 18:32, Alfredo Jornet Gil <
a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
wrote:

Really inspiring words and work, Francine. I do see
community
colleges
and
many other educational settings apart from universities as
really
valuable
and exciting opportunities; the PhD and following postdoc
etc
training
in
universities, however, tend to be very much targeted
towards a
very
narrow
spectrum of positions, or at least that's been my
experience.
I
am
very
happy that this thread may widen that scope and make
visible
other
paths.
And as Mike suggested, it would be very interesting to
hear
from
several
others who have followed distinct trajectories apart from
the
phd-postdoc-assist/assoc. prof-prof, and yet made a career
in
touch
with
most of what was developed in the junior (phd and few
later)
years.
Thanks!
Alfredo
________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.
edu>
on behalf of Larry Smolucha <lsmolucha@hotmail.com>
Sent: 18 February 2018 06:20
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: (non)grieving scholarship

Message from Francine Smolucha on a scholar's life with or
without
academia

Alfredo,

There are other jobs that pay well (sometimes with tenure
and
early retirement benefits) - besides professorships at
four
year colleges
and
universities.  Administrative and support staff positions
pay
well.
And
don't overlook community colleges, technical colleges, and
public
grade
schools and high schools. There is also the private sector
and
government
jobs.

As a 'low status' community college professor, I managed
to
translate
Vygotsky's

overlooked writings on creativity (back in the 1980's) and
introduced
his
theory of creativity to academia.  I got early retirement
at
age 53
and
continue to write and publish. While my Ph.D from the
University of
Chicago
gave me academic bona fides, it was the quality of the
scholarly
work
that
ultimately mattered.

I was always inspired by the harsh circumstances of
Vygotsky's
life
and
how he still kept on writing.

[When I felt really sorry for myself, I would actually say
"Well at
least
I am not coughing up blood"]

So many of his works were not published in his lifetime,
he
did
not
collect a royalties check, and    they say he was
depressed
at
the
end
of
his life.

I leave you with this quote from an ancient Sufi mystic -

You can't always get what you want but you can get what
you
need

.

________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.
edu>
on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 7:07 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: (non)grieving scholarship

Yours is a quandary shared by your generation, Alfredo.
Being allowed to teach and conduct research in a quality
institution
is
a
great privilege and an
increasingly rarer possibility.

There are several people on this list who have organized
their
lives
to
be
independent scholars
while staying connected to the core institutions of
disciplinary
training.
It might be nice to hear
the variety out there.

It appears pretty certain that the situation is going to
get
worse before/if it gets better.

What can the collective experience of xmca come up with
that
would
be
useful to the many
of you caught in this meat grinder?

mike

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <
a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
wrote:

Good luck then, Wagner!
A
________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.
edu

on behalf of Wagner Luiz Schmit <wagner.schmit@gmail.com

Sent: 18 February 2018 01:07
To: eXtended Mind, Culture Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: (non)grieving scholarship

This just hit me in the spot...

Wagner

On Feb 17, 2018 9:48 PM, "Alfredo Jornet Gil"
<a.j.gil@iped.uio.no

wrote:

I have not been able to contribute to this list as much
as
I'd
like
to
lately, among other things, because I need to find a
job,
and
I
need
to
make sure that I have checked all those boxes that
selection
committees
will check (enough first-authored publications? in good
enough
journals?
enough leadership in projects? teaching? supervising?
acquiring
funds?
more
than all others candidates? and more than
favoured-for-whatever-other-
reasons
candidates?). So I have been doing all I can these weeks
to
fill
up
a
competitive CV, for my contract is about to expire.

And, although I did not think that it was particularly
well
written,
it
was both relieving and discouraging to read this article
(see
link
below,
which I take from the facebook wall of a colleague who I
think
also
subscribes this list). The article makes visible the
pain
scholars
go
through when, after so many years of digging and digging
and
digging a
little (but deep!) hole, may after all have to leave it
and
find
some
other
thing to do. In Canada, I met a French astronomer who
was
moving
through
the world with his lovely family, short-term project
after
short-term
project, getting better and better at what he worked on
(apparently
he
was
among the few who had expertise in computer modeling
simulating
some
astronomic events) , and finally having to step out
academia
last
year
to
find something else to do, for his family no longer
could
stand
the
constant uncertainty and travelling. It could be me
soon.
And
that
may
not
be a bad thing, or even a thing in itself, but the story
seems to
be
quite
endemic to academia and may be interesting to some of
you:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Everybody-Loses-
When/24
2560

Alfredo

--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson

--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson

--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson