[Buddha-l] Counting beans (comments on Skilton's comments)

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 16:16 +0000, Andrew Skilton wrote:

> I agree. I think the problem includes the limitations of the methodologies that
> can be employed to create a stratification.  Typically each involves big effort
> for an outcome that on its own can often be easily undermined by some smart
> alec.

I'm not sure that all the questioning of assumptions lying behind
methodologies is in the smart Alec category. There are some genuine
problems in most methodologies. Having said that, it is usually possible
to come up with a reasonable defense of a properly qualified
methodology.

> Under the present UK system there is no value given to projects that
> would last for more than 5 years (from inception to publication) - the
> period of national research evaluations. In fact there is considerable
> pressure against such projects. 

This is a huge problem on this side of the Atlantic. Add to it the sad
fact that in the humanities (unlike the sciences) collaborative work is
barely understood by the bean counters whose job it is to see who is
doing the work they are being underpaid to do. I think we are now at a
stage where almost any project in Buddhist studies is likely to be done
much more poorly by an individual than by a team. And yet teamwork is
undervalued by tenure committees, promotion committees and even some
granting agencies. So Buddhist studies is destined to remain retarded in
the foreseeable future.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico