[Buddha-l] Re: counting beans

[Andrew Skilton]

Mon, 06 Feb 2006 Richard P. Hayes:

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.

>RH:
>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.

You are quite right to pick me up on that throw away phrase. In fact, in the
psycho-drama that runs between my ears, the smart alec's voice is invariably my
own. I meant to convey that it can be embarrassingly easy to find genuine
problems with sometimes prodigious efforts made to shed light on an issue of the
sort under discussion. I think a co-ordinated multi-methodological approach that
admits fully the weaknesses of individual approaches could begin to produce
'strong suggestions', even if still short of 'absolute proof'.

>> 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.

Bean counters (far too pleasant a term) over here seem to try to provide for
collaborative work by requiring an exact quantification of an individual's
contribution! My impression here has been that there is now a preference for
collaborative projects particularly when they are 'inter-disciplinary' or seek
to create 'new disciplines'.  Thus, established disciplines (the only
disciplines surely?) are devalued in preference to whacky juvenilia in which
'innovation' is prized over content, or indeed cultural continuity.

Andrew



***********************************
Andrew Skilton 

***********************************