Not intending to disparage you in any way shape or form: your proposal remind me of me 30 years ago. Before I developed my hard crust of cynicism.
On to the subject ...
I vehemently agree this should be done and even needs to be done.
But.
The proposal, to have some hope of success, requires the backing of a thumping lot of the Shakers and Movers in the scientific community. I'm talking Nobel Prizes winners and others of that rank. Without such backing it's hopeless.
I raised this issue mainly so that people are aware of the closeness of the whole enterprise.
Many companies are more open than many research centres.
If science is so "open" and "transparent", why isn't this an obvious default?
Ok, at least I would like to see documented the QA procedures... What do they do to assure quality? Software has bugs. Even math formulas have bugs sometimes...
To be fully honest maybe there is some "poison" in the proposal. Maybe I know the state of some implementations (of top universities), and would really love to see them in the open. I doubt, they would like to have there work exposed, though...
My father-in-law, the SO, and twelve or so friends have a Ph.d. I was working towards a Ph.d., had to have one to work in the field I was interested in, when I got waylaid by circumstances, discovered over-riding fascination with computers, and never went back. Big Mistake. My life would have been a damn sight easier, I'd avoided a lot of pointless hassles and conflicts, if I'd had a "union card."
So my advice is: finish. Slog on through and get it. It won't hurt and it WILL help.
The one thing regrettable of the entire PhD period is actually not having finished one. There may be some developments still, there may be not. It's too early to say anything.
I actually have published quite a bit - have quite q few citations and such - and would easily (I think) get a postdoc or something like that, but I cant take this for much longer.
The ability to manage my time is good. The traveling is very good (conferences). I cannot complain about the workload ;)
But I simply cant stand the closeness, the loneliness (I and do have loads of contacts), the confidentiality, the discussions about intelectual ownership, the lack of technical competence, the egos and the shear lack of moral behaviour.
Having worked in IT in the past (including very big banks), I can easily say that even commercial IT is much more open in terms of idea exchange and good, old sharing of ideas, problems and solutions.
I spend part of my time doing open source, just to be able to work in something that involves a community that, with all its problems, still deserves to be labeled as a community.
Apart from family and friends, from an intellectual perspective found salvation in art and programming. The PhD is something I do after coding (sometimes I even code for the PhD ;) ) and learning music and drawing. Also doing a nice course in epistemology in order to be able to synthesize these ideas.
But have no doubt, this was a personal reaction to what I describe above.
Let me give an example: Imagine that you are a serious researcher in epidemiology. You will find it unacceptable to publish a paper on "eradicating disease X in Y years", as it will be unrealistic and BS. You will maybe work in more realistic control measures. Something a bit more obscure than "total eradication". The other gal/guy that competes with you, will do a paper on "eradicating the disease". Which one will be published in a better journal, attract more funding, get you in with the people who have decision power? In a serious environment the second person would be ridiculed. But in an environment as it is today, the second person will progress and the first (with their "irrelevant" topics) will perish.
Another example: If I find a problem in the work of a colleague, and tell the colleague, what will be his/her answer? In a serious environment the colleague will rush to the publication where the wrong work was published and issue a correction or a retraction. In today's environment it will probably ignore your comment and will become your ENEMY if you make it public.
This being said I can find many cases where people still behave in a moral way, but it is not clear that it is the rule.
Be serious and perish. [Not fair to all areas]
Oh, I am aware of the two examples you cite. I tend not to associate with people who don't consider both unconscionable. We may not get far (I have actually quit academia) but at least we still have fun talking about science. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
The Peter Principle is an enabling corollary of the social application of Gresham's Law and the combined effect of these two principles largely accounts for what I have called "institutional incompetence", which is where we have many, even a considerable majority, of able people with good intentions yet the structure and function of the institution itself reliably leads to failed results.
I do not know if "workplace democracy" and "social justice" can mitigate this phenomena, but it wouldn't hurt to try. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that organizations that adopt open and collaborative approaches and encourage creativity can be more productive. My own sense is that social hierarchy is the real poison. And that is my inner anarchist speaking. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Once you get tenure, why not?
Aside from the ever fewer genuinely tenured positions, it doesn't quite stop with tenure. You still have to secure funding for postdocs, ph.d.s, etc.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
