The fastest way to get people to scramble for something is to throw money out the window in one televised stunt. To achieve the same aims in academia, credit seems to do the trick. Getting a name on a project, protecting reputation as a "brand," and coining new terms and processes all seem to lead to a mad scramble. For many, "name" means greater access to resources, esteem, choice projects, and street credibility. The prestige piece has always been an aspect of the academy - from where doctoral degrees came from to the number of citations for a reference article to the number of publications and discoveries to the amounts of grant awards and prizes. This mad scramble for resources and public esteem sometimes pushes out talented individuals who may not want to work in such a high-pressure environment. Indeed, there's enough out there in the universe to lure a person away from work achievements...and after a sufficient number of years in a field, burnout doesn't seem an unlikely possibility.

Scenario 1: A Dangerous Sense of Entitlement

The email itself was not friendly. The writer claimed to be the founder of a particular concept that had been actualized in a team situation. While he had contributed very little to the actual product and actually did not originate the original concept, he vehemently requested that he get credit for the work in a public forum where the team would be making a presentation of the work. He had not created any materials for the presentation and had been a very minor player. He was invited to actually create some work for the presentation but declined. As a face-saving measure, he was invited to have a virtual presence in the presentation. He created an artifact to showcase himself but contributed no real work. In another project, this one for private industry, half of the team signed on to deal with a distance learning project only appeared once at the beginning of the project and never appeared again. Their names appeared on all the credit lines for the statements-of-work. Their collegial friends put them on the payroll to cover their passivity at work...and likely got some virtual credit in return. (This was in a major downturn in this particular industry, and all around us, people were emptying their desks and giving away their reference books). The supervisors could apparently see what was going on but did not much care to make sure that the participants all participated. Maybe they were there for political reasons and not actual functional ones.

Scenario 2: Timing and Credit Swipe

The research project had been long in the making. The members of the research team had all contributed extensively to the work. However, one of the graduate students had moved on, and a new graduate student had taken over the research when the publishable results were discovered. The current graduate student published the work with himself as the primary author and the others all as secondary authors. Timing matters...

Scenario 3: Virtual Collaboration Spaces

So a recent project has involved the creation of a shared online space for research purposes. When listservs came out years ago, articles hailed these as ways to enhance collaboration in science. My question then (and now) is why would anyone want to share their competitive advantage and neutralize the power of their own insights, particularly with competitors? There's a rush to publication but only when publication authenticates the timeline of a discovery. Surely, people may not feel motivated to rush to publish to online spaces where their ideas may be borrowed or outright swiped.

Scenario 4: Reverse Credit or Blameshifting

The flip side on the mad dash for credit involves reverse credit or "blameshifting." If something falls apart, it seems like human nature to start making unsavory attributions of others. There's the strategy of letting a leader go out front on a project and then pulling back if it didn't look like it was going to work. There's the use of rumor channels to point figures. Those who want to play hardball will take the argument to the public airwaves. Discrediting of theories and papers may be other ways of taking down academic opponents. In other words, the unsavory side of human character emerges. Knowing this, I'm all the more impressed with anonymous contributions / donations to projects. I'm more grateful to those who would act out of compassion rather than self-serving in the work they do.

The So-What Factor?

So this musing has led me to be careful whom I sign on for research projects. It's critical to have clear lines of responsibility. Also, political cover helps me take risks in the work. I realize that people can make wild claims about what they've actually achieved, even if there's no basis in fact. Human collaboration is critical for most endeavors, but there's also a place for going solo. I'm comforted by realizing that what matters are the walk-away skills that an individual has. In the future, will I be able to execute on a plan...or will I only have hot air and false claims to fall back on? Then again, when I think I'm focusing too much on the issue of credit - with its very thin lines of provenance - I go back to old-style Chinese thought, which tends to be very practical. Can I wear it? Can I eat it? If not, maybe I shouldn't care.