Fear, audacity and values in research success: Destructive in isolation, powerful in combination

What does it take to be successful at research? While more is known about what factors make for research career success (Johnson et al. 2010), knowledge and discussion of the traits and states of successful researchers are surprisingly scant. We propose that three factors are especially essential to an academic's research: fear, audacity and values. However, with one vital caveat: that while in isolation these factors harm success, in combination, they are extremely potent for this success. In the face of developing new ideas, applying for research grants or publishing with aspiration, fear in the academic can lead to intimidation, low confidence, insecurities and unnecessary anxiety and conflict with colleagues. Some or all of the norms of universities – to move ideas into action, apply for competitive research funds, and publish well – become cast as externalized and ominous threats. The behaviours resulting from such fears are diverse. These can range from adopting a consistently negative or even hostile approach to any kind of change under the guise of being against the supposed ‘neo-liberalist’ University hierarchy to being highly selective in one's choice of work via avoiding applying for grants altogether or publishing in journals of low quality and visibility. Fear on its own is destructive to research success. Likewise, on its own, audacity is similarly diverse yet equally damaging. It can lead to excessive stridence in interactions with others, self-serving decisions, naively high claims to knowledge in one's research, and, in the researcher, lofty perceived self-status with its attendant narcissism and entitlement behaviours (Thompson & Darbyshire 2013). Only studies of gargantuan size and/or ambition are proposed. Rejections for grants and manuscripts meet with responses that bemoan the lack of understanding that others have of ideas of such complexity, nuance and relevance. While many may recognize these behaviours, like fear, few academics like or see themselves as arrogant. Mere tasks, whether informed by fear and/or audacity, cannot substitute for values. In addition to practical dimensions, academic tasks of thinking, writing, seeking publication and grants, and scholarship express and reinforce values. An exclusive focus on values in the absence of action in approaching research (and indeed all university life) risks being excessively problem-focused and self-consciously, and even self-righteously, does little beyond voicing values. The noble scholarly identity and intentions ascribed to the self tend to be accompanied by little action or outputs and a negative and stereotypical view of others' values – particularly those who have achieved research success who are stereotyped as somehow checking their scholarly values in at the door when they commenced their career. Values are important, but in the absence of action, they are hollow and damaging to research careers. In sociological terms, fear, audacity and values have emergent properties – that is – in combination they create new powers, which they do not possess individually (Elder-Vass 2010). Although harmful in isolation, in combination, these factors form a powerful tripartite of research success. Faced with pressure of producing new ideas, proposals and publications (sometimes for decades at a stretch), it is entirely understandable and expected that researchers should experience fear. Just as the blank sheet of paper can bring fear to the writer irrespective of career stage (Sullivan & Bennett 2012), so too the imperative to develop new research ideas, innovative directions and impactful publications can and should instil fear into even the most seasoned researcher. Fear reflects a healthy humility in the face of the obligation of developing new and useful knowledge in science. In combination with audacity this fear can be transformed into action. Indeed, the place between fear and the particular kind of arrogance associated with audacity is: ‘a balance between a healthy skepticism of your reason for living and a solar confidence in your ability to come up with a fantastic idea every time you sit down to work.’ (Sullivan & Bennett 2012 p. 23). This curious combination of fear and audacity allows academics to start and achieve great success unexpectedly or when the pressure is on – but also pay authentic homage to collaborators and predecessors and, rather than dwelling on their success excessively, move on rapidly the next day to the next problem (Sullivan & Bennett 2012). Audacity, respectively, provides the vital dose of ambition needed to commence the innovative grant or submit the publication to the prestigious journal while fear provides the impetus for developing both as much as possible so failure can be avoided and reputation maintained or enhanced. Reflecting on and integrating values with the actions motivated by fear and audacity are essential to research success. The academic career, conceived as a series of semi-occluded games, involves navigating precarious written and unwritten organizational and disciplinary ‘rules’ while taking account in daily decisions the priorities and tasks necessary to winning at these various games (Christensen & Eyring 2011). Scholarly identities and values are wrapped up in these games and they frequently and even inevitably question the academic's sense of competency, compromise and conscience (Kamler & Thomson 2006). Publishing, for example, has never offered more choices and more challenges for the values, fears and audacity of scholars (Bauerlein et al. 2010). How can the academic reconcile publishing in an aspirational manner for their discipline while fulfilling organizational publishing expectations around impact and open access, while still working to maintain their senses of competency, ambition, and overall scholarly vision? While some academics focus on simple number of publications, others are drawn to be less concerned with speed than with quality. Indeed, the slow movement is becoming more common outside and inside academia (Honoré 2004). It is a cultural revolution against the notion that faster is always better. It is about seeking to do everything as well as possible, instead of as fast as possible. ‘Slow science’ is being promoted as a means of resisting fast, competitive, benchmarked research, which is seen to be becoming the norm (Garwood 2012). In many countries, individual and departmental publication outputs and metrics are being calculated, published and scrutinized with ever higher frequency and stakes. The scholar's published work is increasingly quantified in a variety of ways: by their career (via their H-index), by particular publications (via citation rates or mean impact factors) or via their social impact (via Altmetrics). New places to publish emerge that also have practical and widespread implications: does the scholar choose to publish only in open-access journals? Or make all of their papers available via open access? Do they only seek to publish work in journals of a particular impact factor? In turn, the scholar's values can be formed, expressed and challenged via approaches to and behaviours related to these measures and decisions: how much, for example, should the scholar prioritize high performance in such metrics over their curiosity to research particular topics that may be less attractive for journal publishing? Or to publish in less visible but more specialized journals? Or to put their own performance before that of their organization? These academic measures not only have personal and organization utility and implications but also deep social connotations that are likely to threaten, challenge and otherwise cajole the individual scholar's values, fear and audacity. Thus, scholarship and scholars are increasingly commodified – and old and new choices present the individual with many issues and trade-offs to consider that may well challenge and impinge on their values and affect and be affected by both fear and audacity. In these considerations, false trade-offs must be avoided. In a study of elite US scientists (Feist 1997), quantity and impact of research were positively related and both, especially quantity, predicted global eminence. However, for those scientists who produce large quantities of work, impact of publication had little or no effect on eminence, but for those scientists who produce relatively few works, impact of publication did predict higher levels of eminence. Fear, audacity and values should not be shunned. Scholars should have sufficient audacity to embrace the challenges posed by doing research and fearful enough about the challenges and their reputation that they should wish to work hard with humility to perform well. The degree to which scholars can navigate and reconcile audacity and fear while integrating their values into the actions motivated by these factors is key. Separately so destructive to researchers, together: fear, audacity and values actually make for successful researchers.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.