If you love research, academia may not be for you

One caveat in this depiction: "research supervision" is definitely research. This is mainly working with junior researchers (PhDs but also postdocs) who are co-authoring with you and are usually working on your (externally financed) projects. Not that this takes away from the main message of the article!

I would also argue that teaching is part of research or at least it contributes to your skill building because you have to structure content and go back to the basics many times. I would however guess that administrational work and applying for grants etc. is underrepresented here. I think that at the moment academia is still the best option to work scientifically, however, the question is if you are willing to work 55 hours a week (on average!), constantly move your workplace, accept a far lower wage and normally far less workplace benefits, leave aside the horrible canteen food... For the sake of what? If you do work part-time you could still do a paper here or there and follow your interests... But of course this is not comparable to a professorship who is involved in about 10-15 publications a year.

Meh. One wonders what we even mean by "doing research" anymore, especially when there is so much pressure to publish, whether the "research" is good, or ready, or valuable or not. Don't get me wrong. I love the "life of the mind" thing. I love the idea of doing research. I love the idea of doing MY idea of research. But I am often skeptical about what ultimate good is coming of the exponentially growing and market-driven volume of research we've already got.

One consideration is the quality and originality of the research: being to busy with mundane tasks reduces both. Academia existed through the Middle Ages, but nearly all of the civilization-changing research accomplished then was not through the (then) most prestigious academic positions with teaching loads. This is true even much more recently: top biologists in the Nineteenth Century didn't have standard teaching professorships, for example.

I agree with many, if not all comments. Universities are often toxic environments with complex organisational dynamics and designated innovators. Typically, there are impossible demands made of academics in terms of teaching, administration and research. In the social sciences, what passes for research is often audit or endorsement of current social policy and does not contribute to a legitimate knowledge base. 19th century practice prevails with modernity bolted on. The sense of being an elite group holds everyone back. I would agree, not in all instances, that to pursue a passion for research,you may not be best placed in a university.

This is precisely why I have remained a free agent. In Neuroscience, the brilliant scientist who ran my lab spent most of her time writing grants, doing site visits, etc. In Chinese medicine I have published my own books and stayed away from teaching at a specific school. Will anyone pay attention if you don't have the accreditation of a university? My case might be rare but my experience is that if you do outstanding work, they will.

I think a few issues need mentioning: There should be a comparison of university conditions for research to private sand semi public research institutes, (Fraunhofer.....) and to the private industry researchers ( pharmaceuticals, Architecture Firms, Engineering Firms........) and also need to mention that universities provide fantastic infrastructure for research: subscriptions to journals and huge libraries and phd and postdoc and undergrad students to talk with, learn from, test theories and methods on and with, and of course the 2 best research settings i found: The university canteen and the book stacks of the libraries, especially the journal stacks of the newest journals. As an Architect doing research in Archaeology, on pre-historic European buildings and landscape, the infrastructure such as free access to the literature was critical and is a big hinder to me now as i cannot afford all the articles and books i want to read or peruse! Finally, of what i can think of on the spur of this moment: teaching and learning from/with students in classrooms is research itself, if we consider the use of and knowledge from reflexive and critical autoethnographic research and methods.......... Andre Geim, supposedly was in his lab with grad students, he was not alone with his nose in the screen doing by himself thinking, he was working with grad students in a team sort of context and one of his students started using tape to make thinner and thinner layers of graphite and he thought this was interesting, of course based on work of Wallace from 1947.......... but the point is that Geim was not in his study alone. It was an embodied, team, socially constructed research effort! Anyway, please do more articles like this! Bravo to THE. Thanks, David Benjamin