A thread about power and professionalism in academia
1/This thread is inspired by comments about how it's "human nature" to be sexually attracted to other people, that sometimes you really do find your soulmate at a conference or a lab bench, and that so-and-so, who is known to be a harasser, is a "good scientist."
2/Here's the thing. Academia, like many other domains--perhaps more so than most--organizes its power hierarchies around reputation. You grow your academic reputation primarily through your papers, your talks, your collaborations/relationships with others & their reputations.
3/Reputation is also granted through your relationships with institutions. Universities with good reputations confer more power onto their faculty and students than universities without such reputations. Same thing for journals, etc.
4/Reputation is currency in academia. When you invite someone to be the keynote speaker at your conference, to give a seminar at your institution, to write a commentary, when you cite, nominate, refer someone to an opportunity, etc. you are paying them in career currency.
5/If you have a good reputation (i.e., lots of career currency), when you invite people to collaborate with you, you give them career currency. This all sounds very transactional, but I suspect it doesn't feel transactional to most of us. It feels relational. Really, it is both.
6/It is bizarre to me (because power structures have always been extremely visible to me in every activity I've ever done in my life) but some people seem to be genuinely unconscious/unaware of how power & reputation work in academia. So I'm going to spell it out here.
7/When you are junior in academia, you usually have relatively little reputation/currency. You may have some through your affiliations--your supervisor if you're a trainee, your institution--and you may have some through the work you've done so far, but often you don't have much.
8/So when a person with more currency than you (e.g., a senior scientist) expresses interest in your work, they are flashing some currency in your face. You're earning some currency! You/your work might be worth some valuable currency! (I've been here. It's very exciting.)
9/Again, this doesn't usually feel so explicitly transactional. But it is implicitly baked in. It is in the foundation of the structure of academia.
10/And then the senior scientist adds a wrinkle. They aren't just paying career currency for good work, like you thought. They want something in exchange. They hint, or explicitly say, that they would like you to sleep with them. They want access to your body.
11/Suddenly, the reason they're standing there, currency in hand, is less clear. Maybe you didn't earn that currency through your hard work after all? Are they offering currency *in exchange* for something very different than your work? (Been here, too. It's a lot less exciting.)
12/Sometimes this shift in expectations comes later, after you've already grown to believe that they were genuinely interested in your work. (This is especially confusing and disappointing.)
13/Let's flip this around for a minute. Let's say you are a PI. And let's say a grant program officer is expressing interest in your work. This is very exciting! The currency they can offer in exchange for your hard work is not metaphorical!
14/How do you feel when they hint they'd like something in exchange? Something that isn't your hard work? Maybe they want their kid to get into your school. Maybe they want a job recommendation. Whatever it is, it isn't what you'd thought.
15/Maybe they, too, want something else. (Been here too, ugh. FFS, program officers of the world, calling a scientist beautiful when they thought you were discussing their work is not a compliment. It is shockingly unprofessional.)
16/Here's the thing that seems to escape some people: using your career currency (power, reputation) to get something else you want is a particular aspect of "human nature." And it is not a good aspect. It's called corruption. There is no good exchange rate between these things.
17/Professionalism in academia means being mindful of the power structure and how reputation is currency. It means trying to be aware of the power/currency you have amassed and being careful not to misuse it. It means not giving more career currency to people who misuse it.
18/Professionalism in academia means you don't mix currencies. You don't compliment someone's work and then, because you made them feel good, expect them to make you feel good in a different way.
19/You want to hook up at a conference with someone with equivalent power to yours & who consents to the experience? Whatever. Not my relationship, not my business. Have fun. But do not ignore the power structure and don't misuse or allow others to misuse currency.
20/Don't hit on people with less power/currency than you. Don't call people who damage science by using their power/currency in corrupt ways "good scientists." Don't invite them to keynote. Don't nominate them for awards. Maintain your integrity. Don't allow corruption.
21/Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
P.S. I will add that I'm fine, experiences I had were mildly unpleasant but obviously didn't push me out. I'm tough & came to academia from industry, which was worse. So I hope this doesn't discourage anyone considering their career path. I think/hope academia is getting better.
