Four qualities of academia

Most academics learn by proxy from their mentors, supervisors, and colleagues how to conduct themselves within academia concerning manners and morals. In the following text, I summarize what I have learned from my mentors and colleagues about conduct in the form of four qualities of academia. I consider the qualities outlined here to be a blueprint of conduct for the individual agents within academia, but also for the institution itself.

Academia being collaborative

The main goal of people in science is to produce knowledge. Academia then is the wider institution that encapsulates scientists and educates future generations of them. Since the only way to evolve academia is by working together, collaboration is the most pivotal and central tenet of all in academia. Only if we all work together can we access the true potential of academia, where individuals do not simply add up in their impact, but through their complementary expertise create impact well beyond their individual means. Collaboration is context-dependent, meaning that it depends on a diversity of parameters and circumstances to explore the capabilities of a specific academic setting, as well as the individuals contributing to it. A simple denominator of whether a collaboration works is to see if it works for all people involved in it. It can be vital to agree on all relevant parameters in a code of conduct, since otherwise contributors may change the rules to their benefit. This would contradict the meaning of true collaboration because at least in theory there cannot be a collaboration if one person consciously gains more benefits compared to others. Yet, since there is a whole real world behind these circumstances, let us not go too deep into reality when it comes to collaboration, but instead name a code of conduct as the smallest common denominator of any collaboration. In case you are interested in upping your game on tools that can help to enrich and enhance your collaboration, you can find a whole section in this wiki here.

Academia being solution-oriented

Outlining problems can be an important means in any given branch of science, but the ultimate end of any part of science should be to contribute towards solutions, at least when it comes to the epistemological fabric of our reality. Raising problems has been a domain of basic research, and it was the connection to the real world that would raise serious problems that range from benign to threatening our very existence. Being solution-oriented has been long criticized for compromising scientific integrity. Critics demand science to be unbiased, and frame science as some sort of objective informer of society. Both perceptions are clearly wrong. Scientists are biased like everybody else, despite their best attempts to minimize their biases. It is quite clear that certain forms of biases are even exclusive to scientists, and science institutions look back at a long history if not traditions of biases. Being mere objective informers is in fact also impossible, because everything forever changes. To this end, Critical Realism makes clear that, at least in an epistemological reality viewed by individuals who all have their own individual perception of reality, objectivity cannot be reached. Science may thus only aim at approximating facts that unlock a certain version of reality. All this makes a case for a humble solution-orientated science that aims to contribute to overcoming the hurdles we face and solve the currently very complicated relation between solutions for few and solutions for many. The responsibility of all scientists is to ease the suffering in the world, may it be through teaching insights to others, or by improving knowledge towards more benefit to all beings. What will be crucial for the decades to come is to create a more conscious recognition of which solutions are for specific groups and which solutions are generating an overall improvement.

Academia being radical

Science is progress. As already mentioned, everything forever changes, and science is not only one of the societal contributors but a key driver for such change. This does not need to be a magical change that questions every status quo, but instead can also preserve traditions and approaches that have proven their worth. Yet, whenever change in knowledge is needed to create progress, science is one of the prime candidates to drive change. We now live in a time when we need to end certain paradigms that have harmed the human condition for far too long. Colonialism, the patriarchy, the growth-driven economy, and many other practices are still deeply ingrained in our societies, and indeed also within science. These paradigms create much suffering every day, and it is clear and overdue that they need to be ended by us. Therefore, we need radical change, meaning a difference that is so drastic, that there is a clear break between the practices and norms we had in the past and the practices that future science will be built upon. A literal textbook example of this is scientific disciplines. More often than not, they claim to be superior to other disciplines and therefore deserve more resources because they have a better command over the approximation of facts, often even claiming to have the truth. These practices of imposture need to end, which does not mean that people will not have a deep focus in the future. Indeed may the same number of scientists have a deep focus, but instead of being dictated in their education pathways by constructed disciplines, future scientists will have the agency and experience to choose their own educational pathways, thereby contributing much better to the desired change which defined science since its very beginning.

Academia being peace-loving

This change is only acceptable if it creates no harm to other beings. Therefore, all science ought to be peace-loving. While discourse is a normal and welcome part of all science, it needs to be civil and with a clear recognition of and best intentions for the respective other being. Only when you try to be the best version of yourself can other scientists look at you and see themselves as their own best versions. Many tensions arise out of the diversity of all agents that drive the change, because they need to collectively question the status quo from different perspectives. It is up to each one of us how we want to conduct ourselves and manifest the desired change. If we alienate others and communicate in ways they cannot understand, then we will remain divided. However, to this end, we have to acknowledge that our ways of knowing how to integrate people that do not share the privilege of our own education are still limited. Many branches in science are indeed very specific and deep concerning their respective knowledge, and require people outside of academia to trust that we as scientists have indeed good intentions. The societal and political movements against established knowledge show that this trust is currently broken. It will be part of our work for the next decades to establish new mutual trust that allows for joint learning, and this learning will necessarily have to include the fact that not everybody can learn everything, simply because it would not be resourceful. This of course means - referring back here to the first quality of academia being collaborative - that it is all the more important that each individual contributes their piece of knowledge to the whole picture. Peace-loving science is a two way street, where trust needs to flow both ways to become interconnected.

The author of this entry is Henrik von Wehrden.