Thread
My somewhat cynical take on bullies in academia is that they’re a feature, not a bug. I touched on this with an earlier tweet, but the qualities we commonly associate with “top scientist” in academia are extremely present in the kinds of people who bully others.
In an individual sense, sure, we speak highly of people who are kind, supportive, thoughtful and smart. But structurally, what are common merit criteria in academia? Grants, (1st author) publications, visibility, charisma & big ego, and having senior people think highly of you.
One reason bullies do well is that, like many abusers, they’re very charismatic. They know how to suck up to important people and create enough doubt around their conduct that accusers won’t be believed. Especially if they’re younger and female.
So getting all those tenure support letters from senior people? Not a problem. Imagine if we required 20 letters from randomly chosen early career researchers in their field instead, speaking to their support & mentorship qualities?
I’ve heard that perf assessments in research will go so far as to mark down academics for putting their students & postdocs as first authors on papers. Apparently you’re meant to let them do the work, then write the paper yourself so you get the credit. Nice.
We’re constantly told to big ourselves up, promote ourselves & our work relentlessly, lead not support, and basically act like low key entitled jerks. Those of us with “normal” levels of insecurities & humility often find this immensely difficult and stressful (or maybe just me?)
But for egomaniacs and narcissists, entitled jerk is their default setting. They will thrive. And those are the kinds of people who rapidly turn toxic and abusive.
So I think while it’s of course important that we individually speak up when we see or hear of bad behaviour, we also need to address the structural reasons why bullying personalities succeed so commonly in academia.
Both organizations I’m associated with work-wise, ESA and STScI, are currently recruiting new Directors. If I got to ask one question of the search committees, it would be what they are doing to ensure we don’t end up with toxic bullies in these roles.
So anyway I don’t have all the answers but IMO we should start defining “success” as achievements that build other people up (especially students & postdocs); that contribute positively to society, not just publishers’ profit margins.
And to the young people still reading: there are REALLY GOOD PEOPLE in academia who have risen to leadership positions despite all this nonsense. Change is hard but it’s possible. Never stop demanding change.
(NB - I’m using “bullying” as an umbrella term for all manner of toxic behaviour, inc sexual harassment, racist/homophobic/gender harassment etc. Aware that these all manifest differently from “bullying” but it was easier to write that way).
Mentions
See All
Katie Mack @AstroKatie
·
Oct 26, 2022
Good thread about how academic culture often rewards narcissism and abuse. It doesn’t help that media depictions of scientists often play strongly into stereotypes of misanthrope geniuses. We need to stop valorizing people who climb the career ladder on the backs of others.
