Over the past several years, I've followed my philosophy of "you interact with academics only inasmuch as is necessary to try to get something that you want," so I've applied to a few higher-profile conferences where I had applicable projects in the hopes of not getting so much feedback, but rather a paid junket where they fly me out to the conference city etc.
What I've noticed happen, though, is that at some point I get googled from the host city/institution, presumably since I don't write them using an .edu account and I don't have any affiliation listed on my abstract, and presumably since the work is very high-level and they don't know who I am and what to think.
So far, every time this has happened, I ultimately get turned down, and when I've later looked at who *has* been accepted, it's everyone who is already "in the system" and has positions -- that is, those who have more, get more.
In some ways it reflects very shamefully on the evaluators, to look at credentials like that as a proxy for content rather than at actual content. It's like the exact opposite of a true intellectual enterprise, open to ideas no matter where they come from, and evaluating by merit.
In a way, my attitude is that if they don't accept top-notch work because it comes from the wrong party or because accepting it might make those with positions look bad, somehow -- whatever you do, you can't show people up! -- well, then they're welcome to whatever "intellectual exchange" they're having at their functions.
When I have described my research to random academics in totally non-related fields who I've come across, several have observed that crossing fields is very productive, to which I reply that it might be, but it also means that no-one accepts you or gives you resources beyond marginal publication and conference access, since you don't fit into what's happening and didn't come up through known programs and you don't really have any patrons anywhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment