Good quality teaching again is about accountability, because while so much research is read by so few and does so little for anyone but academics' own egos, teaching equips the next generation with skills for the workplace and an appreciation of academia 'for its own sake' hopefully. We're never going to agree I can see, but in the university I'd say actually its your view thats still in the majority amongst grass roots academics (why wouldn't it be? it's comfortable, it's what's always happened, it allows almost complete personal autonomy over professional activity, it's a pretty relaxed way of working).

commonsense, i agree that if you have some results worth publishing, there is not much reason to wait just because you don't have your PhD title yet.
BUT your argument implies that results should be published immediately in the social sciences, else they will lose all relevance due to being "out of date". i strongly disagree with this as it assumes that only empirical "facts" about society are relevant results of research (which can indeed go out of date fast), whereas i believe that advancing conceptual notions and challenging theoretical paradigms is just as relevant and does not go out of date so fast. also, the "facts about society", whilst maybe being out of date when published, still contribute - without them, no-one could ever seriously study developments over time.

Shani - I can take your point to an extent. I think there is a whole debate to be had, however, over the genuine value of social science research that does not at least attempt to RIGOROUSLY account for empirical evidence (e.g. in medical sociology that means the academic must do more than build a whole theoretical approach based on the last time he went to hospital for personal treatment with no use of rigorously collected academic data). But of course there is value in longitudinal research and challenging existing research.

Again, following the arguments with great interests. As CS requested, my five major criticisms are:

1) Too much exploitation of PhD students, especially those that serve under "apprenticeship" style supervisors that have to do additional unpaid work in addition to their PhD projects.
2) Too few jobs, yet no restriction on training of PhD students.
3) Lack of long term, secure, clear career pathways (for the majority, not the minority that recieve tenure).
4) The difficulty in maintaining a good work/ life balance (especially for women).
5) The intensity of politics within academia, at the expense of the actual quality of research.

I could go on but these are my key five points.

I also take issue with your overemphasis on "empirical" evidence. Having just finished a highly empirical, quantitative PhD, I am all too aware of the pre-eminance we afford such research, despite the raft of assumptions and methodological flaws that are inevitable within the process. Qualitative, reflective, and more individualistic approaches can provide just as much to the stock of human knowledge.

I have started to see empirical evidence much like McDonalds, in that it works on a mass market, global scale, and accounts for lots. Although I can understand that a RCT of drug X shows high effectiveness in 87% of the population, I am more interested in whether drug X will work for ME (or for people like me). This is where qualitative methods could have an edge.

There's no particular reason why empirical evidence has to be quantitative, my data collection certainly isn't. But there is sometimes an inbuilt dislike by sociologists of quantitative methods which they need to overcome if they are to properly understand the issues they research. I would advocate that often you need a combination of both types of data. Too often, though, research that does not engage with rigorously collected empirical evidence at all is too abstract to be useful other than an enjoyable experience perhaps for the person who wrote it.

On the issue of RCTs in medical research in particular I quite agree with you. There are many other ways of collecting evidence about the impact of drugs other than RCTs and a combination approach of methods ought to often be used. Qualitative and quantitative methods can tell us very useful things about patients' benefits from treatments. But not collecting any empirical evidence at all seems a bit risky to me!

1) Too much exploitation of PhD students, especially those that serve under "apprenticeship" style supervisors that have to do additional unpaid work in addition to their PhD projects.
By doing research collaboratively with more senior academics such as supervisors one can learn more quickly than plodding on as a lone PhD scholar, though of course this should not be exploitative.
2) Too few jobs, yet no restriction on training of PhD students.
The number of posts in academia has not gone down over the years, but sectors's demand for PhDs outside academia as certainly gone up. I think it's part of a modern economy to have lots of highly trained people who use their analytical skills in many ways. A PhD is not like a medical degree working towards one specific career and can be used productvely in many ways.

3) Lack of long term, secure, clear career pathways (for the majority, not the minority that recieve tenure).
Work is going on at the moment to create more secure pathways for contract researchers. But this may be a way to allow more people to participate in academia and to get maximum results for scarce resources. What's the point in employing a researcher permanently when they are only required for two years for a specific project to the country? Research priorities change and someone in that discipline may not be required in the future.
4) The difficulty in maintaining a good work/ life balance (especially for women).
I'm not sure why women require a better work life balance than men otherwise not sure what the gender issue is here. The flexible hours of academia would be craved by those in most sectors of the economy.

5) The intensity of politics within academia, at the expense of the actual quality of research.
There's office politics in any sector. Universities are full of people who like to critique and debate.

If the last point means the role of government making universities accountable for the work they do, then we are not going to agree on this. I think you would find it hard to convince many outside academia why their hard earned money should be used for academics to approach research as a hobby without regular publishing or making their research useful to society and/or the economy.

While I do see the merits of your argument, I think there are other issues you may be neglecting.

"By doing research collaboratively ... this should not be exploitative."

True, but it doesnt take away from the fact that supervisors ARE exploitative or neglectful. Just take a look at other posts to see evidence. Shouldnt be the case, but it happens too often to be considered a freak occurance.

"The number of posts in academia has not gone down over the years,"

Again true, BUT you are just focussing on one side of the supply demand equation. The number of PhD students has gone up exponentially while the academic jobs remain the same= chronic shortage. Most grad students initially sign up for a PhD (an academic research qualification designed for academia) with an academic job in mind, and to say otherwise is misleading.

The choice to jump from academia should be exactly that, a choice, not a shove.

"Work is going on at the moment to create more secure pathways for contract researchers."

Sorry, but this is too little too late, even if it does come to fruition. Remember, compared to almost all other professions (e.g. medicine, law, accountancy) university lecturers have had a relative salary cut since the 1970s. It simply doesnt make sense for anyone who puts in as much as we do to work for so little, considering that HE is more of a finanical business than banking (Education is worth £28bn to UK exports,according to the Guardian). This cant be justified.

I think the gender issue has already been done to death in other threads so will not ressurect it here. As for work-life balance, do most lecturers complain about having to take work home, doing additional admin plus teaching and research, etc ,etc.

Agree, office politics are in all sectors, but academia is especially notorious for it.

"A PhD is not like a medical degree working towards one specific career and can be used productvely in many ways".

Take off those rose-tinted spectacles please Commonsense !!

Great stuff chaps, keep it up, and why aren't others joining in ?!

Also check out this article

"It's a rat's life. Universities are abusing young researchers and it's got to stop, says a key study."

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2186425,00.html