Meretricious persiflage
The stupidity (and hubris) of Admin continues, I am reminded. And we’re not immune from it in the cage: the director of Academic Administration of the science faculties wants us to dob in all our mates (and spenda shedload of time on it):
The Faculty of Science is developing a database of Faculty International Collaborations to inform its future international strategies.
Academic staff across the Faculty are regularly collaborating with colleagues from around the world on a wide variety of research projects, but the information is not systematically captured by the Faculty and hence opportunities are missed to support, develop and enhance these collaborations.
It would be greatly appreciated if you could provide me with brief details of your three most significant international collaborations between 2005 and 2008 (and into the future if you have plans):
Who your collaborators are and which institutions they are from;
What was the project?
If any funding was received to support the project then where from and how much;
What the outcomes were (eg the number of publications but not details on which journals).
A collation of this data across the Faculty will not only provide the basis for future international strategies but also inform the budgeting process.
Thank you in anticipation of a great response.
What’s telling is (apart from the inability to use a plural such as ‘data’ correctly and the concept of ‘inform’ing non-sentient entities) the line about ‘outcomes’. These people just have no bloody clue, and they pay our salary.
But maybe we are finally getting fed up with all this. An email from the manager of the Science Awareness Section of the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (let’s not even think about how well they all sit together) begins
You may be aware that the nomination period for the 2008 Prime Minister’s Prizes for Science closes on 9 May.
To date, the number of nominations received has been disappointing, and is clearly not reflective of the number of potentially suitable nominees currently active in research.
It continues
We had hoped, in fact, to see an increase in the number of nominations for the Malcolm McIntosh Prize for Physical Scientist of the Year and Science Minister’s Prize for Life Scientist of the Year, as a result of an amendment to the eligibility criteria for these Prizes.
The prize consists of a shiny medallion, a lapel pin, and a fifty grand ‘grant’, which apparently you’re free to spend on anything you want, but it would take a brave young post-doc to take that literally and buy, say, a sports car.
The thing is, Philip, we just don’t give a rat’s arse.
April 26th, 2008 at 23:51
Does anyone seriously believe that the ‘database’ will actually be used in any way whatsoever. It will be out of date before it is made and even the ‘accurate’ data within it will be so idiosyncratic as to be useless.
eVen if the data was complete just how *could* it be used to “guide future international strategies”?? What are they going to do, … oh, I know, go on a fact finding mission to some of the venues :-)