The other day I had an interesting conversation with my partner about academic and industrial mindset of a researcher. We thought what will happen if we place an academic scholar in an industry environment. How will it impact his/her productivity, soft skills and hard skills?
I am sure that you might have read many articles about pros and cons of academia and industry. I also did, In fact i have attended a few lectures as well. But, none of them talks about the key factor which drives the behavioral changes of a scientist in both the environments. To tell you the truth, a recent nature study shows that scientists have high job satisfaction and are better paid in industry than their peers in academia.
Academic Work Culture
We know that the work environment in academia is highly research and discovery focused. Most of the research being conducted is curiosity based with utmost desire of learning new concepts and ideas. The research scholars have intellectual freedom with less interference from the funding agencies. The competition is more in terms of publishing research articles, writing grants and performing self-directed work. Academic researchers have the strong desire to evolve as independent scientists and establish their name in the scientific community.
Industrial Set up
On the contrary, industrial setup runs on a business model that involves client-based deliveries within strict deadlines. Researchers come up with unique product concepts and deliver assignments to the clients. People cannot work in silos and must collaborate with other teams to complete the task unlike academia. Industries compete in terms of generating more revenue, successful product concepts, employee satisfaction etc.
It has been mentioned time and again that career pace, productivity, and monetary gains are faster and higher in an industry than academia.
The Ball Game of Money
What exactly differs between the two which drives the behavior of a researcher?
My partner believes it’s the source of money which creates the whole difference in both worlds. I will explain it.
The expectations of an investor are skyrocketing in an industry as they pour in millions of dollar in the projects and only desire positive outcomes. The primary goal of pharma industry is to significantly increase the capital gains that too in short span of time.
This requires honest efforts, strong commitments, concern about the investment being done, work productivity, efficient delivery, capacity to fulfil demands and tackle problems when they arise from the research team.
Therefore, like an upside-down pyramid, all the responsibilities lie in the hands of the scientist, or the team of researchers selected for the work. Therefore, they do not have the choice but to give their best performance to complete the task.
On the other hand government funding agencies in academic institutions do not exert such high pressures. In my opinion academia gives you free hand in terms of creativity and intellectual freedom. Negative results also get equal weightage in academia unlike industry. I believe this slow pace style of work can also be one of the reasons for longer durations of a PhD.
So, what are your thoughts on this?
PS: I would like to especially mention that I am not commenting anything on peer pressure and advisor’s expectation as they are dependent on personal experiences and cannot be generalized.
For more such conversations please check my page Categories and Posts.