TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:PhD's/Work Weeks From:Stuart Selber <SSELBER -at- MTUS5 -dot- CTS -dot- MTU -dot- EDU> Date:Wed, 27 Oct 1993 22:06:05 EST
As one who is trying real hard to help make positive connections between
research/theory and practice, or the academy and industry, I have to say
that I'm troubled by the discussion about PhD's and their short work weeks.
Michael, of course, you're free to choose how much you want to contribute to
the profession and in what ways you want to do so (if at all). But I'm
concerned that such talk may perpetuate existing tensions/splits between the
academy and industry just when we all seem to be finding productive common
ground and ways of informing each other's work. It's true that some folks in
academia may have more freedom/flexibility to set schedules and choose work,
but that generally extends their work week (versus contracting it) from what I
can tell: when folks get involved in projects they like, whether they're in
academia or industry, they tend to work hard/be enthusiastic/so on.
I think people can commit to different amounts of work in either academia or
industry: it's certainely *not* a function of the place. Besides, 10 hours of
contract writing would certainely be more profitable than what those same 10
hours bring for teaching a course. And we'd have more money to spend on ice
cream and movies during our time off.