Perhaps we can translate this?

Being a full time academic had its plus sides, but the rigidity of the expectation, and the lack of willingness on the part of academia to consider anything that looks like innovation,

My best guess at an accurate translation is “People who knew what they were talking about disagreed with me”.

28 comments on “Perhaps we can translate this?

  1. It is true, though. When I did my MA, the professor’s idea of innovation was to organise something akin to what we once did in secondary school.

  2. There are interesting openings available for tax spillover work that are being pursued.

    Bwahahahahahahahahaha…. Here in the States we call it “doing tax returns part-time”.

    And nothing says career success like actively pursuing “tax spillover work” when you’re in your late 50s..

  3. @Dennis

    “tax spillover work”

    In Spud’s world this means something different. He mumbles something about how the tax policies of one country ‘spillover’ and impact on other countries. This is obviously so vague and nebulous that it provides a happy hunting ground for him write reports which make fanciful, unsupported, unprovable claims which will all be “low tax first-world countries cause babies to die in the third world” or some-such. His solution, of course, the creation of a world tax commissar.

    And he’s 61.

  4. A one day a week professor’s salary isn’t enough to live on. It will be interesting to see who will fund him now.

  5. Like the character in Viz – Wee Radge Joe (He Won’t Let It Go)

    Murphy JUST WON”T LET IT GO

    Geoff says:

    November 1 2019 at 7:55 am

    Looking forward to reading future posts from your freed up daily life. I think the lack of restraint will pay dividend to your thinking.
    I can fully relate to the frustration of constraints placed on you working in an uninspiring environment where innovation is feared rather than embraced.
    Good luck Richard

    Reply

    Richard Murphy says:

    November 1 2019 at 8:47 am

    I should stress I am choosing to still work with colleagues at universities who do embrace innovation…

  6. @Sam Jones

    Like any good snake oil salesman, Murphy always seems to be able to find another idiot to give him money. This is primarily because;

    He will tell the idiot what they are desperate to hear.
    The idiot is rarely spending their own money.

    About the same time that there were reports that XR were giving people money, Spud suddenly realised that the environment was about to explode and that he was ‘sympathetic’ to XR’s cause.

    The only thing that is certain is that he never works for the same people for long.

  7. Whenever I hear of yet another broken Murphy relationship I’m reminded of the Status Quo song Burning Bridges

  8. the lack of willingness on the part of academia to consider anything that looks like innovation

    Indeed – apart from the cultural Marxism rife within it, or the “intersectionality” bollocks they are all obsessed with now.

    No, no “innovations” at all. It’s like the Nineteenth Century out there.

  9. Full time academic?

    That joins my list of favourite oxymorons, right alongside honest estate agent, and rap music.

  10. I’ve congratulated him in a suitably obsequious PSR-type manner, but threw in an afterthought as to whether we can still refer to him as ‘Professor’

    The preening wanker’s lack of reply thus far is telling.

  11. “but the rigidity of the expectation”
    = we expect you to boost our research rating by getting published in high-ranking journals and bringing in research funding.

  12. As I recall, academia requires publish or leave.
    Publishing in peer reviewed journals, where people who do understand the stuff are grading his work… oh dear, can understand him not wanting to publish and not getting past those assessing the work for inclusion….

  13. Richard Murphy November 1 2019 at 8:47 am says:

    I should stress I am choosing to still work with colleagues at universities who do embrace innovation…

    Highly unlikely Loughborough would work with him.

  14. @ Martin
    Sadly it has declined.
    Fifty years ago, being a genius who could impart knowledge to “second-class brains” like myself was acceptable. I can still remember a lecturer asking his students not to publish the proof that he was showing (of the “thin sandwich theorem”) – he had discovered that the official proof contained a fallacy, hence was invalid, so he had created one that was valid. He hadn’t bothered to publish it.

  15. He probably considers his blog to be a peer reviewed journal.

    What would be the worth of “peer-review” in something as nonsensical as “political economy” anyway? Marxist seals all clapping each other.

  16. Anne Pettifor gets published, as does Mazucatto, despite their lack of intellect. Does that mean that even these sub intellectuals spurn his insights? Where is the facepainting bot?

  17. Andrew C –

    That means tax spillover work is actually worse than part-time tax prep work.

  18. What would be the worth of “peer-review” in something as nonsensical as “political economy” anyway? Marxist seals all clapping each other.

    With the Sokal Squared hoaxes, replication crises and now the (in)famous blind auditions study shown to be wrong, peer review, except for the hard sciences*, is looking no more than “my mates read it and thought it was a good read and confirmed their prejudices”, at best.

    * Maybe all is not well there as well?

  19. peer review, except for the hard sciences*, is looking no more than “my mates read it and thought it was a good read and confirmed their prejudices”, at best

    I think it is much worse – it is ensuring that only ideologically sound ‘research’ is published. The review isn’t “is this correct” or “can these findings be replicated” or even “is this even sensible or rational” but “advance the Narrative”.

  20. Rob, I have read some peer reviewed articles.
    And torn them apart. Basic premise being wrong.

    Peer reviewed when the entire industry of academics that matter agree with you is a problem – and no one dares point out the emperors new clothes.

  21. I think it is much worse – it is ensuring that only ideologically sound ‘research’ is published. The review isn’t “is this correct” or “can these findings be replicated” or even “is this even sensible or rational” but “advance the Narrative”.

    Yep.

    “What do you mean you question the climate science? Its been peer reviewed, denier.”

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.