1/ Earlier this week the University of Toronto economics professor Joshua Gans blew up some of #AcademicTwitter with a Conversation article about writing a new book - in a single month - on the economics of the COVID-19 pandemic. Gans’ critics found the Conversation article was self-congratulatory, gendered, and not supportive of work-life balance.
2/ By the time the Conversation article was released Gans and his publisher The MIT Press each had promotion pages up for the book: Economics in the Age of COVID-19 which was part of the MIT Press series First Reads. There was even an Open Access version that invited public feedback. Gans and The MIT Press announced that an Amazon Kindle version was available immediately, and that a paperback version would be issued in November 2020 with updated material.
3/ Gans’ book illustrates how Clayton M. Christensen’s disruptive innovation - a topic of a previous Gans book (and a Smart Internet Technology CRC draft paper by me) - has migrated from Silicon Valley to #AcademicTwitter. Economics in the Age of COVID-19 shows both how this disruptive innovation ecosystem now works - and what implications it has for academic publishing in the near future.
4/ The first implication as noted in a classic economics paper by Edward Lazear and Sherwin Rosen is that academic labour contracts involve a series of competitive tournaments. This has become a core feature rather than a bug for the neoliberal political economy. Gans, Christensen, Lazear, Rosen and others each created a niche for themselves that was underpinned by a focused research program and targeted publications. Over time this meant cumulative success: they became academic superstars.
5/ The second implication is that academic research now involves a kind of time and volatility-based arbitrage. Coauthor Ben Eltham and I also discovered this in 2009 with our conference paper Twitter Free Iran (about Iran’s 2009 election crisis) which has since become our single most cited paper. Gans was able to use COVID-19’s uncertainty to write a short book - a risk-taking stance that shocked #AcademicTwitter as a form of (gendered) privilege and status attainment.
6/ The third implication is that a parallel, event-based publishing system has emerged in the past few years for academics to enact this time and volatility-based arbitrage. Some academic publishers like Cambridge and Routledge have shifted to shorter books based on current debates and topics. Electronic book publishing formats like Kindle enable more scalable content distribution. The result is a little like the poison pen letters that activist hedge fund managers would write to the boards of their target companies.
7/ The fourth implication is that - as per Lazear and Rosen above - the track records of academic researchers are going to be more stratified over time. This is exactly what Lazear and Rosen found in their work on academic labour contracts. Academic research will be even more performance based. It will be more like the quarterly, box office, chart or post-game reviews of investment managers, film directors, musicians, and sports athletes. Time and volatility-based arbitrage provides the filter for opportunity evaluation: what constitutes a ‘hit’ for the effort and resources involved.
8/ Gans’ own bio illustrates how this stratified track record is built cumulatively over time. I first became aware of his game theory work when Gans was based at the University of Melbourne’s Melbourne Business School. His appointment to a named chair with the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto signalled a mastery of formal methods to analyse economic problems. Gans built a strong, cumulative narrative, from his PhD at Stanford University to his University of Toronto research agenda. It makes intuitive sense to read as a research administrator.
9/ Game-theoretic insights have their controversies, too. The English documentary film-maker Adam Curtis illustrates this in the first episode of his series The Trap which explains how game theory can reduce human interaction to zero-sum competition. However, perhaps a notable difference is that Gans’ Conversation piece shows how the different pieces of the puzzle - risk arbitrage event (COVID-19), time to write, interested publisher (The MIT Press), public consultation (Open Access edition), and distribution system (Amazon Kindle) - all work and fit together. Gans tells you how he got a new academic book quickly to market: a positive-sum outcome if you use his insights.
10/ A fifth implication is that time compression is an important skill in building a cumulative academic track record. This is at the core of Facebook’s mantra “move fast and break things” in Silicon Valley. It’s what Intel’s Andy Grove noted when he popularised Clayton M. Christensen’s disruptive innovation theory in the Dotcom era. Time compression is what enables a Professoriate academic to get more done in an equivalent time to an Early Career Academic. It’s the ‘killer app’ for the post-COVID 19 world: publish not perish.
Thank you for this, this was precisely the type of piece I was hoping would arise from the Conversation.
You raise important issues. The time compression part interests me as that was the source of some criticism but that did not consider the margins I would have expected -- e.g., what happened to my 300+ students during that time or my co-authors?
The big issue -- that I don't have an answer to and in any case would be biased -- is whether this type of 'fast to market' book is a good idea. For starters, it can hardly be called scholarly in that no one, myself included, could have carefully digested what was happening to draw robust conclusions. In addition, I was quite concerned about crowding out the real research being done now and in the future. Initially, there was some talk about calling the book Pandemic Economics but I objected as I thought someone else should have the opportunity to write the book with that title -- a definitive treatment. Finally, was I the 'right' person to write a book on this subject? I have a broad background but no special expertise in epidemiology. I don't know whether that is a problem or not but it is reasonable to start with the hypothesis that it is.
You seem to claim that the scientific credit market will reward these types of activities. Actually, I have found that it does not. At least in economics and management, books are valued very little and I have seen them count for hardly anything in annual reviews of my research performance. That seems reasonable for a book on COVID which was written for public digestion rather than scholarly insight but it is still an issue.
Personally, I don't believe that this is a portend of disruptive change in academic publishing. That said, it is amazing how this crisis as diverted the research agendas of so many.