When discussing open science and reproducibility we often talk about incentives and how they stop us from producing quality science and steer us towards quantity. In this post I want to discuss our own need for approval in this context and what it does to us.

Sometimes I use this newsletter as a sort of a diary. I write about things that currently affect my life. This is one of those posts.

In a previous post I wrote about my path away from academia. The decision to leave academia was based on my own wishes, my strengths and hopes. Often enough, though, I don't act based on what I want, but on what I think people want me to do. I seek for approval.

This week, for example, I have been struggling. I want to start a network of trainers (the Digital Research Academy) and there are so many things in my head that I think people will expect from it. I was so stressed about it that I actually thought about quitting. I never doubted the idea. I doubted that people would approve of it. Now, after realizing that my approval-seeking is the issue, I can look back and see that most people did actually give me very positive feedback and that a lot of my doubts are not based on reality.

The art of being yourself | Caroline McHugh

This video spoke to me. Caroline mentions approval addiction and it's debilitating effects.

View

Approval seeking researchers

My guess is that a lot of researchers are the way I am. We are high achievers because we know how to work within the systems of school and university. We know what people expect from us and we want to deliver: good grades, good work, good everything. That is part of what got us this far.

But if we accept the definition of "good work" that others give us, we become victims of incentives. Me leaving academia was also a way of saying "I cannot seek this kind of approval anymore. These incentives do not work for me.". As an open scientist I knew that counting the number of papers and citations was pushing me towards a way of working that I don't agree with.

Photo: https://www.pexels.com/photo/low-section-of-man-against-sky-247851

I see other open scientists who are fine with not fulfilling the expectations. They can stay in the system and stay sane. They just ignore the incentives or make up "tricks" to game the system (e.g. by publishing software and data papers). Sometimes they just do such good work – in their own way – that they become indispensable for their research institution.

I think people like that are good role models in research. We can learn from them to do what we think is right. And in order to truly do good work and progress research, we mustn't focus on quantity. We must focus on quality.

I want to learn to be more like that. I want to learn to stand by my own values and measures of success and care less about external approval.

How are you dealing with external validation and incentives? Would it help you to care less about other's approval? How would it change your work?

Disclaimer: I am aware that this post comes from a position of privilege. I don't want to discredit your experience and reality. I just want to share mine. I hope that it helps.