STeve,
I can appreciate what you are saying.
I like the analogy that we are artists and we need studio time to
make significant "out of the box" contributions.
I am of the opinion that most of us don't set aside enough studio
time for the
creative work that we are demanding of ourselves -- and when
man's knowledge is doubling every 18 months or so -- the studio
time is even more critical than someone crafting a piano concerto
for example.  This analogy cuts to the chase more so than the financial
analogy I believe.
Glenn.



Steve Mann wrote:

> Maybe I've chosen the wrong terminology, e.g. that's a very American
> terminology for what we Canadians might be uncomfortable quantizing
> so harshly, so let me just describe, instead, the phenomena:
>
> As thinkers and researchers, we're in demand, for more than we can supply.
>
> By that, I mean that there's more requests placed upon us than our
> limited time and energy can fulfill.  For example, we might be asked
> to do a guest lecture in somebody's class, or we might be asked to
> speak somewhere, or we might be asked for advice on something.
>
> Obviously if it's a student in a course we teach, our job is to be
> available.  But if it's some professor at another university who's
> found out about our work, at what point does it become "worthwhile"
> (for whatever "metric" of "worthwhile" you can think of) to go and
> speak in their class.
>
> Obviously if it's somebody who's cited our work extensively, and built
> upon the work, then it may be worthwhile for a collaborative point
> of view.  But what if, for example, somebody wants you to speak
> to their group, and just read about us in the newspaper but didn't
> actually build upon our scientific achievements?
>
> Obviously they want us, so
> what should we be asking for in return.
>
> One approach is straight cash deal, e.g. speaking fee.
> This tends to scare off a lot of the requests, except for the
> corporate ones, or the university talks at a higher (presidential
> or provostial) level.
>
> Simply charging a reasonable speaking fee reduces the number of
> requests down to a reasonable level.  In this way, adjusting the
> "price" upwards (from zero to some relatively high value) moves the
> supply and demand into equilibrium.  It also makes it alot easier
> to decide which talks to accept versus reject, and to compare the value of
> these opportunities against the day-to-day demands upon our time.
>
> But what about prestigous academic talks like Keynote Addresses
> at conferences and symposia, where they can only afford to pay
> expenses plus a very small "honorarium"?
>
> Should these be curtailed, or should they be chosen in lieu of
> true "paid gigs"?
>
> To make the decision, it would help if we could convert them
> both into the same "units" (say, for example, "United States dollars"),
> so that, although a conference Keynote doesn't pay that much, maybe
> you can put a dollar figure on what it's worth.
>
> For example, giving lots of conference keynotes might increase one's
> chances of passing a tenure review (which might mean one gets to
> keep one's job, which can be converted to, among other things,
> a "dollars" equivalent).
>
> I know it's hard to put a price on things like that --- maybe it's
> a bit like asking someone how much they'd be paid to cut off their
> right arm --- something insurance companies are forced to do ---
> and because the "units" of measure are so incompatible, I know
> it's a difficult problem.
>
> But I was just looking for some ideas, from somone who's been
> through alot of academic hurdles, on how to measure the relative
> value of accepting speaking invitations, popular press interviews,
> versus publishing more papers, versus having more free time to
> think of new ideas.
>
> > Steve,
> > To help me appreciate this idea more -- I would like to know the
> > meaning you are attributing to the phrase "reputation capital".
> > Glenn.
> >
> >
> >
> > Steve Mann wrote:
> >
> > > Another thing I'd like to discuss Thurs,
> > > is how we can best budget our time.
> > >
> > > One method is a simple ROTI (return on time investment) model,
> > > e.g. Zahir once told me that he estimated the reputation capital
> > > of a conference article (in dollars) might be 10k to 20k.
> > >
> > > Of course it depends on the conference, and the impact of the paper,
> > > but as a rough idea, it would be nice to know the reputation capital
> > > value of a Distingushed Lecture Series Colloquium.
> > >
> > > I would estimate this to be far less than a conference article,
> > > but what about a Keynote Address.  What's the approx. ROTI value?
> > >
> > > Of course this whole way of thinking of the world might be flawed,
> > > but I'd like to get a sense of for example, how to say "no" to
> > > speaking invitations without feeling I've made a bad decision,
> > > e.g. as compared to doing something that matters (maybe even
> > > beyond publications).