A great debate is about to erupt nearby about whether monetary rewards can have a positive or a negative impact on academic research and scholarship. There are purists who believe that giving monetary rewards for publishing in top ranking academic journals can spur a rat race. They believe that research and scholarship should be carried out due to intrinsic motives. There are others who argue that extrinsic stimuli such as money could lead to better quality of research. There is Alfie Kohn who argues against monetary rewards. You can read up his stuff here.
The Writings Of Alfie Kohn
Following is a rebuttal of Alfie Kohn’s aforementioned work; Punished by misunderstanding. In this the author argues how Alfie Kohn’s arguments are shallow. Especially he notes that much of the subjects of Kohn’s work were rats and pigeons. Kohn also considered the children involved in his work to be passive agents. He also argues that the subjects were exposed to rewards for a very short time. For a lasting impact of rewards or to see their impact as a whole, he argues, the subjects should have been exposed to them for weeks or even months.
Punished by Misunderstanding: A Critical Evaluation of Kohn’s Punished by Rewards and Its Implications for Behavioral Interventions with Children – Perspectives on Behavior Science
Despite the growth of behavior analysis over the past 30 years, misunderstandings of behavioral theory and practice may threaten its continued growth and application. Alfie Kohn’s Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes (1993) offers a view of behaviorism that, if accepted uncritically, could hinder efforts to disseminate behavioral interventions, particularly those involving children.
Then there are other well-crafted arguments in favor of monetary rewards for publishing as well. Please peruse the following.
We all need to get paid. But the evidence suggests it undermines our intrinsic motivations.
Here is what Scientific American has to say about such matters.
New studies show that money and social values are processed in the same brain region, providing insight into how we make choices
Today we kick off our series devoted to creativity – examining what it is, what we know about it, and why it’s so important. Imagine you were asked to write a law that encouraged creativity. What would…
This is a great argument.
A discussion once again erupted this month, fuelled by rapid re-sharing of the headline, “Why cash and copyright are bad for creativity” and a post on The Conversation by Dan Hunter.
A few weeks ago psychologist Dan Ariely, inspired by the holiday frenzy, pondered the hows and whys of gift-giving. Reading his piece-an endorsement of a behavioral economics view that challenges the rational economic contention that gift-giving is a largely irrational dilemma-at once brought to mind the story that has to me (and, I suspect, to many others) always epitomized the spirit of gifts and generosity: O.
For those who think if monetary rewards associated with scholarship would deteriorate the quality of work due to shifting focus of the mind instead of work, following is a nice argument.
New research shows that rather than being totally devoted to one goal at a time, the human brain can distribute two goals to different hemispheres to keep them both in mind–if it perceives a worthy reward for doing so
It can also be argued that rewarding certain people in an organization could spur emotions of professional jealousy. People of our country are especially really good at developing such feelings. For them, the following article is a good motivator to develop a generous personality.
People around the world are happier the more they donate to charity
If you found an error, highlight it and press Shift + Enter or click here to inform us.