Between two academics, one of whom has travelled the world, been to 3 continents, 6 countries, and another who has been to 2 continents, 2 countries, whom would you choose?

The first one of course!

And yet there’s the possibility that over a span of 30+ years of their life, the second one might end up contributing more lasting impact to science over the broader span of humanity. Why? Because the second one had more time to think, to reflect, and perhaps, more importantly, they did not have their life uprooted several times to relocate to newer places. Of course, given an average human, they can perform better when their stress levels are optimal. And one of the ways to reduce your stress levels is being amongst your loved ones. Except, developing bonds takes time.

But perhaps the second academic is just “lazy and not devoted to science or their academic discipline”.

To me, it is not clear whether I’m writing this out of a personal spite with the situation, or for some other purpose. But it’s clear I’m far from the only may-be to-be academic experiencing this. The question has been asked on academia.stackexchange in 2020, on reddit in 2014, and I’m certain it has been asked since much before.

In many ways, internet, at least for those of us who are internet-savvy, relocation hardly seems to provide much benefits. Most of the good exchanges I have had with people have been over emails. That’s also largely because I happen to be more interested in theory, computation and philosophy, than experiments, and thus, can engage in armchair discussion in principle. And I’d argue that is what psychology needs. And I know some people would argue that is what almost all of the economic and social sciences need. More theory and conceptual analysis.

To provide more context for this to the outsiders: If you happen to be lucky (I wasn’t), you would complete your childhood and school education up to class/grade 12 in one city. Then, you’d move to another city and environment to complete your undergraduate studies. After that, you may decide to pursue master’s at another institute, perhaps because the people and work their seems relevant to what you want to do. After master’s, you may move once again for your doctoral studies, either because your interests shift, or because you discover another place offers even more relevant people and work. But these days, at least for the ones around me, it is also common to relocate once again in the middle of the doctoral studies due to funding issues. In fact, from here onwards, funding and grants seem very favored towards those who are willing to relocate, to “collaborate and do ground-breaking research”. You will probably need to relocate for postdoctoral research, perhaps twice. Expect a few times during professorship too. And then, if you are lucky, you might get a tenureship and can then finally spend your life in one place, doing the research you have always wanted to do, with perhaps a spouse and a happy family around.

Travelling seems wonderful! Except when it is forced. There’s a difference between a traveller and a homeless. The glorification of relocation in academia is more akin to making a thinker homeless than letting them be a traveller.

There are some who still manage to put up with all the BS. Those who manage to hold their heads to the silver lining of the gloomy clouds.

But perhaps most of us would just give up and do something that does not need to do so much virtue signalling and advertising.

Over the past several years, I have had my feet both in academia and in open source. Interestingly, open source has much of the virtues of academia without its flaws. People collaborate. Progress can often times be slow. Goals can be longer term. (And perhaps even longer than academia.) There is no expectation of immediate benefit. This deserves its own post however. Or perhaps I’m still too naive.

It’s also very interesting to see the role of relocation over the past centuries. Before the industrial age, before humans knew fossil fuels, movement was ridiculously slow. Travelling was risky and rare. Once machines and fossil fuels crept in, moving large distances became much easier. Of the 4ish centuries we have known machines and fossil fuels, internet was absent for 90% of that time, but travelling kept becoming easier and common. It is only during the past 40 years or some, that internet has been picking up and reducing the need for travel. Some would still argue that online collaboration does not have the same feel as in-person collaborations. And perhaps, relocation is justified in some cases. But it’s not clear to me when it is a suitable justification and when it is a symptom of glorification.