One of the toxic aspects about #academia is the elitist mentality that if you're not 'passionate' about research, then you're not 'good enough' to be in research spaces.

Why is this mentality toxic? Thread

1/

#AcademicTwitter #phdchat #phdlife

1. Stigma against non-academic careers post-PhD.

Leaving #academia post-PhD can be viewed as a sign of "they weren't good enough for research."

As a result, non-academic careers are valued less, which is atrocious and ultimately HARMS RESEARCH. 2/

#AcademicTwitter

1. (cont)

Research can NOT progress without:
- Science communicators maintaining public relations
- Science educators empowering the next generation of researchers
- Science policy makers turning research findings into impactful action
- and more! 3/

#AcademicTwitter #scicomm

1. (cont)

In addition, non-academic careers greatly benefit from people who have collected research training.

Instead of stigmatizing non-academic careers during graduate education, #academia must SUPPORT DIVERSE professional development for science to thrive.

2. 'Passion' is an ambiguous term often used to mask conscious/unconscious bias.

#Academia is full of racism, sexism, ableism, and more. Non-male non-white academics are often told 'you're not passionate' simply because they don't fit the stereotypical image of a scientist. 4/

3. Worthiness is never up for debate. EVERYONE belongs in research spaces.

Creating (ambiguous) prerequisites for being in research is the definition of inaccessibility and perpetuates inequity.

Research thrives when we work to ENSURE that everyone feels worthy. 5/

I write this thread as a PhD candidate who has experienced these toxic interactions first hand.

If you're a researcher struggling with these systemic issues, hold the system accountable. The problem is NOT YOU. You DO belong in research. 6/6

#AcademicTwitter #phdchat #phdlife