Should the person under question "go into academe"? Let us preserve the (probably-fictive-here :-) use of the third person and refer to our subject as the PUQ. The question as asked presents a 3-relation between

• the PUQ (a bundle of abilities and preferences)
• a "field" (implicitly presented as a bundle of conceptual content and interests)
• a role (called "academic," implicitly tenure-track but presently post-/graduate) "contributing to" or "participating in" that field

The dilemma as given is that the PUQ is strongly conceptually aligned with the field (pun intended :-) but strongly behaviorally misaligned with the academic role within that field. Yet the question as presented is merely, should the PUQ adopt that role?

ISTM the analysis provided ignores a dimension of the field which is strongly relevant for optimizing PUQ-role (and -life) outcomes: what is the resource-intensity of the field? Notably, does contributing to the field tend to require significant external resources, as with (e.g.) most computational or experimental physical science, or heavily-archival social science? Or not, as with (e.g.) much of humanities and mathematics?[1]

If the field is resource-intensive, the PUQ might seek a non-academic or non-TT-academic role within an organization able to provide the necessary resources. E.g.,

1. Find someone who is
   • researching in the domain
   • needs additional staff
   • can "make it rain" sufficiently to pay her bills
2. Work for them. She may need to volunteer for them first.

The role-containing organization will hopefully also provide sufficient personal income. If not, this role may require (as, increasingly, may the academic role) reducing personal expenses and (on conventional measures) standard-of-living.

If the field is not resource-intensive, the PUQ might seek the role of independent contributor, by

• Working as little as possible at one or more temporary or permanent "gigs" used to "pay for the passion."
• Fundraising to {add to earnings, create more spare time, fund contribution}.
• Contributing (e.g., researching, publishing) "in spare time."

[1]: Note that resource-intensity is obviously a continuous dimension, not a discrete one. The binary analysis is presented here simply for brevity; extension for continuity is left as an exercise for the reader :-)

Should the person under question "go into academe"? Let us preserve the (probably-fictive-here :-) use of the third person and refer to our subject as the PUQ. The question as asked presents a 3-relation between

• the PUQ (a bundle of abilities and preferences)
• a "field" (implicitly presented as a bundle of conceptual content and interests)
• a role (called "academic," implicitly tenure-track but presently post-/graduate) "contributing to" or "participating in" that field

The dilemma as given is that the PUQ is strongly conceptually aligned with the field (pun intended :-) but strongly behaviorally misaligned with the academic role within that field. Yet the question as presented is merely, should the PUQ adopt that role?

ISTM the analysis provided ignores a dimension of the field which is strongly relevant for optimizing PUQ-role (and -life) outcomes: what is the resource-intensity of the field? Notably, does contributing to the field tend to require significant external resources, as with (e.g.) most computational or experimental physical science, or heavily-archival social science? Or not, as with (e.g.) much of humanities and mathematics?[1]

If the field is resource-intensive, the PUQ might seek a non-academic or non-TT-academic role within an organization able to provide the necessary resources. E.g.,

1. Find someone who is
   • researching in the domain
   • needs additional staff
   • can "make it rain" sufficiently to pay her bills
2. Work for them. She may need to volunteer for them first.

The role-containing organization will hopefully also provide sufficient personal income. If not, this role may require (as, increasingly, may the academic role) reducing personal expenses and (on conventional measures) standard-of-living.

If the field is not resource-intensive, the PUQ might seek the role of independent contributor, by

• Working as little as possible at one or more temporary or permanent "gigs" used to "pay for the passion."
• Fundraising to {add to earnings, create more spare time, fund contribution}.
• Contributing (e.g., researching, publishing) "in spare time."

[1]: Note that resource-intensity is obviously a continuous dimension, not a discrete one. The binary analysis is presented here simply for brevity; extension for continuity is left as an exercise for the reader :-)

(preserving the probably-fictive-here use of the third person :-)

If she's in a domain where one needs significant external resources to "do the research" (e.g., computational or experimental science, heavily-archival history):

1. Find someone who is
   • researching in the domain
   • needs additional staff
   • can "make it rain" sufficiently to pay her bills
2. Work for them. She may need to volunteer for them first.

If she's in a domain where one does not need significant external resources (e.g., much of humanities, some mathematics):

1. Get her expenses down.
2. Do the research "in spare time."
3. Work as little as possible at one or more temporary or permanent "gigs" used to "pay for the passion."
4. Fundraise to {add to earnings, create more spare time}.

Should the person under question "go into academe"? Let us preserve the (probably-fictive-here :-) use of the third person and refer to our subject as the PUQ. The question as asked presents a 3-relation between

• the PUQ (a bundle of abilities and preferences)
• a "field" (implicitly presented as a bundle of conceptual content and interests)
• a role (called "academic," implicitly tenure-track but presently post-/graduate) "contributing to" or "participating in" that field

The dilemma as given is that the PUQ is strongly conceptually aligned with the field (pun intended :-) but strongly behaviorally misaligned with the academic role within that field. Yet the question as presented is merely, should the PUQ adopt that role?

ISTM the analysis provided ignores a dimension of the field which is strongly relevant for optimizing PUQ-role (and -life) outcomes: what is the resource-intensity of the field? Notably, does contributing to the field tend to require significant external resources, as with (e.g.) most computational or experimental physical science, or heavily-archival social science? Or not, as with (e.g.) much of humanities and mathematics?[1]

If the field is resource-intensive, the PUQ might seek a non-academic or non-TT-academic role within an organization able to provide the necessary resources. E.g.,

1. Find someone who is
   • researching in the domain
   • needs additional staff
   • can "make it rain" sufficiently to pay her bills
2. Work for them. She may need to volunteer for them first.

The role-containing organization will hopefully also provide sufficient personal income. If not, this role may require (as, increasingly, may the academic role) reducing personal expenses and (on conventional measures) standard-of-living.

If the field is not resource-intensive, the PUQ might seek the role of independent contributor, by

• Working as little as possible at one or more temporary or permanent "gigs" used to "pay for the passion."
• Fundraising to {add to earnings, create more spare time, fund contribution}.
• Contributing (e.g., researching, publishing) "in spare time."

[1]: Note that resource-intensity is obviously a continuous dimension, not a discrete one. The binary analysis is presented here simply for brevity; extension for continuity is left as an exercise for the reader :-)