Too many hedgehogs indeed. I think a lot of academics realize they are hedgehogs but often this realization comes far too late and by then you have to be a hedgehog. No way around it. Great post.
My specialty is making the boring and obvious point - once again, a little from Column A and a little from Column B is best. Moderation in all things.
And....effective military formations need scouts, and heavy infantry - but they also need artillery and logistics. While a slave to heuristics, I'm as cautious of simple dichotomy as of monocausal explanations - illustrative and explanatory power is useful, but isn't a theory of everything. Would it be productive to step back and look at everyone in your Department who doesn't seem to fit in a category, and how they are influencing? In business, they're the movers, I've found. I've never worked in academia - maybe it self-selects for those with particularly clear cut behaviors and preferences?
I think it selects for certain sorts of people over others. Obviously people who are not like that can get by - I have done very well for myself - but I am helped by the fact I teach and research in areas where I’m necessary.
I am a hedgehog at the "deep" level and pretty foxy (not like that, sadly) on anything practical. I am all but certain that natural selection, the brain as a next-token predictor and incentives are a pretty comprehensive explanation of the origin of the entire scope of human existence.
Unfortunately they very often do not provide any clear guidance in specific cases which is where the foxy part comes in.
Definitely a fox. Too many options to consider. Don't ask me to choose. Red? Blue? Give me a uniform so I don't have to make a decision that isn't important. Well, it isn't on one hand, but it is on another.
Curious, conflicted, 'lacks concentration', so much to learn, so little time.
If you look at it a different way, hedgehogs and foxes might be nicer names for more familiar, pejorative personality traits, such as 'ooohhhh, they're on the spectrum' kinds of labelling. Introvert. Extrovert. Putting everyone in a box, tick this, cross that, and 'other' isn't an option.
Don't ask me, though. Ask a hedgehog.
(Or a night owl - it's 1.15am, so ignore what I just said.)
Great piece Katy thank you. Haven’t thought of it this way before. I’m probably more hedgehog but with admiration for the role of foxes and thoughtful, balanced analysis.
Hedgehogs are solitary animals; foxes are social animals. Does the metaphor stretch to explaining GroupThink in academia? Does “publish or perish” drive fox like pursuit of new perspectives both out of curiosity and to get that sweet approval from peer reviewers?
Publish or perish doesn’t drive new perspectives. It’s a plague, really. I don’t think it is positive in any way. It drives conformity and group think. Either that or you have to have a really thick skin (I’ve developed one over the years).
The more unusual your point of view is, the less approval it is likely to get from reviewers (whether you’re a hedgehog or a fox or somewhere in between). Academic foxes don’t tend to move in packs because they are a bit scattered, and picking up things from everywhere; academic hedgehogs tend to be more likely to be in groups, I suspect, because you draw fellow theorists around you.
Yes, there needs to be a mix in all areas. I do, however, think that often there are way too many hedgehogs in sociology research in particular
Yes. I can see that. All big theories….
Too many hedgehogs indeed. I think a lot of academics realize they are hedgehogs but often this realization comes far too late and by then you have to be a hedgehog. No way around it. Great post.
My specialty is making the boring and obvious point - once again, a little from Column A and a little from Column B is best. Moderation in all things.
And....effective military formations need scouts, and heavy infantry - but they also need artillery and logistics. While a slave to heuristics, I'm as cautious of simple dichotomy as of monocausal explanations - illustrative and explanatory power is useful, but isn't a theory of everything. Would it be productive to step back and look at everyone in your Department who doesn't seem to fit in a category, and how they are influencing? In business, they're the movers, I've found. I've never worked in academia - maybe it self-selects for those with particularly clear cut behaviors and preferences?
I think it selects for certain sorts of people over others. Obviously people who are not like that can get by - I have done very well for myself - but I am helped by the fact I teach and research in areas where I’m necessary.
I love the last footnote 😅
I am a hedgehog at the "deep" level and pretty foxy (not like that, sadly) on anything practical. I am all but certain that natural selection, the brain as a next-token predictor and incentives are a pretty comprehensive explanation of the origin of the entire scope of human existence.
Unfortunately they very often do not provide any clear guidance in specific cases which is where the foxy part comes in.
Definitely a fox. Too many options to consider. Don't ask me to choose. Red? Blue? Give me a uniform so I don't have to make a decision that isn't important. Well, it isn't on one hand, but it is on another.
Curious, conflicted, 'lacks concentration', so much to learn, so little time.
If you look at it a different way, hedgehogs and foxes might be nicer names for more familiar, pejorative personality traits, such as 'ooohhhh, they're on the spectrum' kinds of labelling. Introvert. Extrovert. Putting everyone in a box, tick this, cross that, and 'other' isn't an option.
Don't ask me, though. Ask a hedgehog.
(Or a night owl - it's 1.15am, so ignore what I just said.)
Love your work.
I feel seen with the inability to choose. I find such things really hard!
Great piece Katy thank you. Haven’t thought of it this way before. I’m probably more hedgehog but with admiration for the role of foxes and thoughtful, balanced analysis.
It’s fascinating, isn’t it? The most important thing imo (whether one is fox or hedgehog) is the appreciation of a thoughtful, balanced analysis.
Absolutely.
Hedgehogs are solitary animals; foxes are social animals. Does the metaphor stretch to explaining GroupThink in academia? Does “publish or perish” drive fox like pursuit of new perspectives both out of curiosity and to get that sweet approval from peer reviewers?
Full disclosure; am hedge-fox.
Publish or perish doesn’t drive new perspectives. It’s a plague, really. I don’t think it is positive in any way. It drives conformity and group think. Either that or you have to have a really thick skin (I’ve developed one over the years).
The more unusual your point of view is, the less approval it is likely to get from reviewers (whether you’re a hedgehog or a fox or somewhere in between). Academic foxes don’t tend to move in packs because they are a bit scattered, and picking up things from everywhere; academic hedgehogs tend to be more likely to be in groups, I suspect, because you draw fellow theorists around you.