And even if you are doing something before it’s fashionable, that need not necessarily mean you have genuine insight – you might just be the proverbial stuck clock that ends up showing the right time (ie being in sync with the fashion) by chance. And even if your insight is the real deal, and you call it correctly well ahead of the crowd… it still doesn’t mean you’ll be right next time (look at Linus Pauling!) so you can’t expect faith in your insight.

Really, if you’re ahead of the times then you can only expect to be recognized once the times have caught up, and even then all you’re entitled to is a ‘good call, old boy’ and a slap on the back (you know – a Nobel prize or something).

It is true, that when the ideas are new, they tend to go unnoticed and their presenters tend to be marginalized for their “weird” interests. But once the show gets going, these people do get credit. Not necessarily enough credit, given the true value of their work, but credit nevertheless.

A typical case goes like this: A young scientist, call him “A”, publishes a groundbreaking idea that goes largely unnoticed. A more established scientist, “B”, takes on the idea and publishes something related an the idea takes off. B usually gets all the invitations to speak in conferences, gets cited more often etc. But once the idea goes mainstream and further developments are being pursued (transition from stage 3 to 4), A:s original idea gets examined more closely and at least gets labelled as “the original” work in the canon.

It is also sometimes, even most often, the case that A’s original idea was not presented very clearly or according to “standard notation” or something other, and that is why it doesn’t get the attention it “deserves”. There is a high probability of this because often original ideas are being put forward by young scientists, who have not been established in a particular field and who do not necessarily adhere to the notational standards in any particuar forum. This does not mean that their ideas are not good, only that it takes more effort from established researchers to find out what exactly it is they are saying.

The fashion zone is a comfortable one, where people feel secure in the choices they’ve made. Those who choose outside the zone can be seen as questioning the judgement of the fashion-followers, particularly of those who rely on the support of numbers to justify their choices.

New ideas can, quite simply, make others feel awkward and insecure – often without realising why.

(a) the topic in unfashionable at the time
(b) the topic becomes fashionable
(c) the researcher’s work on that topic is insightful/important
(d) the researcher does not receive reward/credit for their work

Part (c) is crucial. Simply working in a field, without contributing anything, is not insightful just because it later becomes trendy. You have to contribute something.

My suspicion is that such examples would be hard to find, simply because previous important research will necessarily be cited by the explosion of work following the transition to trendiness. But, I am new to academia, so perhaps this is naive.

You really get it.

I think I’d put it this way: By and large, academics (and people in general) really do take themselves to “value insight” (it’s not just a pose); but what counts to them as “insight” is heavily biased by the social pressures you laid out.