next »

[academetic]

I used to love my research. I thought about it constantly. I read about it all the time. I could quote 500 or so papers within my specialization. I thoroughly enjoyed authoring well written papers of thoroughly researched material. I took pride in always being able to explain any statement in my papers. These days I have a really hard time reading through even one paper much less starting a project. I don't think about my work outside of work - ever. The passion-meter just reads zero. I am just sitting here waiting to leave at the end of the day. Tomorrow will be the same.

I think my love for the field was destroyed when I was a postdoc under the pushy Professor Blowhard. He was constantly pushing for more publications rather than better publications. Why write your results in one paper, when you can do three with the same material and a bit of repetition? Why write carefully, when people are just interested in your numbers or pictures anyway? Found a fundamental problem with your research? Just don't mention it or tone it down. We'll fix it in a later paper - maybe. The referee doesn't like it? We'll just create a situation so we can get another one. I guess I became aware of the meta-content of published papers. How to read between the lines. That academic research is as much about political maneuvering, citing the right people, not challenging the famous guys, and getting enough papers out there to get tenure or prize fellowships, as it is about "truth". 

I realize that the world is not black and white, but I naively used to believe that research was pure and fair and I can't get that feeling back. These days I'm sorely tempted to find a job in industry - at least the bottom line is not subject to graft; unless if you were working for Enron or Worldcom, I guess.

Sorry about the rant. But has anyone dealt with similar issues? How did you get your spirit back? This is not a sudden problem - I've been wrestling this issue for 2 years now.

[hollow_man]

What other careers have you worked in?

[menotti]

These days I'm sorely tempted to find a job in industry - at least the bottom line is not subject to graft

???
Isn't the bottom line the definition of graft?

Do you have students?  Sometimes mentoring a student and showing them the vision of what you think research should be can inspire you, as well.

[academetic]

What other careers have you worked in?

This is the only one so far.

[academetic]

Do you have students?  Sometimes mentoring a student and showing them the vision of what you think research should be can inspire you, as well.

No students. Still a postdoc. I do work with students from time to time but my input is always secondary or tertiary to their supervisor and his collaborators, naturally. Also I think that I would in some sense be sacrificing the student if I did not teach the way the world is rather than how I think it should be: It makes economical sense that if a 70% correct paper is valued as much as 99% correct paper, then individuals should submit at the 70% level and then spend the other 30% promoting the paper at conferences unless they want to end up in limbo.

I guess my main problem is that I have become very cynical about the entire process.

[menotti]

It sounds to me like you are very perfectionistic.  Of course what's in your papers should be correct and you shouldn't cover up problems, but if people only look at the tables and figures, then yes, hours crafting deathless prose really aren't necessary - and they take you away from time that could be spent doing more research.  I wonder if it's a bit like moving from doing something as a hobby to doing it as a job - you dream about the day you can be a professional musician, and when it happens, you realize you have to deal with marketing and accounting and networking, and that people who are good at those things do well, and you just wanted to practice your Art.  But now it's a job, with boring and distasteful aspects.

I don't know that this helps with your problem, though. 

[panache]

Hi!  I am a new poster. I am a ABD graduate student and have worked full time for the past few years with a behavioral researcher with tenure.   He has published about over 100 papers in the last 25 years and is a nationally well known authority in his field.  The first project I worked on was NIH funded and our results were nil--no difference between the control group and the treatment group!  His attitude was that we learned what wouldn't work and did learn valuable lessons for future research. We did not try to manipulate our data to make it look good. Our manuscript was published in a respected journal. Just wanted you to know that all researchers are not like you describe. I admire my supervisor for his ethics. This is just one example. You need to find some colleagues like my supervisor who are more concerned about acquiring knowledge and are excited about doing it.  Maybe even long distance ones.  Maybe this will help and you won't feel so alone.  I love my job and look forward to graduating. Hope you find what you lost!

[academetic]

It sounds to me like you are very perfectionistic.  Of course what's in your papers should be correct and you shouldn't cover up problems, but if people only look at the tables and figures, then yes, hours crafting deathless prose really aren't necessary - and they take you away from time that could be spent doing more research.  I wonder if it's a bit like moving from doing something as a hobby to doing it as a job - you dream about the day you can be a professional musician, and when it happens, you realize you have to deal with marketing and accounting and networking, and that people who are good at those things do well, and you just wanted to practice your Art.  But now it's a job, with boring and distasteful aspects.

I don't know that this helps with your problem, though. 

No, but it does put it in perspective. Also, it makes me sound like a whiny artist :-). I remember the days where a CD or an LP would come out every few years and almost all of the songs were good. These days, new CDs appear annually but often have only 1-2 hits with the rest being filler. I find my field quite similar.

The question is how to motivate oneself to keep working under these circumstances? Why are we doing this research of ours? What is its purpose?

If it's "just a job", I can certainly find more well compensated jobs outside of academia.

[secretweapon]

If I could extend your analogy... if you love music, then turn off the annoying radio stations and then start hitting the clubs and concerts - find the obscure or undiscovered bands that are doing great things.  They'll be hard to find, but you'll feel so satisfied when you do and you will remember how good music makes you happy.

If you're a researcher... hit the conference circuit and talk to people.  Get to meet some more motivated researchers - your level and more senior - and I think it could help you to rediscover what got you started in the first place.

Don't give up yet. 

[hollow_man]

The only thing in your initial post that is remotely troubling to me is your adivsor's fear of challenging big names. That's lame and wussy. (Big names often don't even mind being challenged -- all press is good press, and all that.) 

Apart from that-- good god, lighten up. You're troubled ethically now and you think the answer is to go into industry?! HA!

Every field has politics. My initial question above was to confirm what I already guessed -- that you haven't seen that firsthand.

Finally, as someone else said, you're not writing the Great American Novel, you're getting data out there to advance a conversation incrementally -- articles that only a tiny number of people will ever read. "Perfect" is the enemy of "done."

[smbriver]

Let me know when you find your solution.  I'm starting to lose my zest for research for the same reasons you describe.  This may change if I get a ttjob and get to run my own research instead of trying to please Dr. Postdoc Advisor, but who knows.

[mdwlark]

Academetic, are you still working under Professor Blowhard?   If you are, this too shall pass, and you can get back to setting your own standards when you move on.  You will need a little recovery time, but don't take too much.  If you are not still working for him, you need to stop carrying him around with you.  He is like an abusive parent from your past or an abusive ex-intimate partner.  Dismiss him.  You are letting him still order you around.

There is another way to look at it.  What can you learn from this experience?  If you got things published using your own standards before Prof. Blowhard, get back to what you were doing right.  If you never quite got anything ready for publication before Professor Blowhard came along, then his advice can be a reminder to help you break the impasse.  You can find your own balance.   

[stapler]

I guess I became aware of the meta-content of published papers. How to read between the lines. That academic research is as much about political maneuvering, citing the right people, not challenging the famous guys, and getting enough papers out there to get tenure or prize fellowships, as it is about "truth".  I realize that the world is not black and white, but I naively used to believe that research was pure and fair and I can't get that feeling back.

This isn't the whole story, but you're not completely off base here, either.  The main thing that keeps me in the game is my deep appreciation for my field, as well as the belief that one can potentially succeed on one's own terms if one is sufficiently persistent (and lucky).  So far so good.

Stick to your own principles and standards, and see if this helps to stoke the research fires.  I don't know what your field is, but it wouldn't surprise me if life in industry would be even more of an issue for you (e.g., industry is where researchers are often told what to do, and where secrecy regarding research results is the norm).

[kilpikonna]

academetic, I have no answers for you, but a lot of sympathy.  I'm in a field with some bright-lines in epistemological ethics that nobody seems to follow, which makes it very hard to have confidence in my own or anybody else's work.  On bad days I think, you know, if I'm going to have the heebie-jeebies about my work all day, I might as well take a job where I can be paid well / have kids before 40 / choose where I get to live....

[pyshnov]

academetic, you started with wrong premise when you said: "I realize that the world is not black and white". It is black and white. But, there is no white. Your world became black for a reason. But, of course, you can always start a new white line, if you are not scared of being alone.