next »

[ljack]

I was reading the "Dissertation level PhD students - what to do?" thread started by ucprof and this comment by ms. particularity caught my eye:

The Kuhnian sociological explanation for this might be that they have not had a sufficient apprenticeship in the requisite skills for independent work: they are unable to envision researchable questions; to decide upon potentially productive approaches; to self-monitor in an ongoing way to attack work and get it done.

I have a question about this.  I have an MS in a physical science.  I feel like much of ms. particularity's comment applies to me because as I worked through my thesis, I felt that I was unable to figure out what else I could research.  This eventually led me away from work in my degree area.

However, I've found a new interest in a social science I had no exposure to in college.  I have no idea if this interest will develop to the point that I'd want to work on another thesis, but I wonder if I will face the same problem - that though I love learning, I can't figure out what I want to research or how to go about framing an appropriate research question. 

Can these abilities be taught (or specifically, can I learn how to be a better researcher)?  Or do you think I'd find myself in the same situation again, if it came to that?  I appreciate your insights. 

[capper]

I think this is one of the most common issues in scientific research, so yes, with proper training and education you can become someone who can identify appropriate research questions and establish a means by which they can be tested.  My experience is that few graduate students really get training in this...many a masters or doctoral project is based on a pre-existing research question determined by the advisor.  As a consequence, earning a graduate degree doesn't necessarily ensure that a person is prepared to frame their own research questions or develop projects to test them.  In short, many are not prepared to dive into the world of research.  Hence, the postdoc. 

Ideally we'd all come out of grad school prepared to crank out ingenious and creative grant proposals.  In reality many of us need additional training and experience before we can really consider ourselves researchers. 

[msparticularity]

The question of whether these skills can be taught, and how best to go about that, is one of my areas of research, so I'm always happy to talk about this. :)

The pep talk I always give my students is that research in any given area is, essentially, a large conversation. Figuring out what topics are "researchable" has a lot to do with finding out about what has happened recently in that conversation, as well as becoming socialized to the norms of the field in question. Kuhn's work presents us with a sort of "medieval workshop" model of that process (this is Nickles's characterization, not my own), where new researchers come in as apprentices, and work their way up to journeyman, and finally master status. From the immersion in the research environment, they gain both practical knowledge about prior research results, as well as heuristic know-how.

Finding interesting and do-able research involves gaining exposure to the literature in a field, finding an interesting problem, doing lots more reading, then beginning to propose and test hypothesis--both theoretically and empirically. The graduate school model is intended to provide mentoring for this process at each step, so the student has both the opportunity to work independently, and also enough guidance to keep them from wandering off into unproductive or unacceptable (from the view of the discipline) areas. Finding a good mentor who is both intellectually compatible and encouraging, but who will also prod one along, is really, really important.

And I believe there's really no way to know ahead of time how much or how little one will enjoy the research process. It's filled with uncertainty and ambiguity, which some people find very difficult to tolerate, and demands a lot of perseverance even when things just aren't going well--another difficult skill. Were there parts of the process of doing research that you really loved and/or really hated? (And it's always pretty hideous the first time!)

[polly_mer]

And I believe there's really no way to know ahead of time how much or how little one will enjoy the research process. It's filled with uncertainty and ambiguity, which some people find very difficult to tolerate, and demands a lot of perseverance even when things just aren't going well--another difficult skill. Were there parts of the process of doing research that you really loved and/or really hated? (And it's always pretty hideous the first time!)

Oh, I both love and hate all of my research projects and I've done research in many areas.

Yes, Ljack, some parts of research can be taught like how to conduct an adequate literature review, how to write a compelling doable proposal, and how to present your results in a way that makes sense to others.  All of the parts of research that truly are skills can be taught if you are willing to learn, try new things, and can find someone whose methods of giving criticism and feedback match well enough with your methods of learning.

What cannot be taught is the passion for subject and the persistence in the face of numerous set-backs.  All research projects have a lot of dead ends, false starts, and just plain bad parts.  MsParticularity is right that if you view research as a conversation and have the interest in pursuing that conversation in a given area, then you can learn the other skills.  For those of us who hew to the conversation model of research, running into a lot of dead ends in a row means an opportunity to start calling up people to talk about the problems and bouncing around ideas.  However, to initiate those conversations, one must have a firm grounding in the area so that one shares a common language and will give something back to the interlocutors and the larger discourse community.

If, however, you merely wish to do steps in sequence to get new data like a good technician instead of a thinking scientist, then you will find research to be boring and frustrating. 

[ljack]

First, thank you all for the interesting and helpful comments!  I was a little nervous to post at first.

My experience is that few graduate students really get training in this...many a masters or doctoral project is based on a pre-existing research question determined by the advisor. 
...

Ideally we'd all come out of grad school prepared to crank out ingenious and creative grant proposals.  In reality many of us need additional training and experience before we can really consider ourselves researchers. 

Bingo.  My MS project, which I really did enjoy, was an idea that had been floating around in my advisor's head for some time.  I'm encouraged to know that although this maybe isn't ideal, it's not uncommon to feel a little unprepared even after an MS.

... Finding a good mentor who is both intellectually compatible and encouraging, but who will also prod one along, is really, really important.

And I believe there's really no way to know ahead of time how much or how little one will enjoy the research process. It's filled with uncertainty and ambiguity, which some people find very difficult to tolerate, and demands a lot of perseverance even when things just aren't going well--another difficult skill. Were there parts of the process of doing research that you really loved and/or really hated? (And it's always pretty hideous the first time!)

I'm loath to lay too much blame on my advisor but looking back now, I can see ways that I could have been a much better grad student and he could have probably been a better mentor.  I was his first grad student so we both had a lot to learn.

I'm glad to hear that a hideous first experience is not abnormal.  As for what parts I loved and hated, I loved the literature searching.  It was so interesting to go into depth and to really understand what had been looked at in my little subfield.  I love library research and I think that's one area I did very well in and did persevere when it felt like just going down blind alleys.

I don't think I specifically hated any part of the research.  What I hated was just not knowing how to really think about problems in my field.  I felt like I would dig in to something and then just hit a wall and I could scratch at the wall but not get through it.  One of the members of my committee was just an amazing scientist - he just understands the Earth's processes so deeply and I am just in awe.  I want to get to that level.

  All of the parts of research that truly are skills can be taught if you are willing to learn, try new things, and can find someone whose methods of giving criticism and feedback match well enough with your methods of learning.

I think this is a good mission statement for me, moving forward.  I'm not sure I was as willing to learn back then.  In the time since my MS, I think I've gotten better at knowing that I need to ask questions sometimes, find the answers on my own other times, and overall, be more receptive to feedback and criticism.  At times, it's been rather painful to realize how little I knew back then and how much more I could have learned.

I truly appreciate all of your comments and insights.  It's given me a lot to think about and consider.