Choosing a research problem to work on is a tough decision to make, and the relevant advice is rather scarce.
So far I have found only a handful of reasonably looking tips:
- work on important problems (R. Hamming, You and Your Research)
- go for the messes, i.e., for the areas far from being crystal clear
(S. Weinberg, Scientist: Four golden lessons) - look for an unoccupied niche that has potential (this and some other good tips can be found in the paper Picking a research problem — the critical decision which is primarily addressed to the researchers in biology and medicine but can be of interest to the other scientists too)
- try to move beyond the subject of your Ph.D. thesis (if you have already defended one, indeed) or your postdoc (or your postdoctoral mentor, for that matter); more broadly, beyond your current area of research (see e.g. this post of Terence Tao). This has an extra benefit of reducing the risk of being scooped as discussed here.
- regularly attend the conferences and join (or run) a seminar and/or a journal club: the talks can be an important source of inspiration
- do something you will enjoy doing and what you feel you can do
- your work should rather open the way to new breakthroughs than close the whole subject down
The last three tips are somewhat of a common wisdom and can be found in a number of places; see e.g. the article Choosing a research topic by Richard Reis, which contains some further interesting thoughts on the subject.
See also:
- Uri Alon: How to choose a good scientific problem
- Michael Nielsen: Principles of Effective Research and Extreme Thinking
- this post of Terence Tao
- articles in the Science Careers (via I.K.)
Stumble!
May 15, 2009 at 17:40 |
Yes, this is great in theory.
In practice, it is a recipe for never getting a faculty position.
May 15, 2009 at 19:12 |
Well, some bits are probably more appropriate for the tenured faculty, but do you have any better suggestions for the pre-tenure ones?
May 17, 2009 at 01:35 |
Hamming’s and Weinberg’s advices are great and should be thoroughly followed by everybody who (like the authors) has never had a problem of landing a faculty position. For other, normal, scientists — beware…
May 28, 2009 at 15:33 |
For beginning researchers (I’m thinking undergrads and new grad students here), and perhaps dovetailing with the idea of “how much passion do you need,” an overlooked aspect of choosing a research topic is knowing whether you are motivated more by what excites you (the “this is so cool!” reaction) or what angers you (the “this is so wrong!” reaction). My guesstimate is that about 75% of my students follow the first — they are willing to invest considerable energy in those areas of research they are most excited by. The last 25% (I am in this group:-)) are more invested in addressing what they see as wrong or wrong-headed. When done badly, the second approach results only in criticism. When done well, it results in plausible alternatives. I have no idea which path better leads to tenure as I went the (U.S. system) lecturer route.