

Ask HN: How to think like a researcher? - mih

Greetings!<p>So, I have started with a PhD program recently and am working on my research proposal. I put my idea on paper and it  was shot down by my advisor for not having enough theoretical 'research questions'.<p>Also, I'm based in Europe. The trend I have observed is the US universities will tolerate research with maybe not enough theory and having more practical approach. In EU, a broader and more theoretical approach is required and some Profs. are quite obstinate in this aspect. This is just speaking of my personal experience and I could of course be mistaken.<p>Coming from a programming background, I am tuned to think in terms of what's technology is available rather than what can be conceptualized or assumed. This I feel is hurting my thinking ability as a researcher and I need to unlearn a few things.<p>Can any of the experts on HN offer advice/pointers/tips on how to fine tune thinking ; to start thinking more like a researcher and less like a programmer ?
======
mhewett
I had exactly the same problem and never quite solved it despite ending up as
a research scientist at a world-class university.

My best advice is to find an engineering-oriented advisor, even if they are
from another department.

If that fails, find an interesting engineering problem, say "Execution of a
distributed rule set across a distributed knowledge base". What are the
fundamental problems? In this case, they are speed and consistency.
Researchers don't care about speed, but they do care about consistency. So
your topic becomes "Maintaining consistency in a dynamic distributed rule
network". You solve this one theoretical problem, engineer a cool system to
illustrate it, and get a PhD.

Best wishes and good luck.

------
CyberFonic
The research proposal is one of the hardest things to write. You are expected
to know what problems exist and how they could be solved. Assuming that you
have a specific area of interest, use Google Scholar to look at the papers
written on that topic in the last 2 years. You will probably need to invest
40-60 yours to do this well. Reading some recent PhD theses is also an eye-
opener.

Having done this step you should have a better idea of the sorts of
theoretical research questions that others have asked and thus provide you
with ideas for yours.

The core point of a PhD is to make a significant contribution to the body of
knowledge. It is very different to that of a Masters where you learn and apply
advanced knowledge (developed by others). Looking at available technology is
only likely to have merit if you find a deficiency and find a way of solving
it. And a sound theoretical justification for your solution.

Your comments on US universities might apply to some you may have looked at.
From my experiences Stanford, MIT, Berkley, Princeton have very high standards
and demand for theoretical foundations. Edsger Dijkstra had noted the trend
for stronger mathematical foundations in the European universities than the
USA ones.

A PhD is an apprenticeship for becoming a researcher. So you will learn to
think like a researcher as you progress. Most universities have introductory
courses on how to do research, literature searches, etc. There are also
excellent books are resources on the internet. Seek and you shall find.

------
anigbrowl
find some people who are new to this field (perhaps sit in on a first-year
lecture?) and take note of questions that get answered with 'because you
can't...'. Also, just because a promising idea fell at the first hurdle in the
past doesn't mean that hurdle is still a barrier. If nothing else, reviewing
the history of your field and seeing that some ideas went nowhere will get
your imagination going. Perhaps even talk to retired practitioners and keep an
ear out for stories about 'the one that got away' or that made them wonder
'what if I had done x instead' for years afterwards.

Alternatively, look for some imagination-based recreational activity,
preferably one you're not familiar with so you find yourself generating ideas
without necessarily knowing whether they are practical.

PS what are you studying?

~~~
mih
Thanks. I am studying geoinformatics, though I do have the freedom to solve
problems in the field from the perspective of computer science.

------
ggchappell
I have a rather different viewpoint.

In my experience, people who belong in PhD programs generally do not need to
be taught to "think like a researcher". Rather, they enter a PhD program
because they _already_ love to do research. They spend their spare time
thinking about how to solve problems, and they attract friends with interests
along the same lines. Thus, a PhD, which is essentially training and a
credential for a professional researcher: it is a step toward the goal of
spending their professional lives doing what they already love to do.

Based on your post, this does not appear to describe you. Why, then, are you
in a PhD program?

I'm not trying to discourage you from pursuing your dreams, but I think the
question is an important one.

~~~
mih
Unfortunately where I come from lack of true research opportunities are far
and few. Just because I have not been exposed to research methods so far does
not mean I cannot develop the necessary skills, when given the chance. Agreed,
to some people research is natural and effortless. This however should not
mean the less gifted ones among us give up without attempting.

My problem is this - when given a question I can give a solution. It is
finding the question in the first place that is proving to be a challenge.

~~~
ggchappell
> Just because I have not been exposed to research methods so far does not
> mean I cannot develop the necessary skills, .... This however should not
> mean the less gifted ones among us give up without attempting.

Certainly. I wasn't questioning your _ability_ , but your _interest_.

> Unfortunately where I come from lack of true research opportunities are far
> and few.

I must disagree. Any 8-year-old with a pencil and paper can do research in
mathematics and the theory of algorithms. Give him a piece of glass, and he
can get into optics. Send him outdoors and he can work on biology, chemistry,
etc.

Of course, this won't be _groundbreaking_ research. But the point is that
people who _like_ doing research are probably already doing it. They just need
help getting to the front lines of a field, so that they can make significant,
truly original contributions. That is part of what a PhD program is for.

I can't tell much about you from a couple of paragraphs--and you don't need to
justify yourself to me, anyway. But some of what you said earlier raised a
"red flag" in my mind. As a PhD student, you have, no doubt, been exposed to
some of the important and/or difficult problems in your field. Have you tried
solving any of them; if not, have you spent much time thinking about how you
might go about solving them? More generally, do you _enjoy_ problem solving?
Do you work on problems when you are not obligated to? Do you talk about them
with your friends (or _wish_ you had friends that liked talking about them
with you)?

If so, then, great, figure out how to overcome your current obstacle, finish
your degree, and have a fun life being paid to do what you love.

But if not, then you might be investing a huge amount of time & effort
preparing for a career that you'll hate. And that is hardly an outcome to be
desired.

