Research « Real Life of a PhD Student

Archive for the ‘Research’ Category

Research experience before PhD

Sunday, December 27th, 2009

When students apply for a PhD program, their background and preparation for the PhD is considered mainly via the range of course work and performance in those courses. Letters of recommendation are also vital. However one thing which may make the biggest difference is demonstrating actual research experience. This can be

an impressive senior year project with some original research
a suitable project or survey in an advanced and directly relevant course
a summer working as an intern in an established research lab
research assistantship with an established researcher in the field
a research paper (even if it is in some student publication)
assisting in some large collaborative research project

The idea is that admission committees prefer candidates who have some idea about the well-motivated problems in the research area and have the maturity to formulate a research problem and come up with the ideas to solve the problem. These abilities are demonstrated more easily by actual research than course work. For example, any relevant preliminary research already indicates the research interests, writing skills and technical skills of a candidate. Such research is also a useful exercise for the applicant to get a feel of what kind of research they are interested in.

Familiarity with a research area can also be demonstrated by attending workshops and tutorials designed for pre-doctoral or doctoral students and going to relevant seminars. Similarly, one learns many useful things if one has already some research experience during the undergraduate years. One specially learns a lot by collaborating with more senior researchers. This makes the transition into a PhD program easier.

Posted in Academics, Research | No Comments »

Quasi-academic jobs

Monday, October 19th, 2009

The Chronicle has an interview of Scott Keeter who after twenty-four years as university faculty member is now working in a think tank The interview dwells on the similarities and differences between academic jobs and ‘quasi-academic jobs’. Quasi-academic jobs are not necessarily restricted to think tanks for political scientists. Many economics academics consult for governmental, non-governmental and commercial organizations. Mathematicians and computer scientists do foundational research in the IT industry where the big firms have big research and development departments.

Keeter makes many pertinent points which are applicable to any quasi-academic job. In order to make a better transition, Keeter mentions two aspects to keep in mind. Firstly, a graduate program may not give enough opportunities to work in teams and collaboration and team work has to be inculcated. Secondly, one may get used to speaking and writing to academic audiences. It is essential to get more training to write for nonacademic audiences. The interview also highlights the importance of being able to juggle many responsibilities at the same time. This is something which I feel academic do have good training in what with handling research, teaching, getting funding and administrative matters.

One aspect which is not really discussed is to have a better business sense of the research area even if one’s own research is more foundational in nature. This is because even if one is working in a research group within a company, business interests run supreme in many instances.

The interview suggests ways to get an entry into quasi academic jobs. It is helpful to intern in appropriate organizations during graduate study and also to keep in touch with one’s relevant professional association.

Tags: quasi-academic jobs
Posted in Academic Jobs, Non-Academic Jobs, PhD, Research | No Comments »

Communicating knowledge report

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

Research Information Network (RIN) and JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee) have published a new report Communicating knowledge: how and why UK researchers publish and disseminate their findings. The goal of the report was to study how research is communicated and what is the motivation behind using different channels of communication and publication. The report also examines how research assessment mechanisms impacts on which channels of communications are used. The main theme that researchers have many goals to balance including timely dissemination, esteems with in one’s research community, career rewards, impact beyond academic community. These aims pull the researcher in different directions.

Researchers’ perceptions and understanding of the messages they receive from funders and from universities may often be mistaken, but they influence what researchers publish and how, and they give rise to real concerns. Many researchers see a damaging tension between their desire to communicate via channels which enable them to reach and influence their intended audiences – often beyond academia – as rapidly as possible, and the pressures to publish in high-status journals.

So what is the conclusion? The report has various key findings. Firstly, researchers need more consistent and effective guidance on the value of different channels of communication. If policy makers want to incentivize innovative digital methods of dissemination such as podcasts, then they will need to clarify how this dissemination is valued. Secondly, the attribution and listing of multiple authors varies between disciplines and this act must be taken into account in assessment. Thirdly, citations patterns and motivations depend on the research discipline and researcher’s experience. These patterns are changing with new technologies. And most importantly, the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) is the most dominant factor in influencing which channels of communication are chosen and this is invariably geared towards established and traditional journals.

Tags: Communicating knowledge report
Posted in Academics, Research | No Comments »

Communicating science

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

Communicating scientific research to lay people is a difficult task. There are scientists like Ian Stewart, Simon Singh, Roger Penrose, Richard Dawkins and others who do a great job at it. One needs to shake off all the formalism and terminology and explain to lay people in lay terms. However, most scientific researchers may kill a conversation or get really funny answers when they tell what they do. Even if one makes an effort and does not use fancy acronyms, it can be difficult to communicate the importance or excitement of research.

Recently I was recounting some interesting exchanges I have had with friends and family where I may perhaps have made a lousy start at explaining my research but nonetheless was amused by the confident interjections:

——