Why our phd proposals start with more general questions
In Mekrijärvi we have witnessed some clashes of two research traditions. On one side, there was a pressure for solid, answerable, and viable research questions, backed up with a literature review. On the other side, there were rather vague and general research directions, far from being directly answerable research questions.
I believe that these contrasts are caused by overall differences how a phd research is approached. In countries like Finland, the tradition dictates that the research proposal is a part of the phd-studentship application. Thus, the proposal is written at the very beginning of one’s phd research. It seems then understandable that at that moment the student does not have clear and specific ideas about what the actual research shall be, what methodologies shall be used. Based on these research questions, in their vague form, it is then rather difficult if not impossible, to select a proper research methodology that would help to answer the questions.
When our phd students are then faced with an experienced researcher coming from countries like USA, an apparent communication problem appears: to get a picture of what is going on, the researcher wants to know the background, relevant research, the specific research questions, and the methodology being used. Our students cannot answer with a rigor, simply because they are not yet ‘there’.
A phd student from e.g. USA, before writing a research proposal, conducts background mapping, does a literature review, passes methodological courses. We then cannot expect that the two proposals would be on the same level. Unfortunatelly, it seem to happen often that our students, once starting with vague proposal, they continue with the vague approach to research and might become unware (would not like to say ignorant) about methodological considerations completely. In more lucky cases, I hope, the proposal gets incrementally updated and becomes more specific.
Now, your turn.
Good post Roman. For sure tools are needed, “understand the background, the relevant of the research, specific questions and the methodology, and each time make stronger the fundaments of your research” as I had seen it is really key in this environment, if you want to have a real impact.
On the other hand, I wonder if there are two different types of research. The research done because you want to do it, because it is “part” of you, and you really want to know and offer this knowledge to others, being part of your “dream”. And the research that you do as a work perspective and it is part of someone else’s dream.
In case that those different types of research are true, then it is kind of understandable to search also at the beginning from ideas. Because not everybody knows how this “research” world works. And the path is not that easy, and for that you need to be sure of what you are doing and be sure there is some passion in order to commit on it. And sometimes you need to sense this in a “naive” way, and little by little be answering the questions and building it properly.
However, this do not go against to know the ” know how” and get the best practices to build and reach successfully the goal. I’ll go for the combination of both approaches. Sometimes you need more one, some others the other.
One simple example might be when a child starts to learn to use crayons. In that phase, he/she will not know exactly how to use a crayon, and less to draw properly a line that for he/she will mean the world. But as time pass by, they learn to use the crayons properly, because they want to represent better what they want to express. Then they start to learn to use their fine motor skills, until they can really draw. In a way it is a lot easier in this way this process, starting with the curiosity of drawing, and then comes the technique. It might be that you can find the other way around, explain the technique and then drawing, but for sure it is needed the desire of drawing, and the imagination to draw what?!
Neither one is less important. Just different approaches. What I can consider really essential is to do not ignore neither one and do them with quality, at the correct moment. And for that be open is important and hopefully have good coaching.
At the end we keep in a learning process all the time.
Carolina, thanks for your reply. Let me just remind you and at the same time make myself more accurate: I haven’t said there are two types of research, I rather wanted to say “two traditions to do phd” /and wrote “two research traditions”.
I understand, though, what do you mean by passion for research. I think we all know the drive behind discovery, understanding, building and evaluation. But observe, my original post was free of any emotional charge. It was about why some phd students float for a long time and why some phd students surely ( (c) J.J.R.) complete, deliver AND learn. So I apologize to not be accurate and perhaps to mislead you.
Let me quote myself from today: The purpose of phd is not to save the world. The purpose is to learn how to save it. Make your phd and you can save the world afterwards.
Hi Roman,
Thanks for your replay and even that it seems I took a trip to another ideas, and you came to rescue me with the clarification of the topic.;-) What I wanted to say above is that even that we could observe in Merkrijärvi these two research traditions, I see them complementary. And we should learn to combine them properly.
Now the proper combination from those traditions will be unique for each PhD student I would imagine, but it should work in concordance. And this might support the successful culmination for the students, I believed. What I see outstanding is to have correct guidance and association to keep in the PhD process. And for sure, all PhD students should have the basics of research, to understand the “rules” of this scientific game, at the end we are embedded in it. But those rules are not taught in previous courses before you decided yourself for a PhD, at least hasn’t been my experience. How to manage it?, as for you, for me is a good question as well.
And it is nice your though regarding saving the world ;-)
Just a fast note Roman.
Reading some of the conclusions of the thesis of Matti, it pops to my head that might be some of these research traditions can be also in function of the disciplines. Or because we are within computer science, that is why we live more intensively this “conflict”.
In any case, Matti is THE person to talk more about this.
- cais
Always pointing in the right direction with the right words. I know what you mean, I still belong to the vague research tradition. In the end I guess it is a question of learning how to do things. And besides, as you said, when someone starts he will apply his former knowledge (what he has learned to do, the tools he has learned to apply) to get things done. In that case american learning tradition is much more “accurate” than european one, at least for our purposes. For instance, I’m thinking on “debate clubs” which represents a good training to elaborate questions, to reason and to argue. Those are rare to find in the european landscape
Javi, a debate club is a very good idea, IMHO.
Hello,
Thanks for this interesting debate. I have also thought these things quite a much and it is important to get new perspectives. I see positive and negative in both research traditions. Especially when you are creating your proposal the knowledge of the domain might be limited. If you define exact research questions in previous phase problems might occur when you go towards concrete research.
How do you see proposals as a limiter for PhD-research? Preceding mean how strictly actual PhD-research has to follow proposal? Is there need for creating new proposal if direction changes enough? When the direction has changed so much that new proposal is required?
I know researcher is responsible for most decisions in her/his research. However, it is good to know different traditions and possible practices (if there are any). I would really appreciate if you highlight your views related to previous questions.
Hey Roman,
thanks for the brilliant posting! I mostly agree with you, except that I don’t think that there are two research traditions.
I think there’s only the difference between rigorous, well-planned, well-grounded research on the other side and lax, ambiguous, unmethodological, poorly planned groping in the dark on the other side. I think that everyone on both continents begins with the latter one, but not everyone gets to the former one (neither in US or Finland).
Roman, I think you hit the nerve when you say “once starting with vague proposal, they continue with the vague approach to research“. You are absolutely correct. However, I don’t think it has anything to do with research approaches, but merely poor standards vs. high standards.