We were talking about social research. There was not much difference in a group of around 20 people in relation to how we gather data. Not much difference either in our research questions (I am sure there are differences, but we had to show some degree of unique thinking when formulating them). Not even great difference in problems related to the use of technology in organisations. What made the difference for me...? I mean what is it that we do but we do not accept...? We all manage research in very similar ways when it comes to people.
We do research because we are patient, and because we develop long term relationships with individuals: with students (who could get us access to organisations or give us a research contract); with friends (who will also give us their views about relevant problems in their organisations when having a beer); with colleagues (from other universities within our country or elsewhere, and with whom we might feel a linguistic common ground). Some researchers would find it difficult to accept that relationships include those more intimate (e.g. the wife) in order to flesh out ideas, get access to data or even co-author research papers. Wives also get on board in trips to attend conferences or put up with mourning when things do not go according to plan.
We all try to influence others to get research done or published, some more actively than others. No need to claim objectivity so loudly.
So my learning has been that we can know more but we need to cultivate our garden as Voltaire would say. Using existing contacts, making new contacts we meet in events, and the odd adventure to engage into something new, exciting and risky, they are all part of a patient strategy. That is why research impact might take time to be cristalised in a project or assessed accurately.
Patience...? Need to think of those research questions harder now so I can see how valuable my own efforts before getting others involved.
Voltaire also realised that life puts us in situations we never expected to be. So it is better to make the best of them, but with patience.
1 comment:
It's not what you know it's who you know!
That's what you mean right? Patience is important too. It takes time to build up your network of useful contacts. These will come from a variety of sources and events, and most will be by chance. For me, my industry contacts are crucial to my research, what with it being mostly empirical. As is the interaction I have with individuals within that network. It's amazing what effect a timely email will have. The same goes for my academic network too.
I like your point about your extended network and its influence on your thinking. I had a chat with a new colleague just this morning about her PhD progress. She talked about time and distractions - not enough of the former and too many of the later. She said how she gets sidetracked by an interesting paper. I interpreted this as creativity. One chance encounter might spin your mind off in a new direction. This happens to me a lot. My solution is to jot it down somewhere with a view to returning to it later. The problem is that there are just too many to develop! But then this is how the most innovative R&D organisations work. #M is a great example. They have many many concepts that never make it past the initial stage of development. What make them effective is their filtering system. Only the most promising concepts become prototypes, and only the most cost-effective and innovative prototypes become products. I think what we as researchers need to do is to adopt a filtering system that enables us to only follow those ideas that we can turn into effective research contributions later. This is what the most successful academics are best at. Whilst many will annoy us by not replying to our emails, etc; what they're doing is filtering. They're focused, not distracted and effective.
Post a Comment