I have always been interested in research. Now that I have experience in research at different levels, I do understand what it is, to an extent. The thoughts that I am penning down are my perceptions about research at this point in time and are bound to change as I continuously rethink about researching. I am of the opinion that research, especially in engineering has to result in some or other form of product, which could be beneficial to the society (or could be just beneficial to myself, as some may say, anything beneficial to myself is also beneficial to my society, assuming things, i.e.). A lot of people completely disagree with me happily. I can understand why they think that way - it is because they are aligned to standard mode of thinking and do not want to change their perception. Please note that I am talking about engineering research ( could be a masters by research, PhD or something somewhere else ). If you really look at engineering research which could end up giving you a PhD, then, it should also result in, or at least aid in the development of a useful product. I think research will help one to equip themselves with various skills, develop a systematic approach to solving problems, give an ego boost, so on and so forth, but, these have been the traditional products or by-products of research. In the current era, we have to change the direction a bit, so as to redefine what research is all about. Writing numerous papers, getting them published, increasing your publications seem to be the common norm of the researcher and some people are happy to do this for their entire life. I have met some great people in my life who have given me different perspectives about research. My masters thesis supervisor was of the opinion that research should imbibe in you a very systematic approach to solving a problem - but, I think if you are too systematic, you cannot be too creative - being chaotic sometimes works wonders (of course I did not argue about this with him, I would put it across to him though, very mildly). There is difference in the levels of research, e.g. research conducted as part of bachelor's thesis may not be as good as a master's thesis (again, perception) and a master's thesis may not be as great as a PhD thesis. But, sometimes the opposite is true. The next question that arises in my mind is - What the fuck is a great PhD thesis?.
As you speak to people who are doing PhD, you get to know different perspectives of what a PhD is. Some of the most common reasons I've come across - just for the heck of it - did not get a job after masters - love solving problems - someone is paying for it, so on and so forth. I believe that one has to define his/her purpose of doing research. I haven't come across anyone who wants to do a PhD to actually create a useful product out of it ( I am sure there are lots of people with that idea in their mind ), but, the academia doesn't try to infuse this idea little bit. Why don't they do it, I am not sure, is it because they want people to think on their own and come to such conclusions? Maybe, maybe not. Looking all the things I've learnt from people who are pursuing research, it's one reason which basically gets them through and it is the responsibility of that particular person to determine what exactly 'wakes him/her up in the morning to do research'.
To conclude, I am of the opinion that engineering research should ultimately result in the design or development of an useful product and this mode of thinking has to be infused in people's brain from the very beginning. This has got nothing to do with monetary benefits, but, the idea of actually testing and validating your research in the real world is what should excite people. This is what excites me and will continue to excite me. Again, there is huge difference when you are working in an industry and developing products - there may not be science coming out of it always.
Solving a problem that has never been solved before forms the framework of a PhD, but, this is a standard framework that has been used for years. I am not sure if this will change, but, if you are an engineering researcher - ...you might not be solving some of the biggest issues or problems in engineering, but, I personally think that getting your feet wet in this arena is good. The question to ponder is "where does engineering end, and the science begins" and recursively. If you are really involved with engineering research, do you really need to publish science.
To sum it all up, the reason why one should pursue engineering research (not in any order of preference) is to actually create a product useful to the society ( why would you want to solve a problem, if it is not helping anything/anybody in this world? ), thrill of solving problems (inherently likes solving problems), acquire multi-disciplinary skills, learn a systematic approach to solving complex problems and finally to push the envelope of our understanding of this world. I am not against science, I am against it's isolation from the rest of the world.
Where does the engineering end or begin, where does the science end or begin? Does the science begin where the engineering ends?
No comments:
Post a Comment