Let us start by making some ideal suppositions. One does research because one wants to enjoy the process of exploration and also wants to contribute to knowledge. Having fun is the essential purpose. And if one has had enough fun, one might as well have contributed a bit.
Research creates and sustains a vibrant environment. There are a lot of parameters that help in making a vibrant research environment - the strength of the research community, how driven the members of the community are, the quality of research, access to infra structure, incentives, acceptance etc.. Further, a vibrant environment feeds back on to itself.
A vibrant research environment more often than not is a successful research environment and success also feeds back on to itself. Many US universities clearly outclass most Indian universities in this regard.
Having fun is easier in a vibrant and successful environement than a dull one. Let us also consider the aspect of contribution to the body of knowledge. Some standard ways of doing this are by getting papers published in leading conferences and journals. This again is easier and faster in the US due to many technical and some non-technical reasons. So, contributing to knowledge is easier in some sense of the word if you are researcher working out of the US.
In view of these points and initial suppositions, let me ask some questions.
Is it not natural that aspiring research students from India go to the US and work out of there?
Is this 'bad' as far as research is concerned, in some way? Why?
If it is, then how are we going to argue so that at least some students consider staying here and helping to build a more vibrant community?
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
My take on this issue: don't bother.
Researchers are generally loners. Their main source of inspiration and energy is within them -- their thinking. Social acceptance or rejection, ideally, should have no bearing on the researcher.
If social standing and peer pressure makes one look to "greener pastures" for research; I believe there is a paradox here.
Researchers are fascinated by problems, not solutions. Researchers from the US, for example, go into deep jungles or war-torn areas simply because they are lured by the excitement of the unknown and of its challenges.
Lastly, (in my personal opinion), the proof of the pudding is in the eating; not necessarily in an IEEE publication. If your ideas work, they work. So what if they are not published or heralded as great?
We have so many problems in our country -- meaning, so many opportunities for research. The big universities in US may not think they are significant enough to be recognized; so does it mean that we should not address and solve our problems?
I don't think you are answering my questions. A lot of things that you are saying are already covered when I make those ideal assumptions.
And the problem is not about publications and recognition. I only mentioned it as an outcome. The problem is should we have a vibrant community here in India? Why and how do we create a vibrant environment?
When I ask should we have a vibrant community, don't tell me "of course, we should have one!". That won't help. The point you make about a lot of opportnities here due to a lot of problems answers the questions partially, but I am not satisfied.
And the "don't bother" won't hold. We see this not holding in our lab. Imagine what would happen to our lab if we don't make efforts every year to try and identify some students. We do it right?
Well, I guess my response was addressing the question:
... how are we going to argue so that at least some students consider staying here and helping to build a more vibrant community?
My take would be "don't bother." Maybe, I should qualify it to say "don't bother beyond a point."
Yes, we do make the effort every year to attract good students into the lab. And every year, we encounter some students with attitudes like: "What the **** is this? What do they think of themselves? Some great scientists? Real work happens only in US." Something like that.
There is no point trying to reason with them or trying to get them to stay here and help build a vibrant community.
For students who are fascinated by challenges; we don't have to argue. We simply debate about challenging problems and they are hooked.
We do need intellectual vibrancy and there is no doubt about it. Without a vibrant intellectual community we cannot hope to find reliable solutions to our problems. It goes without saying that, by vibrancy I don't mean things like how many of them joined MIT or published IEEE papers. I mean something more fundamental.
"It goes without saying that, by vibrancy I don't mean things like how many of them joined MIT or published IEEE papers. I mean something more fundamental." -- preceisely, and same here. But I was making a deliberate effort not to sound idealistic and abstract.
What you are saying is that we don't need to make arguments since people with 'genuine' inclination don't need any argument. But then I have a contention over here -- let's assume that I (Sanket) have such an inclination. But then the fact most probably is that I was not born with that. I developed it, because I got a 'context'. So, the existence of a context is important.
How do we expect someone to chose something when they are hardly aware of that thing?
Yes, you are right. Setting up the "context" is important. It is only idealistic to say that the good ones don't need any motivation.
On the other hand, tredging too far to convince those who cannot be convinced would be simply a waste of time.
Crux of my response is: I don't know how to solve this problem!
Post a Comment