Navigating through the Research Freedom
One of the questions I commonly use at our interviews for recruiting research staff members is:
If you had the freedom to choose which idea would you work on for three years, without having any other duty on teaching, project, or industry collaboration, what would that idea be?
In rare occasions, I get straight answers about an idea or a topic that keeps that person awake at night. Most often, the answer is either some safe extension of what the person has been doing before or a prolonged silence concluded with "I don't know".
This is, rather, strange, considering how much research freedom is valued in the academia. One can argue that this query is not representative, as it is done at an interview and, if only that person is given the three years time to think freely, s/he will find the dream idea or topic. While this may turn out to be true, multiple additional questions arise, such as how likely is it that something interesting and useful will come out. Another important question is who would finance the risky setup of extreme three-year freedom, with high chances of resulting in low scientific production or negligible innovation. The latter question presses the button for igniting the Higgs low-production argument, in which the Nobel prize winning physicists Peter Higgs states that he would not sufficiently productive in today's academic system. This argument rightfully criticizes the sole focus on numbers of papers or citations, as ‘every measure which becomes a target becomes a bad measure (Goodhart’s Law). Nevertheless, very few among us will produce a result whose significance can match the one of correctly theorizing the existence of a Higgs boson. How to then, acquire a degree of research freedom that will not churn out an inflation of research papers, while also allowing to nurture the discoverer of the next Higgs boson, and make it possible with funding?
Let's think about the research context in terms of topics that can fall into four different categories or sets: (a) promising topics; (b) research interest; (c) capability; and (d) research funding. The research topic or questions we are considering to work on can be placed with respect to the intersections among these sets, as shown in Figure 1 below. Nevertheless, there is inherently a uncertainty about where our research context is actually placed. The highest uncertainty is about whether the topic is promising — we can have a belief about it, but it has to be tested through the research process. There is also uncertainty associated with the research interest, though markedly lower as compared to the uncertainty about a promising topic. That is, we have a belief that something is or is not of research interest, but this can change based on new data (for example, new papers) or finding unexpected connections to other topics. There is uncertainty about the research capability — we believe that we know well our skills, although some people are underestimating their knowledge and others are overestimating their capabilities. Finally, it may seem that there is no uncertainty about the research funding, since in a given context you either have it or not. But the uncertainty may still be there; for instance, a company that funds some academic research may decide to pull out from the contract. There is also a large uncertainty about acquiring research funding; but this is a different question and it is addressed below.
Considering these uncertainties, we can speak about where we believe that the research context resides. The sweet spot in in position 1, intersection of all four categories; which mens that there is a motivated and capable research team, the research funding is in place and there are promising new ideas the team works on. The team clearly feels that there is a research freedom.
Point 2 is typical for the early stage of the research career, where the objective is to get the research grant and move from 2 to 1. There is a large uncertainty where this move can be made and this is mitigated by, for example, universities offering start packages to new academics. The transfer from point 2 to point 1 is an illustration of the principle that the research freedom often needs to be earned. In that sense, trained researchers, such as postdocs, that are in position 2 and are offered to be a part of group that can recognize their capability and offer funding to support their ideas, should consider themselves privileged. An important way in which the context can move from 2 to 1 is when the research topic is modified in a way that it can fit the theme of the research funding. Thus, the transfer from point 2 to 1 shows that one has to do pragmatic choices in the research in order to fit the interest to the available research project/funding.
Point 3 would be typical for a motivated PhD student that joins a research group and is offered a chance to develop the skills necessary to work on a promising research topic. By enlarging the capabilities, the context moves from 3 to 1. Even people with senior research positions can find themselves in position 3; they can move to 1 by learning and/or hiring relevant profiles. The main message from position 3 is that we have control over how our research capabilities are expanded and this can help to bring the research context to a sweet spot. Here the research freedom is expressed through the possibility to develop the research capability.
Point 4 may be the one in which a research context can seem to be limiting the research freedom. Since our research interest is also associated with uncertainty and a belief where it actually lies, in this point it helps to have an open mind and reconsider what is the research interest is. Or even embrace the context temporarily, as it may be a stepping stone for acquiring research funding for a different topic that can be later on placed at 1. Moving from point 4 to point 1 is an illustration of endurance, open mindedness, and the need to take control over your own research work by defining projects and getting research funding for them. If this is not done, point 4 may result in frustration, constant complaints, and lack of productivity.
Point 5 calls for new ideas, which can come from getting inspired by your own research team or making collaborations with other teams. Moving from 5 to 1 is, somewhat, a canonical illustration of how research is done: starting from a hypothesis that has uncertainty and refining towards a direction that is likely to produce great scientific or innovation outcomes.
Point 6 is closely related to point 4. If the topic seems uninteresting and not motivating, then we may believe that we are in 6, while we are in 4. Here the approach is again endurance, disciplined learning and expansion of capabilities which may bring us to a position to formulate our own projects and get them funded.
Points 7 and 8 would be typical cases in which researchers seek to join a research group that already has funding. Specifically, 7 is representative for a researcher that is in search for a doctoral position and has good idea what s/he would like to do. Having a research interest and a hypothesis why it would be interesting, could be a basis for a strong motivation letter when applying for a doctoral position. A research context in Point 8 could be beneficial for a skilled researcher that looks for inspiration and collaboration within a research group and hopefully use it as a stepping stone for the next, independent career stage.
Finally, point 9 could occur when a research group leader runs out of inspiration or has a negative result about his/her hypotheses and needs to bring new ideas and capabilities in the group, for instance, by hiring new people.
Considering the uncertainties mentioned above, we need to constantly do a meta-research and reassess where the research context is placed. Is my research freedom limited or I am just uncertain what my interest is? Is the lack of scientific results due to lack of capability of a topic is not promising? Should I complain about the topics being imposed on me or just work on them while finding a way to start my own projects? Regardless of the specific context, one pervading rule is that the research freedom needs often to be earned or emerge through the art of matching the interest, capabilities, and promising topics to the research funding.
