1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Doing Research without a Job?

  1. Nov 15, 2011 #1
    Wasn't really sure whether this belonged in academic or career guidance. I just have a question that's been bugging me after reading so much about how hard it is to end up in an academic research position.

    If someone has an education and knowledge set rivaling the average research scientist, what is their ability to do useful scientific research without a paid position? Say you support yourself financially, but not as a scientist. Is it possible to do useful research on your own without the advantage of working at a university or national lab?

    This might sound crazy, but I was reading the other day about an amateur astronomer who collaborated with a research professor on a paper and was published, using public data from NASA. So it's clearly possible to some extent. Can people do cutting edge science like this if they have the time, or was this a fluke?

    I understand that the experiments and observational studies in modern physics require ridiculously expensive equipment, and no one's gonna let you play with it if you don't work there. But a lot of the data from these experiments is made public. And the data is what's important for drawing conclusions.

    However, research teams won't publish their results until they've reached their own conclusions, so any data you have access to has probably had most insights picked out of it already.

    I don't know much about the research process though, so I'm wondering what other people think.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 15, 2011 #2
    In principle, anyone can contribute meaningful original research without having an official research position. There are many areas that don't require expensive equipment (theory, computational modeling, etc.) But you won't have much success throwing together chemicals in your kitchen without doing a few things (all possible without an official position):

    - Get a graduate level education in the relevant field. You don't have to necessarily have to get the degree, you could be self-taught, but if can't comfortably do homework problems in graduate level textbooks, you are not going to understand the science enough to do meaningful research. (I talking actual original research. In the areas of invention and design, you can get away with some lack of fundamental understanding if you work hard and are clever, but not in basic research).

    - Regularly read academic journals in your field of interest (and understand them). Pop-sci magazines like "Scientific American" do not count.

    - Have a mentor in the field who is well published

    - Be involved in the scientific community: attend conferences, university seminars, etc.

    All of this will be hard if you have little money and are trying to keep an unrelated day job, but it's not impossible.
     
  4. Nov 15, 2011 #3

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Data, without understanding the theoretical aspect of the phenomenon, is nothing more than stamp-collecting!

    For example, what if I give you the data that is shown in my avatar. This is the raw data that I obtain from an angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy on a highly-overdoped high-Tc superconductor. Will you be able to do meaningful analysis on it without understanding the first thing about (i) Fermi liquid theory (ii) the physics of superconductivity (iii) the nature of the experiment itself (especially on the resolution of the instrumentation) (iv) the physical meaning of the quantities being measured?

    It is a myth that all you need is data. People who analyze data without understanding the physical significance of what they are doing do not work in science, they work in the financial market!

    Zz.
     
  5. Nov 15, 2011 #4
    And for some reason you need to be paid in order to understand those things? I'm not asking if people can do research without an immense knowledge of physics, I'm asking whether it can be done without being employed to do so.
     
  6. Nov 15, 2011 #5

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Really? Note that you said the following:

    And that was what I was addressing.

    In any case, unless you are unemployed and can devote huge chunks of time to do the work, then yes, I don't see how you can do such a thing full time without being employed to do it. Being employed to do such a thing means that you employer also either will provide you with the necessary infrastructure, or can send you to places that have the necessary infrastructure. And I don't mean just hardware. I also mean personnel support. It takes a lot of manpower not only to do research, but also to support those who do research, everything from IT personnel to engineers to office administrators, etc. It is naive to think that one has no need for such a thing.

    Zz.
     
  7. Nov 15, 2011 #6
    Although perhaps a bit pessimistic, ZapperZ is right in the sense that you don't want to underestimate the amount of resources afforded to a professional researcher. Perhaps the most important is easy access to the technical journals. Without this, it is almost impossible to stay current in your field. The majority of "breakthroughs" that you read in the newspapers or even in Scientific American will have a paper trail in the journals that go back at least five years.

    But.... it's always nice to remember that Einstein was working as a patent clerk (i.e. not employed as a researcher) when he formulated Special Relativity, the Photoelectric Effect, and Brownian Motion.
     
  8. Nov 15, 2011 #7

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    It is also nice to remember that one needs slap of reality that the world today is significantly and profoundly different than what it was back during Einstein's days! One should also not use an exception and think that it is probable.

    Zz.
     
  9. Nov 15, 2011 #8

    PAllen

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Julian Barbour is a current example of success as a theorist while doing other jobs for money.
     
  10. Nov 15, 2011 #9
    Difficult. You are likely to be working 60 hours/week, then you go home and have to deal with kids. After all of that you don't have enough energy to do anything on your own, and you don't have either the social networks to do research. For example, if I wanted to attend an academic conference, I'd have to get permission from my boss, I'd have to pay my own way, and I couldn't do it too often without losing my job. If I can't attend academic conferences, then I can't network.

    Also, academic research isn't set up for crowdsourcing. For example if I post something to this forum or if I do something on wikipedia. I spend 15 minutes and then I've gotten something useful. In order to write a paper, I have to block out three months, and no one will co-author with me if it looks like I may drop out.

    Now the good news about all of this is that none of these are fundamental laws of nature, and so someone clever might be able to think of a way around them. One thing that will happen in a few years, is that I should have enough money saved in the bank so that I can retire, and then my kids will be in college. At that point, check back to see what I'm up to.

    Curiously the problem isn't money. It's time and social networks.

    One thing that amateur astronomers have going for them is that they have a very well developed social network, and they can crowd-source. If you do variable star observations, you can get things published with the AVASO, and the amount of money that you need in order to do "serious observation" is about $10K.

    Don't know. I've never had the time.

    You can get a lot of observational astronomy done for $10K. Also, the CPU requirements to do theory aren't seriously huge. Hardware is not the problem.

    Data reduction is hard. So probably not. The problem is that you need a lot of context to be able to handle the data. That takes time.

    I know a lot about the research process, and so I can tell you want the barriers are. None of them are fundamental laws of physics, so if you can think of a clever way around them, feel free to go ahead.
     
  11. Nov 15, 2011 #10
    That's one good thing about astrophysics. All of the technical journals and preprints are available online. One thing that's good about astrophysics is that the journals are run by the professional societies which have no interest in keeping the data hidden.

    Things are very different in other fields of physics (namely biotech) in which the major journals are run by for-profit publishers that are fighting like hell to keep the information closed.

    The problem in astrophysics is not access to journal articles. The problem is access to networks, and even there it's not that people are unfriendly. It's that science requires relationships, and those take time to build, and then one thing you don't have is time.
     
  12. Nov 15, 2011 #11
    But then you have to look at what is different. Also if the world is different and it's bad, then you need to look at where to change it back.

    One thing about getting a job as a patent clerk is that it turns out to be surprisingly difficult to get that sort of job. One thing that is the case with Einstein is that he was a government bureaucrat, which meant that he worked from 9 to 5, and then went home and talked to his research network. He worked for eight hours. Researched for eight hours. Slept for eight hours. Also his personal life was somewhat of a mess.

    The problem here is that in high technology, 9 to 5 jobs do not exist. Most high technology jobs are salaried, and since the employer is paying you a fixed amount, you are expected to work around 60 hours/week. The types of jobs where you do punch a time clock, are not those which you can make enough money to do external research.

    Also I should point out that in the 1960's, you had major industrial laboratories which did do basic research. The people that won the Nobel for finding the big bang were employed by Bell Labs. The problem is that in the 1970's the structure of the US corporation changed, and so basic corporate research got killed. One thing that I'm trying to do is to recreate Bell Labs.

    Then there is the mistake that I made. Once I got my Ph.D., I was quite angry and ashamed that I wasn't going down the post-doc route so I didn't make an effort to keep my research networks going. This was a problem because it took me about three to five years to "get over this" by which point my research networks had gotten cold.
     
  13. Nov 15, 2011 #12

    PAllen

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Actually, you provide a bunch of hints here.

    Don't have kids. This will help make it possible to make do without a 60 hour/week high tech or finance job (they absolutely exist; they just pay less and are less interesting; ).

    Not really recommending any course of action, but Twofish does lay out some choices here.

    Note, Julian Barbour did not work in 60 hour/week type jobs.
     
  14. Nov 16, 2011 #13
    There is a reason why Catholic priests are not allowed to marry.

    But a lot of this involves "what do you want to do with your life" questions. I'm a romantic so if the choice is between physics and falling in love and having kids, then I'm going to choose the latter.

    Also none of this is set in stone. Technology and economic changes will change the choices that are available. We couldn't have this conversation in 1985.
     
  15. Nov 16, 2011 #14

    PAllen

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The choices are not so binary. My wife's best friend and her husband agreed never to have kids for the specific purpose of having freedom to pursue non-standard life choices. They started out with marketing and high tech jobs, respectively, but then quit after a decade to pursue writing. He went back to a boring 9-5 software job for about a year, but otherwise have been making it work as writers. Still together after 30 years pursuing their dreams.
     
  16. Nov 16, 2011 #15
    These recent posts make me miss the "Alternative Theories" or whatever subforum. That place was two tons of fun - well, assuming you weren't a moderator.

    Anyone remember its name?
     
  17. Nov 16, 2011 #16
    What killed private basic research? What's changed about US corporate structure since the 1960s?

    I also find it interesting that several Bell Labs researchers left to create their own companies. I'm not sure if that would happen today with Non-Compete agreements!
     
  18. Nov 16, 2011 #17

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Corporate bottom line!

    When AT&T had a monopoly, there was very little to answer to the corporate bottom line. Bell Labs was left alone to almost do whatever they please. So it was a breeding ground for a lot of innovative ideas that had almost no obvious applications at the time that the ideas were conceived. They could do that because there was little pressure in producing marketable products within a short period of time. So long-term research and risky ideas with no guarantee of an outcome were not something that was prohibited.

    But once AT&T split, and Bell Labs/Lucent becomes an entity that needs to produce products into the market, such luxury goes away.

    This is why governments cannot be run like a business, because no business with that kind of financial bottom line can invest and sustain such long-term research into areas that have no obvious guarantee of a marketable product. What business entities would invest in high energy physics, for example? Yet, the by-products of such a research has produced an astounding number of spin-offs that resulted in a dazzling array of useful products and outcomes.

    Zz.
     
  19. Nov 16, 2011 #18
    Companies also don't see much reason to double up on things the gov't might do for them. Since everyone thinks research is great and should be publically funded, why would a company choose to invest in basic research instead of just allowing the public to fund it?

    It just makes more sense to only research what a company has to. For many tech companies there are things they have to do in-house, but they tend to be the most practical.

    It's the same with education and training.

    You could make a less critical argument that goes something like this: if society is relying on the private sector to do basic research, then we end up with a large number of firms all doing the same research. It makes more sense to have basic research done publically for all to use, but have more application based technological research done by the companies creating the product. I'm not sure I buy this argument, but I think it carries some weight.
     
  20. Nov 16, 2011 #19

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    This is not justified considering that Bell labs and the National labs were running at the same time. So that situation itself falsifies what you wrote. Certainly AT&T (and IBM for that matter) felt that fundamental research was important even when the govt. was also contributing research in those areas.

    The advantage for a company in doing such a thing is that the discovery belongs to them! Bell labs not only got the credit, but it has something that many facilities aspire to, the prestige that allowed them to attract even more talented minds. It was self-feeding, and during its glory years, it was THE place to work at! It is of no coincidence that this was when they were the most productive.

    What company does not want that?

    Zz.
     
  21. Nov 16, 2011 #20
    So it sounds like the most important limitations are time and social networks. So if you finish grad school but take a non-research position, how hard do you think it would be to maintain and grow those social networks, assuming you had spare time?

    edit: Also, as far as attending science conferences and keeping up to date and such, what kind of money would that take? twofish mentioned around 10k for equipment to do useful observational astronomy, what other investments need to be considered?
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2011
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook