Studying Chaotic Systems and Careers

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility and implications of transitioning between diverse research fields, particularly for individuals with a PhD in controls theory. Participants explore the challenges and perceptions associated with interdisciplinary research, including skepticism from established fields and the practicalities of securing funding for such work.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that a PhD in controls theory should equip researchers with the skills to publish across various fields, questioning the necessity of deep background knowledge in every topic.
  • Another participant counters that publishing in a different field may be met with skepticism, and that grant approval is typically limited to specific fields, complicating interdisciplinary work.
  • A participant expresses a critical view of those who believe they can easily contribute to unfamiliar fields, likening them to management consultants who do not publish in academic journals.
  • In contrast, another participant argues that individuals can indeed make valuable contributions in new fields despite lacking familiarity with specific terminology and history, emphasizing the human aspect of research.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the ability and practicality of transitioning between fields. There is no consensus on whether it is realistic or advisable for researchers to jump between disciplines, with some emphasizing skepticism and barriers while others highlight successful interdisciplinary contributions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of background knowledge and the potential territorial nature of research communities, suggesting that these factors may influence the reception of interdisciplinary work.

sus4
Messages
26
Reaction score
2
If a person gets a phd studying controls theory, shouldn't they have the skills (as a researcher) to publish electrical engineering research one year, economics the next year, and biology the next?

Since someone that studies "systems" generally works in high abstractions, I don't see why the subject at hand really matters. Sure, some systems will require far too much background knowledge to be practical, but I don't see why many topics would require a vast background.

So, if a person studied heavy on controls theory in an Electrical Engineering graduate program, what would keep them from suddenly conducting economics research or something in a field completely unrelated to their thesis used to obtain the phd? Is it unrealistic for someone in academia to jump around between fields constantly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When you publish in someone else's field they will likely greet your contribution with skepticism.

Jumping around fields would be hard because you can't write a grant for general problem solving and people are less likely to approve your grant for something outside your field.

Some things can't be overly abstracted sometimes the microscopic details matter.
 
In my experience, people who are arrogant and/or ignorant enough to think they can walk straight into a field they know nothing about and start doing useful work are usually called "management consultants".

But they don't usually bother to publish their consultancy reports in academic journals!
 
AlephZero said:
In my experience, people who are arrogant and/or ignorant enough to think they can walk straight into a field they know nothing about and start doing useful work are usually called "management consultants".

But they don't usually bother to publish their consultancy reports in academic journals!

Sounds like you don't think very highly of management consultants or consultancy companies. Am I right? :-p
 
I find that there is evidence all over the place that people often do walk straight into a field they "know nothing about" and make useful contributions. The mistake is that just because they are unfamiliar with the terminology and history of the subject, that they don't know anything about it.
 
sus4 said:
I find that there is evidence all over the place that people often do walk straight into a field they "know nothing about" and make useful contributions. The mistake is that just because they are unfamiliar with the terminology and history of the subject, that they don't know anything about it.

Research is conducted by human beings which by nature are territorial
 
AlephZero said:
In my experience, people who are arrogant and/or ignorant enough to think they can walk straight into a field they know nothing about and start doing useful work are usually called "management consultants".

But they don't usually bother to publish their consultancy reports in academic journals!

http://xkcd.com/793/
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K