Which is the better way of doing theoretical research?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the methods of conducting theoretical research in physics and other theoretical sciences. Participants explore different approaches to learning and problem-solving, debating the merits of prior knowledge versus hands-on experience in research.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that a balance between learning and practical problem-solving is beneficial, advocating for initial research followed by iterative learning as needed.
  • Others argue that diving directly into a problem without extensive prior reading can lead to more effective learning, especially under pressure, as seen in industry settings.
  • A participant reflects on their personal experience of returning to research after a hiatus, expressing concerns about the endless nature of reading and the challenge of self-guided study without supervision.
  • Another participant emphasizes that individuals will never know everything about a topic, suggesting that attempting to solve a problem first can clarify what knowledge is necessary to acquire.
  • Some participants highlight the importance of recognizing when to seek help or change problems, noting the difference in approaches between academia and industry.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best method for conducting research. Multiple competing views remain regarding the balance between learning and practical engagement with problems.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying personal preferences and experiences, indicating that the effectiveness of each approach may depend on individual circumstances and the specific context of the research.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and professionals in theoretical physics and related fields, particularly those navigating the early stages of research or considering different methodologies in their work.

arroy_0205
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
I heard some supervisors ask their students to first learn the subject and then start working on a problem. Some other supervisors ask their students not to spend much time in reading but directly start working on a problem. Then it becomes the duty of the concerned student to learn what is needed to solve the problem. What, in your opinion is the better method of doing research in theoretical physics or other theoretical sciences like this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A balance seems good. If you don't know anything about the problem, it's good to look up some information first. If you already have a background, you can probably start to work on the problem and look up references when you're stuck. You can discover what's best for you though. Try working on it and see if you get anywhere. If not, do some research!
 
Thanks for the advice. Frankly speaking, I once started research, left it unfinished and joined a post of a teacher. But I always had research in mind and since I have some time to spend on it now, I am again trying to come back to research. Unfortunately I do not have a supervisor right now and so trying to go my own way. But I always tend to spend lot of time reading new materials and I realize that there is not end to it. So I asked the question. I would appreciate any other related comments from others.
 
arroy_0205 said:
I heard some supervisors ask their students to first learn the subject and then start working on a problem. Some other supervisors ask their students not to spend much time in reading but directly start working on a problem. Then it becomes the duty of the concerned student to learn what is needed to solve the problem. What, in your opinion is the better method of doing research in theoretical physics or other theoretical sciences like this?

In academia you sometimes can pick and choose a research topic, so the question is meaningful in such a case. I doubt that you can justify that one is better than another, since it's more a matter of taste. Although my taste prefers the later choice.

However, in industry you don't really have a choice most of the time. You are faced with a problem to work on, and you start. You don't have the luxury to start learning in a formal way and wait until you are ready. The timer starts ticking and you just dive in. If you are lucky, it's an area that you have some experience in, but if not, you basically learn by doing. This method of learning is so much more effective anyway. It's amazing how the mind will focus itself when the pressure is applied.
 
It depends on the individual, but one thing is true of everyone: you will never know everything about anything. So, I find that the best approach is to first try to solve the immediate research problem/question to see how far you can get with your current knowledge and skills. Then read up about the points that stick you. Then, iterate. Anyway, how do you know what you need to learn about for the problem/question before you attack it? The variation from one individual to the next is how/when you decide to iterate.
 
Thanks for the suggestions. I do agree with your views. My views are also changing: Now I think that the later approach is probably better suited for success in "research". Let's see if anybody else offers any other views or comments.
 
turin said:
It depends on the individual, but one thing is true of everyone: you will never know everything about anything. So, I find that the best approach is to first try to solve the immediate research problem/question to see how far you can get with your current knowledge and skills. Then read up about the points that stick you. Then, iterate. Anyway, how do you know what you need to learn about for the problem/question before you attack it? The variation from one individual to the next is how/when you decide to iterate.

You imply a good point I didn't even think about. What happens if you dive in that then find out you are in over your head? Good question.

My joking answer would be that if you are in academia, you pick another problem and if you are in industry, you call a consultant, who probably is in academia. :wink: :smile:
 
elect_eng said:
My joking answer would be that if you are in academia, you pick another problem and if you are in industry, you call a consultant, who probably is in academia. :wink: :smile:
I think that's much less of a joke than you intend it to be :wink: The real trick, of course, is realizing when you need to do this (and, for people like me, overcoming a stubborn nature).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K