Why not doing research all the time can make you a better researcher

Yesterday I read a nice little article  in Nature about how doing something different from research every now and again can actually make you a better researcher. I agree with that completely, so thought I’d expand upon the theme with a few comments of my own. I think this is an issue of particular importance for early career researchers, as that is the stage at which good habits need to be established, so I will focus on PhD students.

The point is that a postgraduate research degree is very different from a programme of undergraduate study. For one thing, as a research student you are expected to work on your own a great deal of the time. That’s because nobody else will be doing precisely the same project so, although other students will help you out with some things, you’re not trying to solve the same problems as your peers as is the case with an undergraduate. Your supervisor will help you of course and make suggestions (of varying degrees of helpfulness), but a PhD is still a challenge that you have to meet on your own. I don’t think it is good supervisory practice to look over a research student’s shoulder all the time. It’s part of the purpose of a PhD that the student learns to go it alone. There is a balance of course, but my own supervisor was rather “hands off” and I regard that as the right way to supervise. I’ve always encouraged my own students to do things their own way rather than try to direct them too much.

The sense of isolation that can come from immersing yourself in research is tough in itself, but there’s also the scary fact that you do not usually know whether your problem has a solution, let alone whether you yourself can find it. There is no answer at the back of the book; if there were you would not be doing research. A good supervisor will suggest a project that he or she thinks is both interesting and feasible, but the expectation is that you will very quickly be in a position where you know more about that topic than your supervisor.

I think almost every research student goes through a phase in which they feel out of their depth. There are times when you get thoroughly stuck and you begin to think you will never crack it. Self-doubt, crisis of confidence, call it what you will, I think everyone who has done a postgraduate degree has experienced it. I certainly did. A year into my PhD I felt I was getting nowhere with the first problem I had been given to solve. All the other research students seemed much cleverer and more confident than me. Had I made a big mistake thinking I could this? I started to panic and began to think about what kind of job I should go into if I abandoned the idea of pursuing a career in research.

So why didn’t I quit?

There were a number of factors, including the support and encouragement of my supervisor, staff and fellow students in the Astronomy Centre, and the fact that I loved living in Brighton, but above all it was because I knew that I would feel frustrated for the rest of my life if I didn’t see it through. I’m a bit obsessive about things like that. I can never leave a crossword unfinished either.

But while it can be good to be a  obsessive about your research, that doesn’t mean you should try to exclude other things, even other obsessions, from your life.

What happened in my case was that after some discussion with my supervisor I shelved that first troublesome problem and tried another, much easier one. I cracked that fairly quickly and it became my first proper publication. Moreover, thinking about that other problem revealed that there was a way to finesse the difficulty I had failed to overcome in the first project. I returned to the first project and this time saw it through to completion. With my supervisor’s help that became my second paper, published in 1987.

I know it’s wrong to draw inferences about other people from one’s own particular experiences, but I do feel that there are general lessons. One is that if you are going to complete a research degree you have to have a sense of determination that borders on obsession. I was talking to a well-known physicist at a meeting not long ago and he told me that when he interviews prospective physics students he asks them “Can you live without physics?”. If the answer is “yes” then he tells them not to do a PhD. It’s not just a take-it-or-leave-it kind of job being a scientist. You have to immerse yourself in it and be prepared to put long hours in. When things are going well you will be so excited that you will find it as hard to stop as it is when you’re struggling. I’d imagine it is the just same for other disciplines.

The other, equally important, lesson to be learned is that it is essential to do other things as well. Being “stuck” on a problem is part-and-parcel of mathematics or physics research, but sometimes battering your head against the same thing for days on end just makes it less and less likely you will crack it. The human brain is a wonderful thing, but it can get stuck in a rut. One way to avoid this happening is to have more than one thing to think about.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been stuck on the last clue in a crossword. What I always do in that situation is put it down and do something else for a bit. It could even be something as trivial as making a cup of tea, just as long as I don’t think about the clue at all while I’m doing it. Nearly always when I come back to it and look at it afresh I can solve it. I have a large stack of prize dictionaries to prove that this works!

It can be difficult to force yourself to pause in this way. I’m sure that I’m not the only physicist who has been unable to sleep for thinking about their research. I do think however that it is essential to learn how to effect your own mental reboot. In the context of my PhD research this involved simply turning to a different research problem, but I think the same purpose can be served in many other ways: taking a break, going for a walk, playing sport, listening to or playing music, reading poetry, doing a crossword, or even just taking time out to socialize with your friends. Time spent sitting at your desk isn’t guaranteed to be productive.

So, for what it’s worth here is my advice to new postgraduate students. Work hard. Enjoy the challenge. Listen to advice from your supervisor, but remember that the PhD is your opportunity to establish your own identity as a researcher. Above all, in the words of the Desiderata:

Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.

Never feel guilty about establishing a proper work-life balance. Having more than one dimension to your life will not only improve your well-being but also make you a better researcher.

5 Responses to “Why not doing research all the time can make you a better researcher”

  1. Phillip Helbig Says:

    Of course, I agree. The problem is that these days essentially number of papers and/or citations (probably counting wrong papers and citations to them as well) mostly determines who gets a job. The person with no life outside of science often gets it. He might later burn out, while the tortoise to his hare so to speak would actually have produced both more and better papers in the long run, but he probably will never get the chance.

    While I would like to spend more time on science, I wouldn’t like to spend all my time on it. I might not be the best cosmologist, but I have the most fun. 🙂

    Often when a well known scientist dies, I hear someone say “In today’s world, he never would have landed a permanent job”.

  2. Adrian Burd Says:

    Peter, that was a great post! I will quibble with one point though:

    “All the other research students seemed much cleverer and more confident than me.”

    Definitely not the case, though one might perceive it that way — self doubt and the “imposter syndrome” are so common in science. I think each of us felt the same about all our colleagues (I know I did, especially when this bright guy from Cambridge appeared on the scene!).

    I have to admit that moving from UCL to Cambridge to do the Part III was a significant, similar experience for me. Suddenly I went from being one of the top students to being just competent. I could do all the work, and enjoyed the material, but I had to work hard at it whereas others sailed through without breaking an intellectual sweat. I came to realize however, that having to work hard at understanding the material and solving problems gave me two advantages: firstly, I could explain things better because I had had to work hard at gaining that understanding, and secondly, that I often saw things that those who breezed through had missed. Realizing these things, together with the joy and fun I had (and still have) with science, made me stick with it.

  3. Phillip Helbig Says:

    self doubt and the “imposter syndrome” are so common in science

    Common, but not everyone suffers from them. Murray Gell-Mann said “If I have seen further than other men, it is because I am surrounded by dwarfs”. 😐

  4. Reblogged this on SENSE: Science Education as a Non-Sighted Experience and commented:
    There we go, I figured out how to reblog I actually wanted to but failed doing so in my “Research career” notice.

  5. Einstein stated on many occasions that playing the violin helped him think. I suspect this was for the same reason as described by Peter above, i.e., that music distracted him from the problem at hand.
    Of course, Einstein was lucky to have people to play chamber music with almost all his life (it’a hard to keep up practice on your own)….it doesn’t work for me!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: