[കേ.ശാ.സാ.പ] Re: Our research centres

Deepak,

Some problems, for eg say the "Navier Stokes Eqn" are still not solved(even
after 100s of years), and it might require a lifetime of effort with zero
papers to solve it. And still it may remain unsolved. The "number of papers"
criteria will make sure that such problems are remains unsolved.

The thing is, in US (and many places in India and elsewhere), the academic
and research scenarios have become so "industrialised" that the funding you
get is proportional to the papers you have. So are academic positions(with
exceptions). Naturally, people will try to choose topics which have more
probability of producing more papers, in a short span of time. If there are
two branches, one of whose state-of-art is such that anything and everything
called research would have chance of becoming a paper, and the other, to
accomplish some serious result one needs years of work, most would prefer
the first branch of research, due to fears of survival. The number of papers
that could be published per unit time is not the criteria based on which
science should progress.

If Grigory Perelman had gone after the "Publish or Perish" spree, I dont
think he would have solved the Poincare's conjecture problem.

"so, publication list (how good rather than how long) is the single most
important factor to rate a researcher"

Well, quality vs quantity, I have to agree. But who actually cares? One, who
believes in "publish or perish", might have 10 papers during his PhD, and
the other might have cared to publish only one paper, for the same content.
I dont have a doubt on who will get preference out of them, for, say a
post-doc or academic position.

Of course, in the case of the Research institutes of Kerala (as the topic of
original discussion), I dont think these things would apply. International
journal publications would certainly raise the standard of research, and it
should be encouraged, in our Institutes. But if someone wants to do research
in a not-so-quickly-rewarding area, then she too should be supported.
Science demands that for progress.

Arun

On 5/24/07, deepak p <deepakp7_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would seriously object to the first point that you raise.. If you
> restrict to the best conferences/journals, you cannot "publish for the sake
> of publishing" and thats what *peer review* means. the publish of perish
> phenomenon is a pain in the context of tenure seeking assistant professors
> in the US and because tenure has become such a big thing to attain.. not in
> other cases.. (even the phrase exists because of the tenure thing) i think
> anybody would agree that "if you are not publishing, you are not doing great
> work" is the order of the day.. to do great work and not publish is
> unethical, because u r hiding things from the scientific community.. if
> results are not valuable, they wont be accepted in premier
> conferences/journals.. so, publication list (how good rather than how
> long) is the single most important factor to rate a researcher.. i dont
> think anybody can deny that..
>
> On 5/24/07, Arun Shivanandan <arun.shivanandan_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Deepak,
> >
> > 1. The pressure of publishing often would undermine a researcher's
> > research. It affects the freedom of the researcher, and it often leads to
> > "publishing for the sake of publishing". Publish or Perish<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publish_or_perish>has been under great criticism from the scientific community, I understand.
> > Somebody who is working on something really great, may take years to
> > come to some conclusion, or may reach no valuable conclusion at all (that is
> > science). The demand for "results" (=papers) will prompt researchers to look
> > for short-term "valuable" results, certainly affecting science as it is.
> >
> > 2. While researchers are entitled to make a living of "researching", the
> > primary thing that should have taken them to that job should be an interest
> > to do research, and not the "job" that it offers. Unfortunately, I believe,
> > in many of the research/academic institutions in our state, the situation is
> > as Sasi had pointed out.
> >
> > Arun
> >
> > On 5/24/07, deepak p < deepakp7_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I would object to many points here.
> > >
> > > Cutting Edge Research is important and Scholarly publications are
> > > important. I do not understand why Sasi plays down the importance of
> > > publications. That is the way the scientific community has grown over
> > > decades and centuries and the process has evolved over centuries to reach
> > > the present situation. I wont (not do I think anybody in the scientific
> > > community would) buy the argument that "Research that matters to the
> > > immediate society" and "Publishable Research" are conflicting directions. If
> > > anybody is doing non-publishable (lower quality) research, thats bad and
> > > cannot advance the state-of-the-art.
> > >
> > > Btw, once again, I hate to come back to this point again. How can u
> > > criticise that >>being a scientist is a job.<< its a reality, people cant do
> > > research all their life and not earn anything out of it. Research is
> > > livelihood for scientists. If you say that people should do research and
> > > ensure that he/she gets no monetary benefit out of it, its not going to
> > > happen. A scientist's job is like any other job in that it should earn
> > > him/her money. Building knowledge is the major concern, but you should be
> > > able to earn ur livelihood by doing that. Doing research in "isolation" is
> > > the last thing any scientist would want to do.
> > >
> > > Deepak
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/24/07, V. Sasi Kumar <sasi.fsf_at_gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 07:00 +0530, Benny Kuriakose wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > When we talk about creativity, many of our research
> > > > > institutions do not have an environment which encourages
> > > > > creativity. The buildings are so badly designed so that
> > > > even
> > > > > the interaction between the scientists become a rarity.
> > > > Each
> > > > > one is an island of its own.
> > > >
> > > > When constructing buildings for research institutes, people want to
> > > > stick to designs that are seen elsewhere. Scientists are averse to
> > > > look
> > > > at new ideas -- CDS is a rare exception. In fact, I think the
> > > > scientific
> > > > community here, in general, is more resistant to change than the
> > > > general
> > > > public. This is my experience in the case of Free Software too.
> > > >
> > > > > In any research institution, they should deal with
> > > > important
> > > > > issues which are relevant in the present context.
> > > > > Unfortunately this does not happen. ... Our scientists and
> > > > > engineers are talented, but somehow they do not get
> > > > involved
> > > > > with current issues and problems. I have heard in many
> > > > forums
> > > > > that we are only academics or researchers and we have done
> > > > our
> > > > > duty.
> > > >
> > > > This is a result of the emphasis on publishing in "international"
> > > > journals and doing "cutting edge" research. I am not saying that
> > > > these
> > > > are not good. But science everywhere grew based on local needs. And
> > > > these needs need not always call for cutting edge research. We need
> > > > both
> > > > so that we can solve our problems on the one hand and keep up with
> > > > global research on the other. On many occasions, I find that the our
> > > > research institutes lack a proper direction. CESS, for example,
> > > > started
> > > > with the aim of working on earth science related problems especially
> > > > in
> > > > Kerala, including building up a database. At that time, much of the
> > > > funding for research came from the state government. After its own
> > > > campus was built, this funding came down and scientists had to
> > > > approach
> > > > agencies like the DST, CSIR and ISRO for research funds. This meant
> > > > that
> > > > the work had to be oriented towards the aims of these agencies. Then
> > > > came the idea of "taking science to the people" and everyone was
> > > > asked
> > > > to do resource mapping. Later, the emphasis was shifted to making
> > > > money
> > > > through consultancies and there was pressure on every scientist to
> > > > do
> > > > consultancy. In many meetings, the money earned by each Division was
> > > >
> > > > shown and those who fell behind were urged to make more money. Then
> > > > came
> > > > Dr. Valiathan who said that cutting edge research should be done and
> > > > international publications are important. Thus, the aims kept on
> > > > changing every few years. How can an institute grow in this kind of
> > > > environment?
> > > >
> > > > > The kind of education that we have in the engineering
> > > > colleges
> > > > > and other institutions do not create an environment for
> > > > > research. In fact, many of the student research projects
> > > > can
> > > > > be converted into useful studies and have practical
> > > > > applications.
> > > >
> > > > Moreover, at least till recently, schools and colleges very
> > > > systematically destroyed any natural inquisitiveness and creativity
> > > > that
> > > > children had. A few who retained these were largely attracted
> > > > towards
> > > > high paying jobs that needed neither.
> > > >
> > > > > The urge to do first class work is lacking in many of our
> > > > > scientists and engineers. Various reasons might be cited
> > > > for
> > > > > these, but the urge is also lacking.
> > > >
> > > > This is an important point. A person cannot become a scientist just
> > > > because s/he has been appointed to a post with that designation. We
> > > > need
> > > > to recruit people who are genuinely interested in research and give
> > > > them
> > > > freedom. Today we find many people in high positions in the
> > > > hierarchy of
> > > > scientifc administration who enjoy the status more than what they
> > > > can
> > > > gain from research. I would say that people genuinely interested in
> > > > research are rare in the hierarchy of science. Our scientific
> > > > advisor to
> > > > the Prime Minister claims to have published more than 1000 papers
> > > > and 36
> > > > books in his lifetime. This itself indicates how much contribution
> > > > he
> > > > has in these publications. I sometimes feel that the situation is
> > > > worse
> > > > than in politics.
> > > >
> > > > > Once some of our scientists become famous, they are all
> > > > into
> > > > > various committees and positions, their creative
> > > > contribution
> > > > > becomes much less.
> > > >
> > > > Their objective was to reach these positions, in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > > I have seen many of our scientists talking about the same
> > > > > issues which they had been talking even ten years ago,
> > > > with no
> > > > > newer ideas and inputs, which shows that they have not
> > > > done
> > > > > much during the last few years. It could also be true that
> > > > > they have changed the field of research, which is fine.
> > > > > We think that we need the best working conditions. But at
> > > > the
> > > > > same time, many of the significant works and contributions
> > > > > done by our researchers have taken place with very little
> > > > > resources and 'bad working conditions.'
> > > >
> > > > Those were bad physical conditions. But they used to have much more
> > > > freedom from bureaucracy.
> > > >
> > > > > Many of the scientists do not dream about their
> > > > research.
> > > > > Many people do this while they are doing their Ph.D, but
> > > > later
> > > > > on when they take research as a career, they forget these
> > > > > things. In KSSP we dream about many of the things that we
> > > > were
> > > > > doing.
> > > > > I think that many of the studies done by KSSP have been so
> > > > > relevant and successful because of the collective effort
> > > > > (discussions, interactions take place). One can understand
> > > >
> > > > > many of us who had got involved at various stages have
> > > > never
> > > > > been geniuses or experts in the particular field.
> > > >
> > > > This happened because it was not the job of anyone. People who had
> > > > the
> > > > interest did the job. Now, being a scientist is a job. And the pay
> > > > is
> > > > not bad. So a lot of people (who could not get into IT) apply and
> > > > the
> > > > smart ones get the job. That does not mean that s/he has genuine
> > > > interest in research. Once s/he gets the job, s/he tries to do the
> > > > appropriate things to go up the ladder. S/he dreams about authority,
> > > > power, fringe benefits. Not about building knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > > --
> > > > V. Sasi Kumar < sasi.fsf_at_gmail.com >
> > > > Free Software Foundation of India
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Deepak P
> > > http://deepakp7.googlepages.com/
> > >
> > >
> >
> > http://deepakp7.googlepages.com/
> > > >
> >

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Friends of KSSP" group.
To post to this group, send email to ksspexchange_at_googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ksspexchange-unsubscribe_at_googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ksspexchange?hl=ml
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on വ�യാ മെ 24 2007 - 14:42:08 IST