[കേ.ശാ.സാ.പ] Re: Our research centres

Deepak,
Your ignorance is your handicap, not mine!

Arun

On 5/24/07, deepak p <deepakp7_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You are digressing from the topic. I dont know or havent heard of either
> Stokes or Perlman.
>
> Are we talking about tenure or scholarships? Scholarships definitely
> depend on market value. You keep hopping from one topic to another and dont
> answer me.
>
> >>That is the best Industry can do about science<< Are we talkin about
> industry or academia? You keep hopping to another topic.
>
> And do u believe that we should wait for breakthroughs and assume that
> everybody is working on such problems which need a lifetime to solve and
> which do not result in intermediate papers? You talk about a lifetime's work
> and zero publications.. Give me an example, because I havent heard of such a
> problem. Non-publishable research is low quality research ( *period*)
>
>
> On 5/24/07, Arun Shivanandan <arun.shivanandan_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What abt selecting two problems in the same field, say theoretical
> > computer science? What abt the specific points i raised abt Navier stokes
> > and Grigory perelman?
> >
> > I personally know from friends that US Univs are promoting applied
> > sciences (and sciences which have more market value) over theoretical
> > science. Those working in theoretical fields, (number theory), are even
> > asked to leave the university, since dont have a number of papers to his
> > credit!! The fact that he is working on one of the toughest problems does
> > not merit a position there...!! Had he chose to do his work in cryptography
> > n security, he would have flooded with scholarships!!
> >
> > That is the best Industry can do about science. Academic & researchers
> > freedom are compromised. This is a fact.
> >
> >
> > (This happened in one of the best universities in the field, with a huge
> > legacy to its credit)
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________
> > On 5/24/07, deepak p <deepakp7_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I did not say numbers..
> > >
> > > >>
> > > 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.
> > > >>
> > >
> > > I would say that they would have equal preference.. for instance, comp
> > > sc theory phds typically publish much less as compared to a new area such as
> > > "wireless networking".. but people are judged by the quality of work.. i
> > > personally know people having wide disparities in publicatrion list sizes
> > > which really din matter at all..
> > >
> > > its certain primitive univs thaat enforce that people have to have a
> > > journal paper for their phd.. and they publish in nasty journals and still
> > > get phds..
> > >
> > > and to answer ayyappadas' comment.. quality journals and conferences
> > > are run by researchers passionate about their science.. and are not
> > > businesses.. i would be really surprised if somebody comes back after doing
> > > a PhD in the US and says that he felt that journals and conferences are
> > > businesses..
> > >
> > > i guess, scholarly publications and teaching quality are the single
> > > best criterion to analyze performance in educational institutions..
> > >
> > > i thought in an earlier thread, we were thinkin of ways in which these
> > > can be given more emphasis in asssessment of teachers.. i dont think any
> > > academician would agree that scholarly publications arent the key to the
> > > success of a researcher..
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/24/07, Arun Shivanandan <arun.shivanandan_at_gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > 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 - 16:41:58 IST