Learning styles, and the fallibility of grown ups - Sally's Journal
Learning styles, and the fallibility of grown ups|
|Date:||December 12th, 2005 12:57 pm (UTC)|| |
Extending your argument would state that reading other people's papers, and indeed doing experiments are procedural issues too, at which point you're just saying that the entire endeavour of doing research is "procedural issues".
If I'm a professional chef, then chopping carrots part of cooking, reading recipies is part of cooking, as well as dropping things into a hot pan for 20 minutes. Similarly, reading papers, writing up your findings, and presenting your work is as much research as having brilliant ideas is.
Extending your argument[...]
... leads to a great danger of presenting a straw-man argument. Reading journal articles is clearly a part of research - you can't advance the state of the art without knowing what it is - but learning (once!) how to write a literature review is professional training. Continuing your chef analogy, one might consider the things that have to be done once (learning what "Julienne" means for carrots) vs things that have to be done all the time (chopping carrots).
To sum up: I say that a PhD is mostly about learning how to do research professionally, not about doing research.
|Date:||December 12th, 2005 01:57 pm (UTC)|| |
Except that keeping up to date with your field, writing up your fidnings, and presenting your ideas are "things that have to be done all the time" and are very definitely part of the process which is called "research".
Learning how to write a literature review is not, usually, something done during a PhD. My undergraduate degree, for example, has three of them in.
|Date:||December 12th, 2005 03:49 pm (UTC)|| |
Three? I only had to do one when I did that degree. And now I have to do one during my PhD and I'm having to learn how to do it as well. (How do you?)