Any insights into what constitutes good research management on the levels of (a) a facilitator helping a lab to succeed, and (b) an individual researcher managing himself (and occasional collaborators)?
Not sure I’ve developed any deep insights yet, but here are some things I find myself telling researchers (and myself) fairly often:
Consider a wide range of research ideas. It’s easy to get stuck in a local optimum. We often have people write out at least 5 research ideas and rate them on criteria like “fit, importance, excitement, tractability”, e.g. when they join as a GovAI Fellow. You should also have a list of research ideas that you periodically look through.
Think about what output you’re aiming at from the start. It will determine the style, what literature you need to read, length, etc. Reworking a piece from one style to another can often take up to 20 hours.
Make outlines often and early. This will help you be clear about what your argument is. Also, start writing earlier than you feel comfortable with. Often, things feel much clearer in your head than they actually are.
If you have a high barrier to start writing, find ways to lower it. You can write outlines, dictate, say it out loud to a friend, set a timer during which you’re just allowed to write, no editing.
Discuss your ideas with others often. I find that a lot of good thinking, in particular on how to frame something, comes from discussion. Just the act of putting your thoughts into words helps.
Clear writing is hugely valuable. A lot of research gets less attention than it deserves because it takes too much effort to parse. Trying to write clearly will also often highlight complexities or problems with your argument that can be hidden in unclear prose.
Don’t reinvent the wheel. There’s been a lot of smart people trying to figure out things about the world before you. Make a proper effort to try to find their writings and learn from them.
Quality over quantity. The impact of research is probably heavy-tailed, and we have okay means to tell the quality of a piece ex ante.
If you’re just starting out, find ways to work closely with people you can learn from. To do this, it’s much easier to support some senior person’s current agenda, rather than convincing them to help you on your research ideas. That way, they will very clearly get value out of working with you, and you’ll get an inside view into their research intuitions. For example, I think working as a research assistant to a great researcher is one of the best ways you can learn the ropes.
As a facilitator of research, there’s also a bunch of common sense things you can do: Set deadlines for people, organise talks, connect people with the right people.
There’s a lot I could say about feedback, but I’ll just say some things on how to ensure you actually get the feedback you need. Often this is difficult as the people whose feedback is most valuable to you have a lot of things pulling at their time.
Make it easy. Give people instructions about what parts they should focus on, what questions you want them to think about etc. You can also pull out specific questions where you think they have expertise and just send those along.
Be accommodating. Some people find it much less costly to give feedback after having listened to you give a talk or prefer giving feedback over a call. Others prefer doing everything via text.
Any insights into what constitutes good research management on the levels of (a) a facilitator helping a lab to succeed, and (b) an individual researcher managing himself (and occasional collaborators)?
Thanks Misha!
Not sure I’ve developed any deep insights yet, but here are some things I find myself telling researchers (and myself) fairly often:
Consider a wide range of research ideas. It’s easy to get stuck in a local optimum. We often have people write out at least 5 research ideas and rate them on criteria like “fit, importance, excitement, tractability”, e.g. when they join as a GovAI Fellow. You should also have a list of research ideas that you periodically look through.
Think about what output you’re aiming at from the start. It will determine the style, what literature you need to read, length, etc. Reworking a piece from one style to another can often take up to 20 hours.
Make outlines often and early. This will help you be clear about what your argument is. Also, start writing earlier than you feel comfortable with. Often, things feel much clearer in your head than they actually are.
If you have a high barrier to start writing, find ways to lower it. You can write outlines, dictate, say it out loud to a friend, set a timer during which you’re just allowed to write, no editing.
Discuss your ideas with others often. I find that a lot of good thinking, in particular on how to frame something, comes from discussion. Just the act of putting your thoughts into words helps.
Clear writing is hugely valuable. A lot of research gets less attention than it deserves because it takes too much effort to parse. Trying to write clearly will also often highlight complexities or problems with your argument that can be hidden in unclear prose.
Don’t reinvent the wheel. There’s been a lot of smart people trying to figure out things about the world before you. Make a proper effort to try to find their writings and learn from them.
Quality over quantity. The impact of research is probably heavy-tailed, and we have okay means to tell the quality of a piece ex ante.
If you’re just starting out, find ways to work closely with people you can learn from. To do this, it’s much easier to support some senior person’s current agenda, rather than convincing them to help you on your research ideas. That way, they will very clearly get value out of working with you, and you’ll get an inside view into their research intuitions. For example, I think working as a research assistant to a great researcher is one of the best ways you can learn the ropes.
As a facilitator of research, there’s also a bunch of common sense things you can do: Set deadlines for people, organise talks, connect people with the right people.
There’s a lot I could say about feedback, but I’ll just say some things on how to ensure you actually get the feedback you need. Often this is difficult as the people whose feedback is most valuable to you have a lot of things pulling at their time.
Make it easy. Give people instructions about what parts they should focus on, what questions you want them to think about etc. You can also pull out specific questions where you think they have expertise and just send those along.
Be accommodating. Some people find it much less costly to give feedback after having listened to you give a talk or prefer giving feedback over a call. Others prefer doing everything via text.
I found this answer very interesting—thanks!
On feedback, I also liked and would recommend these two recent posts:
Asking for advice
Giving and receiving feedback