That’s all fine, but how does one make sure their meta-analysis follows the adequate methodological rigor of the given domain unless they have a prior experience with research or an in-depth knowledge of such methods? Writing review articles may be easier, though writing books that will make an impact is yet again hard without already having research experience. I’ve noticed in the area of EA that for some reason there is a misconception concerning the research in humanities: everyone would agree that conducting natural sciences outside of an appropriate expert team or a research institution is almost impossible. Yet, people tend to assume that humanities are different. They are not. When it comes to using reliable methods, engaging with the relevant literature, making studies (even meta-analysis) that actually matter—all this is far from trivial and requires expertise. It’s extremely hard to weave through tons of information and uncover the one that actually matters, that should be reviewed, and then pushing that towards a finding that will actually make an impact. So when you say that autodidacts can plow through published texts and build on top of them- that’s not at all simple without having had experience with such research beforehand and knowing quite well:
how to sort through the given texts and order them according to relevance
how to assess the given texts (depending on the domain, one might need to acquire additional skills for this)
what exactly to write about to “build on top of that”: which standards should be employed in the given field so that they lead to an actual publication
etc.
So I’d say: regular supervision (even if remote) for any pre-doc is extremely important. As well as having funds to attend the relevant events in the field where one can get feedback on their work.
That’s all fine, but how does one make sure their meta-analysis follows the adequate methodological rigor of the given domain unless they have a prior experience with research or an in-depth knowledge of such methods? Writing review articles may be easier, though writing books that will make an impact is yet again hard without already having research experience. I’ve noticed in the area of EA that for some reason there is a misconception concerning the research in humanities: everyone would agree that conducting natural sciences outside of an appropriate expert team or a research institution is almost impossible. Yet, people tend to assume that humanities are different. They are not. When it comes to using reliable methods, engaging with the relevant literature, making studies (even meta-analysis) that actually matter—all this is far from trivial and requires expertise. It’s extremely hard to weave through tons of information and uncover the one that actually matters, that should be reviewed, and then pushing that towards a finding that will actually make an impact. So when you say that autodidacts can plow through published texts and build on top of them- that’s not at all simple without having had experience with such research beforehand and knowing quite well:
how to sort through the given texts and order them according to relevance
how to assess the given texts (depending on the domain, one might need to acquire additional skills for this)
what exactly to write about to “build on top of that”: which standards should be employed in the given field so that they lead to an actual publication etc. So I’d say: regular supervision (even if remote) for any pre-doc is extremely important. As well as having funds to attend the relevant events in the field where one can get feedback on their work.