Doctorate Programs And Those Concerns On The Long And Arduous Road Of Academic
Academic career, besides general difficulties, also has many specific difficulties such as being more lonely, more easily falling into psychological crisis.
As far as I’ve observed, the word “doctorate” (hereinafter abbreviated as PhD) seems to be associated with positive and sympathetic notions. We think of them as highly knowledgeable, well-researched, and experienced in academia. I don’t know when this prejudice started, and on what basis, but for me, PhD (as well as research in general) is somewhat romanticized.
Image of a scientist in a white coat, holding a test tube, looking through a microscope, shouting “Eureka!” and find the formulas that change humanity; or the mad scientists who invented the button to destroy the earth… movies and the media have succeeded in imprinting images that either impress, or create fear with the research community in the subconscious of many people. But, like so many other professions, only a tiny fraction of the academic and research professions are elite, and attractive. With a little experience in the academic world, I would like to share some perspectives on studying for a PhD as well as the research and academic world in general.
Small note: the information in this post comes from the perspective of a person working in the social sciences. And like any other sharing posts, the perspective of this article is heavily based on personal experience.
I. About research in general.
1. Research — a giant leap for one person; a tiny step for mankind.
As mentioned above, perhaps many people envision doing research as finding breakthroughs, changing social life and human civilization. In fact, not every piece of research — or every researcher — can help create a revolution. In contrast, the vast majority of studies deal with very small areas or very specific cases. Such as “Study on psychological factors affecting the behavior of using social networks on adolescents aged 16–22 in Hanoi”. Although these limitations may not be mentioned in the title of the paper, the reader can certainly find them in the methods section, or its abstract.
To come up with a new theory, write an academic book, or make a truly groundbreaking discovery, scientists need to accumulate knowledge — through reading scholarly literature, as well as doing their own research — for decades, sometimes it even takes a full career of accumulation. That’s not to say we shouldn’t have big goals when it comes to scientific research. This limitation does not come from the researcher’s ambition; it is a matter of natural objectivity, such as the limitation of the capacity to bear an excessive amount of information and knowledge in a given time frame. Topics with extremely narrow and specific frameworks take months of thorough research, especially for inexperienced researchers like PhDs. Therefore, researchers need to recognize this limitation to avoid falling behind in projects that cannot be implemented (at least within their capabilities and limited resources and time).
2. Research — you need to be stubborn.
Researching can be compared to building a house alone, and the person doing the research is an architect, a mason, a plumber, and a demolisher.
First, we need to draw a design: what is the topic of the article, in which field and which group of knowledge and research; what is the main question the study will answer; the article needs to build models and methods of research, how to survey or conclude… Importantly, after summarizing all considerations, is it an article worth pursuing or not. These are things to clarify before going into the details; because while the final product may not be exactly what was originally planned, each research is still a significant investment in terms of time and effort — not to mention salary and other associated costs. Therefore, wasting or “just try it” is not an option.
After having a framework for the article, the researcher has to go into every detail, with a completely different approach from the “architect” perspective. A typical example is reading academic literature: when framing an idea, the writer must read from the perspective of understanding the industry in general, to see what topics the industry is worth to research, which areas are lacking and can have many ideas to contribute, as well as ideas that can be used for the article; on the contrary, when it comes to details, the researcher needs to read to find details and information, read to find evidence for his assertion or argument, read to know what he should read… One article leads to another, and so on and so forth, falling into the rabbit hole is a common occurrence.
As a result, reading literature takes up a significant portion of research writing time. It is not uncommon to sit and read all day just to write a paragraph of 3–4 lines. And because the academic literature is so dense — a single, full-quoted passage can take up to an entire day to source and fully understand, it’s not possible for the research writer to remember all of the information contained in it. Whether it is taking notes of information or highlighting documents, reading and re-reading a document from many different perspectives, or re-reading it because you forgot the idea, often happens.
The meticulousness — and at times boredom — doesn’t just come from finding ideas and supporting arguments. To build a complete house, technical elements such as electricity, water, fiber-optic internet… are indispensable. Similarly, research also needs to go into specific details that are very technical and time consuming to elaborate. For example, a quantitative research needs to go through steps such as building a model, choosing an appropriate survey or data collection plan, as well as choosing the right methods and tools to process the data. If information is collected through interviews, the researcher also needs to carefully transcribe the interview content into writing, then choose an appropriate quantification method. For every 10 minutes of interviewing, it takes 2 to 3 hours to take notes in writing.
All of these steps need to be based on strict criteria: why choose this set of questions, has this question set been tested by previous studies or not; if it is a new method why is it a good method; whether the method of data processing or quantification is standard; what metrics should be reported to prove the model worked correctly and the results were reasonable, and so on. All of this information must be read, taught, or learned through training, in order to be used correctly. More and more new methods are available to compensate for the shortcomings of old data processing methods, or to make niche necessary measurements. Even those at the professorial level don’t fully grasp new research methods, and the learning process is never-ending.
Even after all that good work was done, the researcher had to manually demolish his unfinished house. That’s because a study, before it can be published, needs to go through many rounds of criticism. From self-criticism, peer-review in research groups, peer-review in scientific conferences, then the final step with reviewers when publishing in scientific journals. Each step of such criticism is a time when the research paper receives merciless “attack” from the opposite side.
When receiving such feedback, the researcher must strike a balance between staying the course, accepting contributions, and improving his or her writing. In most cases, these contributions are useful, and the researcher has to regretfully correct the parts he has worked hard to research and write properly. The same is true when it comes to writing a research paper: only a fraction of the research effort reaches the end product. Many ideas, models, even chapters that have already been written, have to be deleted or fundamentally changed.
However, sometimes researchers have to stand their ground. Because, frankly, the person who understands the field and research the most is the person who wrote it. Researchers, especially young postgraduates or PhD students, need to overcome their “fear of authority” and reject the objections or suggestions of those with higher degrees — or even from their own direct mentors. Not to mention not being able to please everyone. Every study, no matter how precise and complete, cannot cover all the perspectives, all the theories to explain the phenomenon it is considering. Research writers may be self-aware of these shortcomings, and often include a short paragraph at the end of the paper to indicate the limitations of the research, what it has achieved and what not, also suggestions to expand or improve your articles and research areas.
II. PhD level.
In this section, I will talk about the PhD level (PhD student/candidate, the process of studying/researching to get a doctorate).
First, I need to describe my PhD study so that people can understand where my perspective comes from. Even though I call it a student, I still get paid from the university’s research fund — most of which comes from the government’s research development fund. To start studying, I also need to pass the application round, interview like any other normal job. During my 4 years of study, I need to learn methods and publish research, following an overarching topic, guided by the professor’s direction. Finally, I will need to defend my thesis, which is made up of the aforementioned studies.
1. PhD — internship for an academic career.
For me, a PhD is just like an internship for a career in academic research, and a PhD is a certificate that a person has the basic abilities to do research in a formal way. I think so because the PhD level is the first step in scientific research — that’s why this level still needs a professor’s guidance. There is so much to learn, to trial and error. All the steps of building a house that I described above, a PhD student has to go through officially for the first time. Therefore, it is inevitable to be overwhelmed and disoriented at first.
Not only bring overburden from doing research directly, PhD students — because they are still young in the profession — also have a headache with other questions and doubts. The typical question of someone entering academia is “what topic am I going to work on?”. The question sounds simple but includes many other factors: what industry will the topic I write be related to, what concepts and definitions will be used in that industry; What is the appropriate scope of the article? Even within a narrow field of research there are hundreds, if not thousands, of studies, with each study leading to dozens of others. Every time I know one more thing, I discover 10 more that I didn’t know. So the more you learn, the more stupid you get, literally.
Next, continue to have a headache about whether the topic you write is necessary or not? When submitting your first ideas, the question is always “what is this article for?”. That’s because a study must both build on prior knowledge and make new contributions to the field of study. It is impossible to choose a desultory topic to write about. At the same time, if the article does not have new contributions and ideas, what is its role in the end? Even in meta-analysis or literature reviews (which synthesize previous studies), authors need to add their own contributions and merits, not just list them and consider it a done deal.
There is one thing that few people think about when talking about academic writing, and that is the attractiveness of the article. In order to reach more people, the article not only needs to have complete and accurate information, but also needs to be as seamless as an argumentative essay. Therefore, in the final steps of writing the article, the author always has to put himself in the position of the reader, to see if the main idea of the article has been presented in a succinct and understandable way; or see if the connections between ideas and paragraphs are logical and easy to read. Even the words and content put on the title and the abstract need to be chosen with the purpose of attracting readers, convincing them to read the whole article and absorb, utilize the content they have written.
For PhD students, especially in the beginning, all of the above comes to mind at the same time. In fact, no matter how much you study, these feelings and problems persist. However, as we gain more research experience, we gradually get used to them and accept them as a natural and inseparable part of academic research. Thus, completing a PhD is not only a testament to the hard work of learning, writing and criticizing, but also a process of developing skills and ways of thinking. Typically, predicting at what steps the writing process will be difficult and how to solve them; or a change in the approach to one’s own knowledge, being aware of one’s own shortcomings but not being too tormented or pressured about not knowing everything; or psychological stability when own products are criticized by people who are better and more experienced than themselves.
2. PhD — for those who like to be alone.
I often joke that since doing my PhD, every year I have about… 2 to 3 social meetings — all of them are seminars. Most of the time in those seminars, my mind is only thinking about how I will present my research paper, whether there will be any problems; and then after the presentation is finished, what feedback will be received, remember to record all the criticisms to improve your writing. But anyway, the seminars are also an opportunity to meet colleagues from all over the world, building relationships in addition to expanding knowledge. It is an enjoyable experience.
Still, a PhD — or academic research in general — seems to be the job for those who prefer solitude. Most of my work time is looking at paper, notebook, or computer screen; reading documents, organizing documents, and writing articles. Such lack of communication comes from the very nature of the work: despite being colleagues, each person is only interested in his own research and has very little attention to the work of others. In other words, two people are just colleagues in the usual sense if working on the same project, or on the same topic group. Everyone works in a different framework, with different knowledge and methods. To briefly understand another PhD student’s writing to share and talk about work with each other is also an effort.
People in the industry are like that, explaining to outsiders about their work is even more difficult. Do you know how to describe your job? I get paid to sit and read a lot of material, and write a little bit based on what I learn. A little bit about business administration, a little bit about entrepreneurship, a little bit about psychology, a little bit about macro management… If doing interdisciplinary research, it can be even more difficult to explain.
Therefore, when choosing to pursue a PhD degree, learners must determine that they will be lost in the middle of a space where it is almost impossible to communicate and share their work in a specific way with anyone. Accompanying it is a lot of heartache that is difficult to share with people who do not have the same job characteristics.
3. PhD and psychological crisis.
Perhaps when it comes to doing research, few think of it as a mentally and psychologically abrasive job. There is a saying “to live by the sword and die by the sword”. Like craftsmen who often injure their hands, or symphony orchestra musicians who have hearing problems, the profession of research — with its peculiarity of working with the mind, besides allowing the researcher to actively accumulate knowledge, also causes many very specific problems.
The most common stressor in academia is “publish or perish” — the mechanism that forces academia to publish, as it is a measure of productivity, as well as a ticket for them to take the next steps in their academic careers. Fortunately, this pressure is not really great at the PhD level, because the school’s expectation is still to learn and practice research skills, instead of chasing the number when the knowledge is still lacking. However, PhD students face other equally stressful concerns.
For example, when you are a baker and you make 300 delicious breads every day, you know well what you can do and contribute to the community and society. However, when your job is to read and write (read a lot, write very little), things are not so clear and specific.
Imagine that after about 6 months of hard reading, building and defending your ideas, your article is still only a few pages short. The idea is still scattered, and has not run a decent model; You’re not even sure if this is an article worth pursuing to the end. Everyone — including the instructor — said this was completely normal. But you can’t stop thinking, “Is this what I’m doing with my life? Why can’t anything good come out of this? Why am I so bad?”
A lot of PhD students — especially at PhD level, where the professional age is still low — fall into this mindset (and I am no exception). Most of it is just fleeting, but sometimes this thought is so strong that I think of myself as a useless social parasite. Product specificity of research is difficult to measure, nor can it be compared equally with other studies — let alone with products of other industries. Under this pressure, many young PhD students succumb to the stress and give up — even when they have the mental capacity to complete their dissertation on time.
However, it is also from these emotional experiences that postgraduates learn persistence and patience — the most important of which is being patient with yourself. No matter how big a job is, every day, just add it little by little, then one day, looking at the results, you will see that you have done monumental work.
So, if I could give advice to people who are about to enter a research career or start their PhD years, I would say that they will almost certainly experience panic, uncertainty, being lost and distrustful. However, research is a lengthy process. It is difficult to evaluate work results by day, by week, even by month. As long as you have a clear work plan and direction, put all your effort and dedication into the work, the results will gradually appear.
III. To end this article.
A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to go to the Prince Philip Science Museum — a large museum in Valencia, Spain. Here, besides the majestic architecture and beautiful shimmering exhibits, I was especially impressed with the display area of scientific awards, including the Nobel Prize. Although this museum is mostly composed of city and national scholars, it is still full of respect for scholars and their great contributions.
And there is a phrase that is repeated over and over on the certificates of merit and medals that are densely displayed on four walls:
“Thank you for your dedication to humanity”
None of the Nobel laureates are young, perhaps for a reason. Academic research is a very long endeavor — sometimes a lifetime, with countless silent sacrifices. However, I feel that amidst the multitude of adoration and honors we see everyday, the scholarly world seems to have sunk into oblivion.
When I re-read the article, I feel that the article is a bit inclined to the complaining part — this is not my intention when I write this article, because every profession has difficulties and hardships. I just hope that the above sharing helps you to visualize a little better about the research industry in general, and about the PhD level in particular, especially for those of you who are intending to pursue this path.
“Thank you for your dedication to humanity.”
