Recently I read a blog entry in which a politically-active person described how they’re responding to current political events. His advice also works well for those of us with stalled projects. First,
Action is the antidote.
Hope is the consequence of action.
Stalled projects are burdens when we’re frozen. Any action is good, even if that action is to kill the project.
36371 The Attack on America and Civil Liberties Trade-Offs: A Three-Wave National Panel Survey, 2001-2004 http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36371.v1
36622 Johns Hopkins University Prevention Research Center – Risks for Transitions in Drug Use Among Urban Adults, Baltimore City, 2008-2011 http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36622.v1
36652 Afrobarometer Round 6: The Quality of Democracy and Governance in Burkina Faso, 2015 http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36652.v1
36662 Eurobarometer 82.2: Quality of Transport, Cyber Security, Value Added Tax, and Public Health, October 2014 http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36662.v1
36666 Eurobarometer 83.2: Perception of Security, Civil Protection, and Humanitarian Aid, March 2015 http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36666.v1
Morgan Housel of the Collaborative Fund posted some interesting observations from a lifetime of investing. Here’s a useful exercise: what if we graded each potential research topic – or our entire research life – from the perspective of a professional investor?
For instance, he notes:
I’ve learned that having your views confirmed is a powerful and addictive drug.
That one surely tells us something about the frailties inherent in traditional hypothesis testing.
I’ve learned that telling the difference between patience and stubbornness is incredibly hard.
I have experienced that one with numerous projects that I refused to drop even when past their “sell by” date.
Almost every one of his points has a similar analogue. Comments are closed but let me know if you find any of Morgan’s views helpful over on Twitter at @abwhitford.
Imagine journals publish two types of papers. One appears in a regular issue, loosely connected to other papers that survived peer review at roughly the same point in time. The other type appears in a symposium so it’s connected to the other papers through a thematic focus and is curated by the special editor that convened the event.
In a world populated by an increasing number of complex, specialized papers, which publication model do you value more?
There are many arguments to be made on each side. Symposia cut search costs. They increase the potential benefits of cross-paper fertilization. Regular issues are more likely to include niche topics, but are they more likely to include high-risk research?
Some journals value symposia out of the belief they work better in the chase for impact factors. Others shy away out of the belief that the within-issue quality can be low (though there may be ways to limit that).
I’m undecided, but I do believe the debate will continue with an increasing number of papers submitted to a fixed number of journals. At the individual level, I’ve always worried more about my research portfolio, and so focused on diversification. I suspect there are aggregate effects of symposia that we don’t discuss much.
Did I miss an argument for or against symposia? Comments are closed but you can let me know on Twitter at @abwhitford.
A quick bleg based on a trend I’m noticing these days. I’m seeing CFPs for OB topics in public management on a regular basis. Have any journals hosted symposia for organization theory papers recently? And when I say OT I’m thinking true theory development papers – not statistical models, experiments, etc.
I’m sure they’re out there. Comments are closed but please feel free to educate me via Twitter at @abwhitford.
- Researchers who include interviews or other types of fieldwork in their dissertation projects are more likely to discover hidden or novel quantitative datasets. Researchers with quantitative skills are more likely to be extract useful information from those sorts of datasets.
- Getting hired requires satisfying diverse constituencies. It’s good to have many ways to talk with the people you meet during interviews. Some of those constituencies will probably value fieldwork.
- The dissertation is like a rehearsal – it’s an opportunity to rehearse, in a large-scale project, all of those methods you learned in class. Why emphasize only a subset?
Are there other, less-particularistic reasons? Comments are closed but feel free to respond to me on Twitter at @abwhitford.