What's your research process?

[ndlek21]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi all,
I'm really curious, for those of you who are currently involved in research or who have been in the past, what does your process look like? How are you thinking about and reading the literature, conceptualizing your studies, forming questions that are both interesting/important and testable..?
I'm almost done with my senior thesis which was pretty much entirely thought up and designed by me (under supervision)...but I still feel intimidated, and like I could have done something so much better had I started it all differently. I read a lot of articles and I feel like I have a good sense of what I want to study and know more about, but when it gets down to actually formulating hypotheses and conceptualizing a research design, I get really overwhelmed...
Anyone want to share? I know it's something developed over time, or at least that's what my mentors tell me...but I'm interested in what you all have to say.

 

[Ollie123]

..but I still feel intimidated, and like I could have done something so much better had I started it all differently.

The overwhelmed will go away, the latter part won't.

I discussed this with one of my co-mentors awhile back. He said he still feels this way, even when closing out a large study that got published in a top-tier journal and he was given a grant for several million dollars to do. Hindsight is always 20/20 - whether you are a research rookie or at the top of your field.

As for your question, its a tough one to answer. I don't have a system. I read articles. I think about things. I read more articles. I decide "Hey that sounds cool" and start piecing something together. I'm partial to more exploratory research - pays high dividends when it pans out (or so I keep telling myself), but none of mine has yet so I have some regrets on that front. I've yet to have a study come out remotely cleanly, and am jealous of those who somehow always seem to have clean findings even when their ideas seem like long-shots too.

I don't think there is any magic to it. Sometimes you'll read an article and see an obvious gap in the literature that one study could fill, which is fantastic. Review articles are often good sources for identifying broader themes and areas that need more work. More often though, I think its just about getting familiar with an area, building off other people's work, and continuing to build off your own work.

 

[weeblewobble]

Hi all,
I'm really curious, for those of you who are currently involved in research or who have been in the past, what does your process look like? How are you thinking about and reading the literature, conceptualizing your studies, forming questions that are both interesting/important and testable..?
I'm almost done with my senior thesis which was pretty much entirely thought up and designed by me (under supervision)...but I still feel intimidated, and like I could have done something so much better had I started it all differently. I read a lot of articles and I feel like I have a good sense of what I want to study and know more about, but when it gets down to actually formulating hypotheses and conceptualizing a research design, I get really overwhelmed...
Anyone want to share? I know it's something developed over time, or at least that's what my mentors tell me...but I'm interested in what you all have to say.

I'm not sure I have any one process. I tend to get really excited about something, go look up lots of stuff about it, slowly make my way through articles, and then at some point think, okay, but what am I going to do about all this? There's usually a whole lot of pockets in a given area of literature- so much we don't know and can't know because methods haven't advanced and studies haven't been replicated and generalized and so on. The way I tend to think about is, where do I want to go longterm with this area? Since I'm more interested in systemic processes and intervention, a lot of the time what I want longterm is big and impactful (e.g., figure out how to improve X services so Y group have reduced hospitalizations) but I need to start out smaller. So my research questions stem from the idea that if improving services so that people are hospitalized less is my goal, I should do a study filling in the next step in this area of lit so that we can get closer to that goal. Obviously it's sort of a mixed bag as to whether the things I think will be helpful in the longterm are, but I find that thinking about how to progress the lit as a whole is useful because otherwise I'll start in the wrong place- either something that's already covered sufficiently or something that isn't really ready to be studied because the foundation research hasn't been laid.

I don't know anyone who has an organized system. I know a lot of people who read endlessly because it's hard to figure out when you've read "enough" about any one area. I imagine it's better to know more than less, but there's no perfect system, no perfect way to gauge if you've read enough or picked the right methods or analysis. I do think that I've gotten better at both digesting research and creating research, but the things I do now are hardly perfect and even studies I did 6 months ago I know I could have done better. I doubt that will ever change.

 

[Pragma]

You're question is really broad. I think it is hard for most people to explain where their creativity or unique ideas come from - they may follow some sequence for some or just be insight for others.

As for going about reading/absorbing/learning, that's also unique for many people. I personally hate taking notes and categorizing things unless I am writing a paper (then it is helpful to organize information more - yes some people might like to be more proactive about it, but I think it's a drag). I tend to read, reflect, and discuss things in contexts outside of academia. Actually, if I have any secret - it would be that. I value practicality and most of my research demonstrates that. A good barometer for practicality for me is if I can explain the idea pretty easily to my buddies over a beer or to my wife while we're out to dinner. If they can understand it AND they aren't bored, then it must be a good idea I think your intended audience matters, and even if it is the scientific community, there should be some practical significance to it. Otherwise, what do I tell my inlaws? 🙂

I'm also a big fan of getting to know the population that you work with and doing things outside of a formal research context. I come from a setting with a heavier emphasis on applied research - so seeing what is already happening out there is important, whether you do that through advocacy efforts, volunteering, talking to your clinical patients, etc. On the flip side, research meetings can be very stimulating and I think it's a great idea to bring in non-academics to contribute to the discussion about important issues. Such collaborations are more meaningful than some dude/dudette hanging out in the ivory tower, pondering, and considering most of their subsequent ideas to be a stroke of genius. As Ollie mentioned, a lack of collaboration does not reflect contemporary science.

 

[ndlek21]

Thank you so much for the great responses. I know it was a broad and difficult question to answer, but all of the information you gave was extremely helpful. Maybe "process" wasn't the best word to use because it isn't really a systematic set of actions that magically lead to a meaningful research question. I guess "approach" or something along those lines would have been better.

But thanks a bunch -- I love this site. 😍

 

[54321]

Good question. I would echo others that I think it's pretty individual to each person. I tend to come up with my overall idea through just reading articles I think are interesting and piecing together new questions I'd like to answer. For actual writing, I think about how I'd like to frame my argument and try to tailor my lit search from there, often considering what an outsider reviewer would want to know. The part I struggle with a lot though is not getting side-tracked by new interesting things I read and either going off into new tangent projects or trying to make my project too broad in scope to incorporate everything. Anyone else struggle with this have any good strategies?