Feedback
FineprintD. Jensen (2007). "Myths of Research in Computer Science." Professionalism Seminar. Department of Computer Science. University of Massachusetts Amherst. September 19.
Doing effective research can be an extremely rewarding experience. However, gaining the knowledge necessary to do effective research can be difficult. Few undergraduates gain substantial experience or education about how to conduct research, and "on the job training" in graduate school can be a stressful process. In this seminar, I will discuss common perceptions about research in computer science. I will address a variety of myths, both explicit and implicit, about high-level strategy for planning research, mid-level tactics for conducting research, and low-level everyday habits of successful researchers.
A PDF version of the slides are available.
Kanigel, R. (1993). Apprentice to Genius: The Making of a Scientific Dynasty. Johns Hopkins University Press. Amazon
Simon, H. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press. Amazon
Tichy, W. (1998). Should computer scientists experiment more? IEEE Computer. May. 32-40. PDF
Loehle, C. (1990). A guide to increasing creativity in research - inspiration or perspiration? Bioscience 40:123-9. PDF
Oliver, J. (1991). The Incomplete Guide to the Art of Discovery. Columbia University Press. 0-231-07620-7. (208 pages). PDF
Cohen, P. (1995). Empirical Methods in Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press. Amazon
"Science is sometimes imagined as a great reservoir of knowledge growing progressively bigger as one largely interchangeable scientist after another tosses his or her contribution into the communal pot. Or, as Lord Florey, a past president of Britain's Royal Society, once had it, "science is rarely advanced by what is known in current jargon as a 'breakthrough,' rather does our increasing knowledge depend on the activity of thousands of our colleagues throughout the world who add small points to what will eventually become a splendid picture much in the same way the Pointillistes built up their extremely beautiful canvasses." Today, however, most observers of science do not accept this view, holding instead that a few scientists contribute out of all proportion to their numbers; that science amounts to two different worlds -- one practiced by a large rank-and-file, the other by a tiny elite. A few top scientists, they point out, discover vastly more, and publish vastly more, than most other scientists. Half of all scientific papers, it has been estimated, are the work of just ten or fifteen percent of all scientists. And the work of this prolific elite counts for more, too. Their papers make a bigger splash, being cited much more frequently -- twenty, thirty, or forty times more frequently -- than average." (Apprentice to Genius, p. 229-230)
"...the story, as it were, has been handed down with remarkable fidelity...Don't bother with the routine scientific problems, it might read. Leave them to others. Don't bother, either with big, fundamental problems that are simply not approachable with available techniques and knowledge; why beat your head against the wall? Half the battle is asking the right question at the right time -- when it's neither premature to tackle it, nor invites too obvious an answer, when the right methology is at hand, when enthusiasm is at its peak. And then, just do it. Don't spend all year in the library getting ready to do it. Don't wait until you've gotten all the boring little preparatory experiments out of the way. Don't worry about scientific controls, except the most rudimentary. Just go with your hunch, your scientific intuition, and isolate that simple, elegant, pointed experiment that will tell you in a flash whether you're on the right track." (Apprentice to Genius, p. 235)