PhD's and people doing research. I need some advice.

[Elite Engineer]

So I've been doing research for a diagnostics company for a few months now. I've slowly been learning the in's and out's of the lab, the work flow, data analysis, running assays more cleanly, etc. The other day the Director of Research (my supervisor) pulled me aside and said I was doing well on lab performance, but I am lacking in knowledge about the flow of the project, and I need to ask more questions, read more about the machinery, protein research, and slowly prepare myself to becoming more independent in the lab etc. My supervisor is very rational, and I see the angle of what he's saying...he's not one of those bosses where someone says "he just told me to work harder"..no not the case. However, he tends to be vague with these kind of suggestions..and I know why, because he wants me to delve into the material and figure out for myself..which I 100% respect, and understand.

 

My question is for those of you who are in higher up positions in research, run labs, or just generally have experience in research, what do you suggest I do to make myself an overall better researcher? I'm trying to get familiar with everything and in-depth as fast and as much as possible. I do enjoy my work, and would like to become better.

 

To sum it up:I thought I was progressing well, with this being my first research job out of college. At the end of the discussion, he said "you're doing ok, about average, but I need you to be above average".

Thanks,

 

EE

[Bignose]

This sounds at least a little unfair. I'm not 100% sure if I got it right, but are you unable to do enough vs. what is expected? Was a schedule of what was expected laid out?

 

Part of the reason I think it is unfair is that people learn in different ways. Some people are very hands on, doers, and are the type of people who would ask questions almost to the point of annoyance. Others are more theoretical, quiet, and book learning. If you are being judged on your question asking, then this may be a bit unfair.

 

But, if you have specific performance goals you have to hit, and those are spelled out, then I think that that is fair. And part of learning how to be a good researcher is teaching yourself how to achieve those goals. Be that by asking a lot of questions or doing your own reading and so on.

 

And then overall, sounds like you need to ask for more specifics of your supervisor. If your direct supervisor is unable to have the time to help more, then ask him for suggestions of good mentors. But overall, it really sounds like a disconnect between expectations and communicating those expectations.

[Mordred]

ask more questions, read more about the machinery, protein research, and slowly prepare myself to becoming more independent in the lab etc.

How to become a good researcher ? Good question. While the type of research I've done differs. Some of the criteria is the same.

1) understand the goal of the research project

2) Understand which methodologies and experimental practices reduces various types of error

3) Understand how the experiments are appropriate to the experiment including any possible errors.( ie equipment error etc)

4) establishing good control points to help improve accuracy

5) Look for possible alternatives both for and against your line of research. (counter models etc)

6) Look for supportive research both supportive and against.

7) Self study always

8) Understand the limitations of the equipment and how to optimize their versatility and flexibility.

9) Look for ways to increase accuracy and consistency (error reduction/repeatability)

10) Consistency, consistency consistency in all the above.

 

I'm positive others can name more One hint a good self researcher can often find his own answers. Via studying other research They are the ones that tend to supply the answers more than asking others for the answers. Most importantly if he doesn't know the answer. He knows where he can find the answer. Nobody remembers every formula. Develop a database and reliable sources for answers.

 

Lets take a simple example spinning blood in a centrifuge. With the list above "What are the steps to properly test the blood sample in the most consistent and accurate manner? (including sources of error and means of addressing those errors)

 

List them in order. (break it down to each individual step)

Edited November 9, 2016 by Mordred

[Elite Engineer]

This sounds at least a little unfair. I'm not 100% sure if I got it right, but are you unable to do enough vs. what is expected? Was a schedule of what was expected laid out?

 

Part of the reason I think it is unfair is that people learn in different ways. Some people are very hands on, doers, and are the type of people who would ask questions almost to the point of annoyance. Others are more theoretical, quiet, and book learning. If you are being judged on your question asking, then this may be a bit unfair.

 

But, if you have specific performance goals you have to hit, and those are spelled out, then I think that that is fair. And part of learning how to be a good researcher is teaching yourself how to achieve those goals. Be that by asking a lot of questions or doing your own reading and so on.

 

And then overall, sounds like you need to ask for more specifics of your supervisor. If your direct supervisor is unable to have the time to help more, then ask him for suggestions of good mentors. But overall, it really sounds like a disconnect between expectations and communicating those expectations.

Thank you Thank you! I really appreciate your input.

 

Little more background on the project: The particular project is absolute number 1 priority, and was supposed to be completed around August, so I understand he wants me to progress a little faster. He has said that he understands people progress at different rates, and that's ok. He's the kind of pwerson that says read more papers. When you ask "what kind", he'll send you one, and expect you to dig for more on your own.

 

As far as schedules, there is not concrete schedule, but a, "Get A done..once A is done we'll plan for B, etc." mindset. There is an overall plan, but I'm still a little foggy on the complete A-Z process.

 

I think generally, he wants me to be independent enough to allow my closer superior to work independently, and therefore more faster. Once again, this project is behind the deadline.

How to become a good researcher ? Good question. While the type of research I've done differs. Some of the criteria is the same.

1) understand the goal of the research project

2) Understand which methodologies and experimental practices reduces various types of error

3) Understand how the experiments are appropriate to the experiment including any possible errors.( ie equipment error etc)

4) establishing good control points to help improve accuracy

5) Look for possible alternatives both for and against your line of research. (counter models etc)

6) Look for supportive research both supportive and against.

7) Self study always

8) Understand the limitations of the equipment and how to optimize their versatility and flexibility.

9) Look for ways to increase accuracy and consistency (error reduction/repeatability)

10) Consistency, consistency consistency in all the above.

 

I'm positive others can name more One hint a good self researcher can often find his own answers. Via studying other research They are the ones that tend to supply the answers more than asking others for the answers. Most importantly if he doesn't know the answer. He knows where he can find the answer. Nobody remembers every formula. Develop a database and reliable sources for answers.

 

Lets take a simple example spinning blood in a centrifuge. With the list above "What are the steps to properly test the blood sample in the most consistent and accurate manner? (including sources of error and means of addressing those errors)

 

List them in order. (break it down to each individual step)

At the moment, procedure, and research are pretty straight forward and set in stone. I don't really contribute to theory in the research. For the most part, my supervisor lays out an assay schedule, and I execute as planned...which is what I was doing, and doing with no problems. However, out of left field, I'm told that's not enough, and I don't have enough industry experience or specific knowledge to contribute more.

 

 

 

The other day we used BSA in an assay to improve it's signal. My supervisor said, "you wont find these kind of solutions in a textbook..these are the things I need you to learn".

[CharonY]

I can make a few educated guesses about the issues as it sounds to me like pretty standard issues, though precise wording would be helpful to figure things out. One key work is independent.

While seemingly innocuous it implies that you are expected to proceed with less guidance. Mind you, this is not something unusual but part of the normal growth process after getting an actual job. What often is the issue is that as a beginner one is only focusing on the next part or a specific part of the next protocol (and questions are mostly aimed at these things) but what is lacking is the big picture. I.e. you do as your are told as to what the next thing is but there is little feedback and initiative on your side so that the supervisor is not comfortable in handing you the project and let you run with it.

 

I cannot be sure in your case, of course, but what is expected or helpful is often something like the following:

 

- Have a vision or model of the whole project, start to end

- Visualize every step that moves you along the project

- Create a timeline of steps to conduct, be as specific as possible

- Figure out where you got problems to in figuring out what to do or why to do something. In other words do proactive troubleshooting. Troubleshoot yourself as much as the work

- Use that timeline and protocol to those with more experience or your boss and ask about every step that you are uncertain about. Make sure to make notes!

- Finalize the project timeline, workflow and add expected results as appropriate. Check again for gaps in the flow

-Use that project plan to go to your supervisor/boss/head honcho and discuss whether this all makes sense and use that to benchmark your actual work and to guide meetings and discussions

 

In addition, continue to expand your knowledge over the stuff you are doing now to things that may be useful later. I like to use ripples in a pond to illustrate what I mean. Identify the main thing you need knowledge in. It could be knowledge about a very specific biological system or a particular technique, just something that is central to your work. Learn everything from that small part. In fact, become an expert in it. Make the thing small enough that you can comfortably call yourself an expert on that thing. Pay close attention to how deep you need to go. For example if a group of proteins is your center, you may want to know their enzymatic properties, but necessarily need to know their 3D structures. Or maybe you do but then often you need to know less about other aspects (regulation? evolution? biological roles? etc.).

 

This is your center and rippling outward from here add information that expands on that. A related regulatory network, another technique, a specific enzyme function, grow with time in your field and identify where you have comfortable expertise and identify parts that you need to add. However the further you are from your center the less detail you need to know, most important is the relationship to your main thing. However, be prepared to make something else your new or additional center, if need be.

 

Does this make sense to you?

[Elite Engineer]

I can make a few educated guesses about the issues as it sounds to me like pretty standard issues, though precise wording would be helpful to figure things out. One key work is independent.

While seemingly innocuous it implies that you are expected to proceed with less guidance. Mind you, this is not something unusual but part of the normal growth process after getting an actual job. What often is the issue is that as a beginner one is only focusing on the next part or a specific part of the next protocol (and questions are mostly aimed at these things) but what is lacking is the big picture. I.e. you do as your are told as to what the next thing is but there is little feedback and initiative on your side so that the supervisor is not comfortable in handing you the project and let you run with it.

 

I cannot be sure in your case, of course, but what is expected or helpful is often something like the following:

 

This is my situation exactly. I could not have said it better myself! I take it this is a common procedure for most beginning researchers, such as myself?

 

In addition, continue to expand your knowledge over the stuff you are doing now to things that may be useful later. I like to use ripples in a pond to illustrate what I mean. Identify the main thing you need knowledge in. It could be knowledge about a very specific biological system or a particular technique, just something that is central to your work. Learn everything from that small part. In fact, become an expert in it. Make the thing small enough that you can comfortably call yourself an expert on that thing. Pay close attention to how deep you need to go. For example if a group of proteins is your center, you may want to know their enzymatic properties, but necessarily need to know their 3D structures. Or maybe you do but then often you need to know less about other aspects (regulation? evolution? biological roles? etc.).

 

This is your center and rippling outward from here add information that expands on that. A related regulatory network, another technique, a specific enzyme function, grow with time in your field and identify where you have comfortable expertise and identify parts that you need to add. However the further you are from your center the less detail you need to know, most important is the relationship to your main thing. However, be prepared to make something else your new or additional center, if need be.

 

Does this make sense to you?

Yes, thank you, this is much more clear and straight forward! I'm feeling much better on my guidance.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Elite Engineer

[Mordred]

These issues is fairly common in pretty much any field or industry.

The line you used above. " You won't find these in a texbook..."

 

This is often tricky to get past, it takes dedication and self motivation to take your schooling lessons beyond the textbooks. Many don't, they tend to get disheartened when the answers are not readily available.

 

Its like learning a craft, you keep practicing and stay motivated. Always strive to learn every aspect. As Charony mentioned with his ripples analogy. I prefer one bite of the apple at a time.

[CharonY]

This is my situation exactly. I could not have said it better myself! I take it this is a common procedure for most beginning researchers, such as myself?

 

 

It is very common for people just coming out of school and having to switch from "passive mode" (memorize, do as told, take exam. forget, rinse and repeat) to have to actually take ownership for a job or project. Obviously I mostly see it in grad students, but from discussions with friends in industry or small businesses, it is pretty much the same thing all over. If anything, outside academia it is expected that you make the transition a bit faster, as there is less emphasis on teaching.

In contrast, in grad school there are still courses and exams and the transition is often slower. Also, some supervisors like to micromanage which often helps them to get things withing the tight time frames of typical academic research projects, but which IMO hinders the development of the student (although they may come out with more publications).

Needless to say I am a fan to let students mature as fast as they can.

[Mordred]

Needless to say I am a fan to let students mature as fast as they can.

With good directional motivation I agree with this. Everyone learns at different rates. What often works with one student may hinder another.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Mordred

[CharonY]

I found that rates is often less of an issue but rather what aspect they can pick up efficiently. The nice thing in biology is that due to its complexity there are so many different aspects (theoretical, practical, analytical, biochemical, descriptive, predictive, etc.) so one often can guide students toward something fitting (finding that can be a challenge in itself).

 

The one big exception are those that actually have little to no interest at all and/or are not willing to work harder than they used to. Self-motivation is an extremely important element here.

 

Edit: maybe I should be more precise in one bit. Many mentors like to guide people in their lab toward a similar trajectory as they themselves experienced, with all the good and bad it entails. It can be a very effective way of guiding people to an academic career and pruning out unsuitable ones. My goal is usually to try to mold them into the best version of themselves that I can make them into.

Edited November 9, 2016 by CharonY

[Mordred]

Agreed I've always found rate comes with practice and self motivation. I always try to place others according to their particular interests and guide them to pursue those interests.

 

lol my favorite students was always the ones that drove me crazy with questions.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Mordred