Are there various kinds of researchers?

[random_soldier1337]

As in do some researchers possess certain responsibilities while certain others choose to undertake different ones? Like some more on the theory and relatively more paperwork while others more involved with the experimental setup of their theories.

Or do all share more or less the same responsibilities and duties?

 

Either way, what are they and which are the more social ones (teaching, etc.)?

[swansont]

Yes, there are many kinds of researchers. Different disciplines, theory vs experiment, and expertise in specific areas all come into play.

[random_soldier1337]

Yes, there are many kinds of researchers. Different disciplines, theory vs experiment, and expertise in specific areas all come into play.

 

 

I suppose I should be more clear. I understand that some might study particle physics at the LHC and some might study glacier drifts in the arctic region. I also understand that somebody studying polar bear migration patterns throughout the year in the arctic may pretty much never do any teaching since they are always in the middle of nowhere.

 

I am primarily concerned with the secondary responsibilities that most researchers have. I want to know what are the jobs they have to perform during their time as a researcher that are simply not them and what they are observing.

[CharonY]

Obviously we are all SwansonT or trying to be ;P. That aside, it depends on how narrow you want to frame your question. Most people with science degrees end up in jobs that do not include research responsibilities. This includes many industrial jobs, for example.

 

 

If you specifically wonder about those that do end up in research it again depends a lot on the specific job (obviously). In universities most actual research (i.e. field and lab work) is conducted by non-permanent staff (including postdocs and students) and to some degree by technicians. There are a handful of PhD level staff scientists but usually very few of those. The basic responsibilities of those tend to be doing the actual research and to various degrees assist in paper and grant writing.

Permanent positions tend to be university profs, who theoretically can have up to 80% of their time protected to do research, but realistically they have to pour much more time for teaching (including creating lectures and exams), administrative jobs, writing grants (which kind of counts towards research), managing and directing the lab or group (including training people), writing papers and maybe eke out some time to actually look at data (also depends on how large and effective the group is).

 

In research labs the teaching component is lower, but it depends a lot on the structure and funding. Some may come with an endowment which allows some level of research without the need of additional grants (but these can be considered extremely rare dream jobs). There is still usually various degrees of administrative overhead, people management, training and, obviously, writing and so on. But these are probably the most "pure" in terms of focus on research (but again, usually also really rare).

 

In industrial jobs R&D are also very varied, there are systems were various groups pitch their projects for internal grants, others have more direct top-down mandates to fulfill. There is a lot of documentation involved, which is usually the role of the PhD level group leader whereas the analysts and equivalents provide the data for the write-up.

 

As a rule of thumb the higher you get in the hierarchy and the more successful you are, the less direct your research involvement gets.

[Klaynos]

Even within a single team in a single research establishment (of whatever type) of people at the same notional level it can vary greatly.

 

My time is on average about 20% research 80% other stuff. But that's due to the nature of my current projects. Others who are the same job title as me are 95% research 5% other. I used to be that way around and might get back to it one day.

[random_soldier1337]

Obviously we are all SwansonT or trying to be ;P. That aside, it depends on how narrow you want to frame your question. Most people with science degrees end up in jobs that do not include research responsibilities. This includes many industrial jobs, for example.

 

 

If you specifically wonder about those that do end up in research it again depends a lot on the specific job (obviously). In universities most actual research (i.e. field and lab work) is conducted by non-permanent staff (including postdocs and students) and to some degree by technicians. There are a handful of PhD level staff scientists but usually very few of those. The basic responsibilities of those tend to be doing the actual research and to various degrees assist in paper and grant writing.

Permanent positions tend to be university profs, who theoretically can have up to 80% of their time protected to do research, but realistically they have to pour much more time for teaching (including creating lectures and exams), administrative jobs, writing grants (which kind of counts towards research), managing and directing the lab or group (including training people), writing papers and maybe eke out some time to actually look at data (also depends on how large and effective the group is).

 

In research labs the teaching component is lower, but it depends a lot on the structure and funding. Some may come with an endowment which allows some level of research without the need of additional grants (but these can be considered extremely rare dream jobs). There is still usually various degrees of administrative overhead, people management, training and, obviously, writing and so on. But these are probably the most "pure" in terms of focus on research (but again, usually also really rare).

 

In industrial jobs R&D are also very varied, there are systems were various groups pitch their projects for internal grants, others have more direct top-down mandates to fulfill. There is a lot of documentation involved, which is usually the role of the PhD level group leader whereas the analysts and equivalents provide the data for the write-up.

 

As a rule of thumb the higher you get in the hierarchy and the more successful you are, the less direct your research involvement gets.

 

So basically, the PhDs appointed as professors at universities or group leaders in industries get to propose the actual project while the technicians/analysts/etc. are the ones that actually do the experiment and hand over the collected data? Therefore, the job becomes filled up more often with stuff like teaching for the professors or writing for grants in general, right?

 

Also how would one go about getting the rare dream job in the research labs?

 

Research always seemed like a great profession for someone who is less social but wants to achieve something, theoretically. But some of those responsibilities definitely don't sound like such a person would be able to do well, especially if they had to do something like teaching.

 

Even within a single team in a single research establishment (of whatever type) of people at the same notional level it can vary greatly.

 

My time is on average about 20% research 80% other stuff. But that's due to the nature of my current projects. Others who are the same job title as me are 95% research 5% other. I used to be that way around and might get back to it one day.

 

How does one do the latter?

[CharonY]

 

 

Research always seemed like a great profession for someone who is less social but wants to achieve something, theoretically.

 

 

 

Nonononoonononononoononononono! That is a very common misconception and I assumed the same thing when I was way younger. As student or postdoc you may get by with that, even get a bit of a reputation as someone who knows things, but if you are unable to build up a network, you have little chance in getting a tenure track position or similar. Not that academia is not full of social awkward people, but you have to get over that to a large degree to get your name out there.

This can be applied to virtually all highly competitive jobs. One of the most important bits is networking.

 

 

With regard to projects, the prof is usually the principal investigator who decides on the research (and administers funding). For industry there are many different lines of reporting. In most cases the group leaders or equivalent have certain goals or milestones set or negotiated by someone that is at least partially in the managerial stream. But a lot of different models exist.

[random_soldier1337]

 

 

Nonononoonononononoononononono! That is a very common misconception and I assumed the same thing when I was way younger. As student or postdoc you may get by with that, even get a bit of a reputation as someone who knows things, but if you are unable to build up a network, you have little chance in getting a tenure track position or similar. Not that academia is not full of social awkward people, but you have to get over that to a large degree to get your name out there.

This can be applied to virtually all highly competitive jobs. One of the most important bits is networking.

 

 

With regard to projects, the prof is usually the principal investigator who decides on the research (and administers funding). For industry there are many different lines of reporting. In most cases the group leaders or equivalent have certain goals or milestones set or negotiated by someone that is at least partially in the managerial stream. But a lot of different models exist.

 

Okay! One no would have sufficed . Anyway, don't you think something like teaching would be even harder for such people? I don't know how big classes are over there but where I come from they can go up to 60-70 students. Being a natural teacher to that many people might be really hard for someone socially awkward, IMO. Not to mention saving face in case such a person gets something wrong and has difficulty getting it right or not knowing how to deal with unruly students (it's a problem where I am from).

 

To the part about industry, I am assuming that when it gets down to it, the research is dictated by what there is or would be a demand for, right?

[Nature Geek]

As in do some researchers possess certain responsibilities while certain others choose to undertake different ones? Like some more on the theory and relatively more paperwork while others more involved with the experimental setup of their theories.

 

Or do all share more or less the same responsibilities and duties?

 

Either way, what are they and which are the more social ones (teaching, etc.)?

Short answer: YES. Or maybe "It Depends".

 

In both academics and industry (I am an industrial researcher), a lot of research is done as a team effort. So the necessary tasks are divided up. But there is no universal way that such things are divided. Even among various projects that I work on at this company, they get divided up differently.

 

Sometimes the divisions are administrative versus research, sometimes they might be theory versus experiment or data creation (run experiments) versus analysis. And yes, people bring different skills to the team, and one hopes that the leader (if there is a leader) will divide the tasks in accordance to the skills and proficiencies that the various team members have. And sometimes no one on the team is good at what-ever and someone just has to deal with what-ever, whether you are good at it or not.

 

But sometimes you are just a lone researcher, either in industry or academics. And yes, it all falls upon you at that point.

 

 

 

Research always seemed like a great profession for someone who is less social but wants to achieve something, theoretically. But some of those responsibilities definitely don't sound like such a person would be able to do well, especially if they had to do something like teaching.

As someone else already said, to a great extent, that is a misnomer. Similarly, it is a misnomer that scientists do not need skills in writing or speaking.

 

Sure, like everything else, there are people who are better or worse at social and communication skills. And yes, one can survive in the world of research if those are not your strengths. Heck, they are things you can change over time and I know lots of researchers who have worked hard at improving these skills.

 

But a completely unsocial, uncommunicative person is going to struggle; not just in research, but in many things.