4 ms·

> But if you don’t assume path dependency, you have a lot more options at your disposal. This is an important sentence that I haven't seen before in discussion

by ISL 4y ago

> But if you don’t assume path dependency, you have a lot more options at your disposal. This is an important sentence that I haven't seen before in discussions about people-pipelines in the physical sciences. It deserves more visibility. Academics, simply because they have all come through the same pipeline, may underestimate the management skills that industry experience can bring to modern research. Lord knows we promote accomplished scientists with non-existent management skills all the time -- what about hiring in the occasional faculty with a solid science background but extensive management acumen?

matthewdgreen 4y ago
The management you're describing becomes necessary when the goal is to advise large teams of researchers. It is not something that will benefit you much in a lab of 4-6. There are research fields that do this kind of "big science" and researchers who run giant, hierarchical labs. Usually they're working in areas where a single person can't contribute without a team effort. I have not seen any evidence that this is a general approach that will unlock major research gains in other areas.
- ISL 4y ago
  About a year ago, I moved from an academic research group of ~7, embedded in a laboratory of ~60 into a company with several hundred employees. Many of the best-practices and philosophies implemented around management and process in the larger company would have been quite helpful and beneficial in my prior environment. Academia selects for science prowess first, then almost entirely through Darwinian means, management skills. That approach keeps the focus on science, which is good, but misses out so very much on knowledge that could radically accelerate research progress. An example: There is substantial focus in good research groups on mentoring good technical writing and science presentation skills. I had never encountered formal mentorship on concepts as basic as, "Okay, here's how to run a meeting in a way that ensures all necessary topics are addressed, everyone gets their say, action items will actually happen, and the meeting will end on time." My mentors probably hadn't gotten that sort of mentorship either -- we each learned simply from what we'd seen work effectively. A functioning industry group simply can't operate without that sort of fundamental skill.

by ISL 4y ago

matthewdgreen 4y ago

The management you're describing becomes necessary when the goal is to advise large teams of researchers. It is not something that will benefit you much in a lab of 4-6. There are research fields that do this kind of "big science" and researchers who run giant, hierarchical labs. Usually they're working in areas where a single person can't contribute without a team effort. I have not seen any evidence that this is a general approach that will unlock major research gains in other areas.

ISL 4y ago
About a year ago, I moved from an academic research group of ~7, embedded in a laboratory of ~60 into a company with several hundred employees. Many of the best-practices and philosophies implemented around management and process in the larger company would have been quite helpful and beneficial in my prior environment. Academia selects for science prowess first, then almost entirely through Darwinian means, management skills. That approach keeps the focus on science, which is good, but misses out so very much on knowledge that could radically accelerate research progress. An example: There is substantial focus in good research groups on mentoring good technical writing and science presentation skills. I had never encountered formal mentorship on concepts as basic as, "Okay, here's how to run a meeting in a way that ensures all necessary topics are addressed, everyone gets their say, action items will actually happen, and the meeting will end on time." My mentors probably hadn't gotten that sort of mentorship either -- we each learned simply from what we'd seen work effectively. A functioning industry group simply can't operate without that sort of fundamental skill.