Getting Good at Research

[HigherEd7]

Some people are good at service, teaching, and research. How do you get good at research? I am interested in several different topics. Also, a few colleagues of mine have told me you spend hours and time drafting a research study and then very few people if any will read your study.
How many studies should you produce a year? I am at a smaller university, so we do not have the help that some professors have at tier-one institutions.

[tuxthepenguin]

How many studies should you produce a year? I am at a smaller university, so we do not have the help that some professors have at tier-one institutions.

This varies by field and institution. You need to find out from your department/college what is expected. Some schools unrealistically expect R1 output, while a few don't require research for tenure.

[apostrophe]

I'll add that what is meant by "research" varies wildly (also what is meant by "good"). In my book field, most people learn how to research during the dissertation and then kind of learn it all over again with the first book. Then you more-or-less know how to get things done and continue to struggle (or not) with the other usual problems, like procrastination, burnout, and indulging in magpie tendencies.

[Ruralguy]

Consistency helps, committing to at least some small level of output whether required  or not helps. Discussing with others and collaboration help in some fields.

Think about it this way. How would you get better at teaching if you never taught before?

[polly_mer]

How would you get better at teaching if you never taught before?

Based on HigherEd7's posts on teaching, one writes to these fora as though one had never before observed good teaching in the field and then disregards all the advice that requires the hard work.

How does one get good at research?  First, one gets excellent mentoring during one's student days, possibly as early as middle school  Then, one gets excited about one particular idea.  Third, one pursues that idea as hard as one can.

Number of studies is irrelevant.

Requirements of the institution for tenure are irrelevant.

One gets good at research by doing research and interacting with the relevant research community during that interaction to get a combination of feedback and finding the gaps in what the community knows.

[jerseyjay]

I am not sure I understand the premise of the question, or whether the OP is taking the mickey.

Assuming that it is serious, I am not sure what being "good at research" means.

Does it mean filling your CV up with enough lines to get hired, tenured, or promoted? There are a lot of ways to do that, many of which I would not suggest.

Does it mean knowing the right people so your research gets cited a bunch?

Does it mean doing research in an efficient and productive manner? Well there are all kinds of tweaks involved that might help. (Giving yourself an hour each day to work, setting aside a good workspace, saying no to too much service, etc.)

Does it mean doing high-quality research that makes an impact and that people read? Well, passion and skill are required here, along with craft and means. But this is field specific, since a physicist and historian and accountant all do "research" differently.

[nescafe]

I think the only possible answer to this question is the same answer for any question about getting good at anything.

Practice, practice, practice. A lot of failure, but getting better over time.

[HigherEd7]

Thanks for the responses as always. One of the reasons I asked this question is it seems like some people are publishing a research study every month. It also appears as though these individuals are becoming extremely popular in their respective fields and are asked to speak and get hired as consultants. As far as tenure goes, I have read an article that a top tier institution will not hire you unless they know you can get published in a top tier journal.

I am also finding out getting published in one of these journals is based on who you know, and if you challenge a leader in the fields research they can have you blocked from publishing.

[Morden]

Starting out in a research field is hard. One way to make it easier is to pick a disciplinary conference and go multiple years in a row. You will start to see what research conversations are important for that community; you will meet people who are involved in those conversations, and you will probably see opportunities to get involved too.

[HigherEd7]

Starting out in a research field is hard. One way to make it easier is to pick a disciplinary conference and go multiple years in a row. You will start to see what research conversations are important for that community; you will meet people who are involved in those conversations, and you will probably see opportunities to get involved too.

I am finding that out! Seems to be a tight knit organization.......

[Ruralguy]

Are you working on anything at the moment?

Submitted a journal article?

Listened to comments if they asked you to "R&R"?

Attended a conference?

Talked to people in the field?

As others have said, do all of these things, rinse, lather, repeat. Don't be obsessed with who is doing what and how much they published. Be obsessed (well, not crazy, but work hard) with your work. Finish something, anything. Submit something, anything, and just start the cycle. Then attend conferences. Don't obsesses over whether you are talking to "nobodies" or "big wigs"--just chat.

[HigherEd7]

Yes, I am and thanks for the responses. This is one of my weak areas and I want to improve.

Are you working on anything at the moment?

Submitted a journal article?

Listened to comments if they asked you to "R&R"?

Attended a conference?

Talked to people in the field?

As others have said, do all of these things, rinse, lather, repeat. Don't be obsessed with who is doing what and how much they published. Be obsessed (well, not crazy, but work hard) with your work. Finish something, anything. Submit something, anything, and just start the cycle. Then attend conferences. Don't obsesses over whether you are talking to "nobodies" or "big wigs"--just chat.

[saramago]

OP,  publishing your work in top journals  does not, does not, depend on who you know. It depends on the con tent of your paper. Do get feedback on that. And take that feedback seriously. Also, make sure  language is not an issue in your papers. Sometimes, the ideas are actually very good, but expressed in such a way that they appear less brilliant. Nuance is hard in a second language, but critical in a paper.

[AJ_Katz]

OP,  publishing your work in top average journals does not, does not, depend on who you know. It depends on the content of your paper. Do get feedback on that. And take that feedback seriously. Also, make sure language is not an issue in your papers.

There, I fixed it.

My advice on publishing, coming from someone in a STEM field at an R1:  Get use to rejection.  Get use to nasty reviewer comments.  There's one manuscript that I've had reviewed 5 times, rejected 4 out of those 5 times.  If you can't get accepted into the journal of your choice, try finding a lower impact journal to submit to in the second round.  Find a colleague who has an excellent track record in publishing and ask them to candidly review your work before you submit it.  Don't submit manuscripts with "minor" errors or mistakes...  double-check all of your work and make sure it is absolutely perfect before it is submitted -- it's not the reviewer or the editor's job to correct sloppy work.

Each research project / manuscript that I publish takes 1-5+ years.  The shorter time span is for review papers. 

The best way to get good at research is to read more papers!  Read, read, read... everyday, read one manuscript.  Over time, you will develop an awareness of what constitutes a well written paper and what constitutes a poorly written paper.   Try to model your own writing and projects after those people who are doing the best work. 

Be realistic with what you want to do in your research.  Don't try to get into a journal that is publishing research that you don't have the resources to do yourself.  There are all levels of research, so regardless of the R1 advantage....  you can do research and publish.  I got my master's at an R2 institution and published more from that research that I ever have before.  It's all about creativity..  not about lots of $$$ or resources. 

[polly_mer]

OP,  publishing your work in top journals  does not, does not, depend on who you know.

As AJ_Katz wrote, even in fields like chemistry and physics in which the science should stand on its own, the tippy top journals are mostly about who knows your work and thinks well of it. With rejection rates above 90% for submissions numbering the hundreds every month, the desk reject for unknown work is about the only way to keep up. 

Thus, in some fields, publishing in the tippy-top journals is more a signal of how known one is to the decision makers in the relevant community and less a signal that one is doing fabulous work that is head and shoulders above literally everyone else working in that area of the field.  That level of connection is important for someone who is being hired to get research grants that are reviewed by those same decision makers in the relevant community. 

I've written elsewhere, but I'll say it again here: No one is ever hired for the elite research institutions without already being a member of the elite research community.  Having an article or two in excellent journals on one's CV submitted to an open job ad is not competitive when the short list will be made of applicants who are on a first-name basis with most of the search committee due to already being accepted members of the relevant research community.  Teaching well is something that can happen at any institution; researching well almost never happens in isolation.