Now a days there r less research contribution to the society. We are the researcher only thinking how to flourish/ boom our career. What does really it bring to the society? Even though our respondents are not giving their clear cut information on particular matters. Is this the correct way only to flourish our own interest. Please expert provide some opinions.
Dear Halima Begum
You raise a serious issue. A clear-cut response to your question is not an easy task. What follows is a short answer to your question.
First, I guess that most of the academic research has, say, personal motives in that it is performed because of career requirements or demands, not social motives, that is, oriented to solve social problems. This is the "publish or perish" policy in its splendor, which is a typical and unfortunate USA standard. To publish many papers doesn't necessarily mean good research. It is the opposite that is generally the case. And, say, poor reserach by its very nature cannot solve social problems, nor cannot it give raise to a better knowledge of the unknown, which I see as the main goal of a true researcher.
Second, the publish or perish policy notwithstanding, it may be the case that some of this research can contribute to social progress and a better knowledge of the unknown.As just mentioned, I think that to get a better knowledge of the unknown is what a true reseacher intends to achieve.
Needless to say, the more we know of the unknown the more this knowledge may represent a contribution to society. As you certainly know, basic or fundamental research (see the examples of Newton's or Einstein's research) is not performed to solve social or practical problems, but rather to get a better understanding of the unkown or fulfill reseachers' intellectual curiosity. It is often the case that basic or fundamental research has more social and practical implications than that performed to solve practial problems.
In a nutshell, your interesting question does not have to be framed as an either/or question. First, not all publish or perish research is inherently poor and devoid of social concerns. Second, basic and fundamental research has proven to be one of the best friends of humankind provided that it is not misapplied.
Besr regards,
Orlando
Dear Halima Begum
You raise a serious issue. A clear-cut response to your question is not an easy task. What follows is a short answer to your question.
First, I guess that most of the academic research has, say, personal motives in that it is performed because of career requirements or demands, not social motives, that is, oriented to solve social problems. This is the "publish or perish" policy in its splendor, which is a typical and unfortunate USA standard. To publish many papers doesn't necessarily mean good research. It is the opposite that is generally the case. And, say, poor reserach by its very nature cannot solve social problems, nor cannot it give raise to a better knowledge of the unknown, which I see as the main goal of a true researcher.
Second, the publish or perish policy notwithstanding, it may be the case that some of this research can contribute to social progress and a better knowledge of the unknown.As just mentioned, I think that to get a better knowledge of the unknown is what a true reseacher intends to achieve.
Needless to say, the more we know of the unknown the more this knowledge may represent a contribution to society. As you certainly know, basic or fundamental research (see the examples of Newton's or Einstein's research) is not performed to solve social or practical problems, but rather to get a better understanding of the unkown or fulfill reseachers' intellectual curiosity. It is often the case that basic or fundamental research has more social and practical implications than that performed to solve practial problems.
In a nutshell, your interesting question does not have to be framed as an either/or question. First, not all publish or perish research is inherently poor and devoid of social concerns. Second, basic and fundamental research has proven to be one of the best friends of humankind provided that it is not misapplied.
Besr regards,
Orlando
Definitely for science but the spin off benefits will certainly lead to social development
I think it depends on the research. Believe it or not, a lot of tech and IT courses like graphic design at many universities, the students are not learning skills that prepare them for the real world. This surprised me, as many people think of IT as a "hands on" discipline, but the real world is changing so quickly that academia cannot keep up. Thus, it is dubious whether there is impact in this field from academia to society. Thus, this would go for other disciplines too, is research theoretical or practical or impactful? My university measures research contribution in that way. "Impactful" research is one that is focus on marginalized groups. However, is that really impactful if the knowledge doesn't reach the decision makers? These are the folks with power to change/oppress these groups, if it does, then ideally impact can be made. Another issue I have, especially viewing academia as a person of color (thus from a marginalized group) and a woman, is that scholars often work to maintain the status quo rather than make systemic changes. So, when you talk about "social development" you need to look at specific cases, for example, American academia is all about the "social development" of women's rights in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, but you don't see the same consensus when addressing racism in the States or even promoting more women within their own departments and faculties.
Research contributes to new knowledge and those of us arrmed with this contribute to society and social development either directly or thorugh teaching new young minds. This all happens in small (baby) steps) that accumulate over time and may not be visible. If anyone expects an extra ordinary disocovery that is revolutionary and will change the world (einstein, edison, newton) then we get discouraged / negative / cynical and think research is just for our careers.
Before I moved to teaching and research, I was a practioner. In my profession, as in others, I am sure, we always read the latersst research to keep up the latest new knowledge and incorporate the relevant into our practice. Or into our teaching. If you think about it in your own field, how did we get to where we are nowand how do we know what we know? Accumulated reserach! That is why we do the lit review and use it to build on / add to that of others. Contributions to social develompment will rarely be visible, especially such that we can always say, " (e.g.) Smith's findings's ......and point directly to any one specific reseracher or findings.
There is too much cynicism and superlatives that, while there may be truth there somewhere, such generalizations do more to reflect on the individual's emotonal sense of being, rather than the state of reserach anywhere and everywhere. I still believe in the need and existence of good research from good people in the service of society.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction