These days, the research as such is getting a lot of appreciation and recognition, also for the researchers. But, 1) How much is the public benefitting from this research? 2) How much of the findings are actually relevant in our day to day life? 3) How many of the results are being implemented or tried to be implemented? 4) If we do a cost - benefit analysis of amount of money (government, private agencies, national, external all) and the output to the public (read as the environment, people, resources, energy or anything), what will the output be? 5) Why are researchers just bothered about getting it published in a high impact journal not in and as a common article, or both?
I appreciate your thoughts on this subject and would wonder if the two different activities of publishing in high impact journals and for common good are recognized in the same measure?
i simply mean to indicate the 'reach'. If the study published in a common publication, it will be reached to wider audience and common people so the study will bring (better) practical output. The other side - research journal, the reach is in the academic groups and experts, which takes a long path to reach to the public, perhaps never.
Also, let me make it clear, giving superior status to any one method was not my intention
You are true.. Let me focus a main point first.. what i think is people are free to think many students and professor have good thoughts and innovative ideas that can really boost in the field of research and finding but due to lack of budget they are lacking behind. so i think those ideas and genuine innovative mind also must be accolade and they also be graded as research. High impact factor journal seek for more practical approach which might not be possible for general university due to lack of funding so ideas from those people must be appreciated as it can be done practically in the other place where infrastructure is there to perform.
Regarding funds - research and all, its quite obvious , we do research to make anything flexible, sustainable and economical.. For this its quite obvious to invest more intellectual mind, funds and strong team. For instance, You can see the cost of solar has reduced in such an ample amount, now even middle class people can afford it where as scenario was different 15 years back. So research is essential and funding is done for its efficiency to be improved. which must be appreciated and ideas can be in term of paper, experiment or anything and it might be publish in a newspaper or a journal, it worth the same and its impact must be same..
Research is primarily about an increase in KNOWLEDGE, which is useful. However, it must be balanced with the APPLICATION of the knowledge to solve real-life issues and have socioeconomic benefits. For me the latter is the purpose of ENGINEERING whereas SCIENCE is the focused on the knowledge.
The engineers need to take the knowledge (i.e. new technology), demonstrate it at a useful scale, find useful potential applications, understand the cost-competitiveness and then develop products with that technology.
Only then, when you actually end up Manufacturing those products, do you get the full value of the original science. You get the jobs, economic activity and the benefit of using the product.
The cost of product development is quite high and many businesses avoid it, so the technology sometimes never ends up being used...
I agree. I like to think of four stages that follow each other: Pure research, applied research, technology development and then product development. To end up with economic activity you need to migrate to the last step, i.e. the technology is used in something.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Research Papers