Sure, literature search comes first. But with Internet and Google search it comes much easier, than in old time. Then, certain degree of theoretical understanding is required in order to design the effective experiments. Workong in a large Research Establishment, one has to stay in line for a machene shop coming with parts for the equipment required.

Then experimental stage comes. Experiment more often corrects the initial theoretical model, researcher initially had. So, that allows to refine the theory. In the case the theory describes the observed experiments and is capable to predict different scenarios, the project is well done. But that is from my personal experience. Other Scientists can have different mode operandi, only result is a KING.

Hello Prof Alex, I believe it may be either way. Say for example for our good old friend, Newton. He observed a practical phenomenon, the falling apple. So he worked back to the theory, gravity. This is from Experimental to Theory.

For us, who get the theory from literature review, and carry out experiments, to make practical observations, we are going from Theory to Experiment. And we need to remember that some other scientist may have learned the phenomenon by the reverse process, Experimental to Theory.

Having said that, for my work in the College ICC (Innovative Creative Circle), we are supposed to start with a research question and come up with a solution or product to make work easier, but quite often, the idea was not put on paper, just in the brain. We focused on producing the prototype, then when we had succeeded, we worked backwards on the paperwork.

Dear Alexander

He should start with the theory and then compare it with the experiment

If the scientist has the project, including, theoretical and experimental part more than "half way already traversed" but in general this is the script:

The research is a reflective and critical procedure for seeking answers to problems not yet solved. The planning and execution of a search are part of a systematic process comprising the following steps:

1) Choose the theme;

2) Literature review;

3) Justification;

4) Formulation of the problem;

5) Determination of objectives;

6) Methodology;

7) Data collection;

8) Tabulation of data;

9) Analysis and discussion of results;

10) Concluding the analysis of the results;

11) Writing and presentation of scientific work (dissertation or thesis).

I think one should almost always start with a theory. Even though one may think that he/she starts with an experiment, he/she chooses the response variables, levels of the independent variables, etc. with respect to previous theories about the subject. There are dominating theories in many areas of research nowadays, and there are a number of competing theories in some other branches of science. Depending on the subject, the performed experiments may contribute to validation and improvement of the dominating theory, or confirmation of one of the competing theories. The real scientific breakthroughs, however, are attained via rejecting the dominating theories, but this is a quite difficult achievement since one must devise an experimental system in which the current theory (tested many times before) will not hold.

Dr. Babchin, I think it can go either way. A researcher can start with a theory and test it with an experiment or conduct an experiment and end up with a theory to explain the data. In my own work, I review the literature extensively and then create a theory to explain the connections that I see. I tend to start with theory and then devise an experiment to test it. The literature review is very important in order to make the connections.

In every field of study there is always a prescientific stage, where we experience in contemplation of phenomena, withouth conducting experiments. From that experience we form opinions which then can be formulated as testable, scientific hypotheses. Thus, step by step, the day comes when we find ourselves doing science. Even if our opinions were wrong before we came to this point, they were not useless, because in our effort to explain phenomena we improve natural language to the point that we are able to formulate our hypotheses and subject them to experimental test. I think chemistry had to pass thru alchemy before it could reach its current state. Every formal experiment requires a well defined interpretation in order to validate its results. Physics, for example, makes use of a sofisticated mathematical apparatus which evolved from the contemplation of the world, leading to the concept of number and then measurement. Though some of Aristotle's ideas were proved wrong, they were useful, precisely because eventually it was possible to prove him wrong with positive results. It is not only that Galileo proved Aristotle's ideas wrong: he proved positive assertions that lead to the development of classical mechanics. After all, before we engage in the task of organizing our experience in a logical system we must have experience.

dear Assume the project is for 3 years - first advertise and start recruiting - purchase of equipments in 6 months

As a scientist you have to know what is already known / achieved

Plan the theory and design the experiments

You have to train the person recruited -

start the experiment as scheduled

As a scientist you have develop the theory ; check with the experimental results ==

and so on ---

Scientists must have done some theoretical and practical work before submitting the project proposal for funding.Scientist concern can decide which one to start after the project is approved.I think it is better to take up theoretical and experimental work together. All this depends on duration of the project.

It can be in either way...depending upon the requirements.

Some projects need validation of theoretical part through experiments and vice versa.

In some cases what we have done is that plugging the small scale experimental data in theoretical models to scale-up the large scale experimental set-ups. Thus we will exactly know the requirements of large scale experimental set-ups from bench scale experimental data through theoretical modeling and simulation.

Alexander Hi

Your question is, as always, sophisticated one.

From the well known case of Mendeleev's First Periodic Table follows that theory sometimes could be before experiment. At the same time, in the majority of situations, theory must explain experimentally observed data. In the field of geophysics, where I am working, > 95% of theoretical analyses are used to develop physical-mathematical-geological models of media and processes (usually after obtaining some experimental data).

I would start from a very practical viewpoint: it depends on the capabilities, inclinations and possibilities of the researcher. If we start from Kuhn's paradigm theory (which I find a farily good starting point) in a given paradigm you have a set of basic rules accepted by the scientific (and not only scientific) community and you have a set of "sensible questions and problems" to put and to solve. It is a kind a puzzle-solving, which is not down-grading of scientific activity (most of us do this kind a research). Therefore a certain set of theoretical presuppositions is always there. If you are a good theoretician (as you are), you may be inclined to follow the consequences of these theories and check them experimentally to improve the theoretical framework. If one is experimentally inclined with less brilliant theoretical (and mathematical) capabilities, one may feel better in expanding the experimental results (which may be used by theoreticians to improve the theory). If you are practically oriented (as myself) you may be contetn with solving technological problems.

Dear Alexander, provided that my theme is not of a 'Particle - Physics' one (where in order to reach experimental research at CERN you have to become first an 'elder' ...), I'd certainly start with first experiments, just to clarify what is my idea in reality. After being satisfied from experiments, then I'd try to theoretically explain those results. Personally I have used this methodology in 'Developing methods for identifying inflection point of a curve' ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.5478 ):

Firstly I did many-many computer based experiments and after they converged to four stable methods, I theoretically supported the two of them and then wrote an article and the R package 'inflection' ( http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/inflection/index.html )

If I was searching for a theory and then if was trying to complete it, probably, I still had been trying to find something.

Dear All,

first of all, I have to thank to Professor Dr. Alexander J. Babchin for the question shared with me. I have to answer concerning my case when I have theoretically discovered by about one hundred new acoustical waves. I have to state for the research community that in my case, it is possible only to theoretically discover something in my fild of acoustic wave propagation. That was done by Lamb, Love, Rayleigh, Stonely, Bleustein and Gulyaev, Maerfeld and Tournois and the others. Some experiments can be completed after the theory because it is already clear in which right propagation direction, for instance, surface waves can propagate. Moreover, it is trying to experimentally distinguish which type of waves was observed/measured.

Dear Alex

Thank you for this wonderful question.In my opinion I think any research that should be done should contains the persuaded resons for it .If the research gets results that might change the community to the best is good but if the research is just a waste of time and useless then it should be ignored completely.

I agree with Hatem,

this is why I cannot stop to discover because I have some results. This is like an illness. Moreover, I know that it is possible to discover one thouthand new waves but I have no enough time to complete the purpose ( the human life is too short).

Aleksey declared correctly the main problem, our life is too short to exhaust a topics. I read the paper of Davy about discovery of chlorine written in 1811. He reacted the unknown gas formed in the reaction of pyroluzite with muriatic acid (old name of HCl). He tried to decompose the gas - during this he reacted the unknown gas with all the known compound, NaOH, water, K2CO3, etc., cooled, heated, and mesured the weights of product. He and no other tool only his eyes and a balance. He had a liomited type of chemicals were available in a laboratory in 1811. At the end, he concluded, that this gas cannot be decomposed into parts, it is probably an element. He wrote" since the color of this was greenish, which was in greek "chloros", It is named to be "chlorine".

Try to imagine, if we would like to react chlorine with all the known compounds to study its properties ? No possible, every day thousands of new compounds are discovered, we have no chance to follow DAvyy's procedure. We have to elarn tod define a small slice of the problem to solve. Sometimes this small slice is much higher than that would be possible to exhaustively solve.

Sure, it depends on how difficult the experiments are, but, when we are doing research , these are the steps we follow:

STEP 1 : THINK,THEORIZE : we first sit down, come up with a new idea, and think about "IN A DREAM WORLD, WHERE COULD THIS IDEA LEAD US ?"

STEP 2 : SELECT: If your answer is underwhelming everyone, this might not be a good project to start with :) If the DREAM WORLD results are super exciting, then you start acting on them

STEP 3: ACTION PLAN: Next, you cut your DREAM WORLD plans back down to REALIZABLE plans ... In other words, your DREAM WORLD idea might be difficult or impossible to realize (or experiment). If the cut-back idea is underwhelming everyone, go to STEP 1 :) else, go to STEP 4

STEP 4: Start doing the experiments, again, again, again. IF the results are underwhelming everyone, goto STEP 1 :) else, go to STEP 5

STEP 5: PUBLISH ...

To start with ...

literature survey ...

should know how!!!

and should be knowing who are the other people working and what are they doing !!!

in short ...

should be updated .... in their feild

@Alexander, my research area involves both approaches, but the first move is from the theoretical research settings!

@Tolga, may I add a point between your step 1 and step 2?

Step 1b: Try to find friends or colleques to discuss. Try to find contradiction or agreement, collect their proposals and ideas for the experiments.

@Hanno, correct. what you described is what "WE" means in my pseudo-code :)

also, there are lots of details in STEP4 ...

@Tolga: I´ve found your "we", sorry!

Dear Ahed. I will post tomorrow, to share my experience of 50 + years of professional work in 4 Countries and 3 Continents.

If they are scientists then they should know where to start and they don't need my answer. If they are not scientists, they can not do the project and again they don't need my answer.

Dear Alexander, I´m looking forward.

Dear Vitaly. I agree with you. But scientists are scientist because they know how to get the answer. I think the question is about the methodological aspect of the project. The term scientist is a fuzzy concept and it is the methodological mastery that makes it unfuzzy.

It starts and still fuzzy with experience, it became unfuzzy with a theoretical explanation at the end. TURN THE APPLICATION FIRST.

No such demarcation. This depends on research idea. But in general the idea, then we go for simulation / experiment then to theory. But in practice simulation or experimental setup requires system modeling (theory).

I would say theory goes before experiment. This includes a literature search to see what was already accomplished, also, to gain information about the phenomenon. Finally, after gathering all available information and thoughtful contemplation, one would then start to design an experiment.

Sure, literature search comes first. But with Internet and Google search it comes much easier, than in old time. Then, certain degree of theoretical understanding is required in order to design the effective experiments. Workong in a large Research Establishment, one has to stay in line for a machene shop coming with parts for the equipment required.

Then experimental stage comes. Experiment more often corrects the initial theoretical model, researcher initially had. So, that allows to refine the theory. In the case the theory describes the observed experiments and is capable to predict different scenarios, the project is well done. But that is from my personal experience. Other Scientists can have different mode operandi, only result is a KING.

It is true first come idea or problem, then comes the question how to rationalise or theories it, To theorise, one cannot go far deduction, in support one has to do experiment to validate theory. It is theory that comes and dictates what data are required and therefore meticulous details of experiments. Experimental results may not support the theory, theory is to be modified or reformulated. It is what is taught in scientific method.

Of course at first there is the problem to investigate, the literature search and theoretical understanding. Then engineering and compilation of the assembled knowledge. The 3rd stage is thinking of a solution or a resolution scheme, modeling and then experimentation. Then results analysis, interpretations, thinking and new modeling or optimization and feed backs to theories.

As per my knowledge first of all every one who have project check about the available instrument first if any lake in instrument delay our project. Then check weather our environment support our research if its not make standard environment for our research then get out line of our project and draw work sheet for it for example when we start our first batch of work when we finish it (approximant). Then we start our work in lecture review finally go to experimental part .

Pankaj has the right idea. Before handling your own theory and your own data, you must deal with pre-existing literature on the problem and see where that literature stops and your own theory starts. If the existing literature proves your theory, then unless there is some significant difference between the two bodies of theory, the older theory and yours, then it is not worthwhile continuing to research.

Dear Dr. Alexander Babchin,

Having a project tasks are set. In most of the sanctioned projects the first task demands for experimental setups.

I think the thread is misleading slightly. Theoretical/experimental background is there in most cases unless the proposed work/project is totally novel. Based on the existing literature, one can develop theory and validate this theory through experiments or viceversa. I believe that Prof.Alexander concerned about this development of theoretical and experimental work....

@Lijo. "I think the thread is misleading slightly. " Definitely agree with you. Have a look on my previous posts on this thread. The main message of my previous posts was that in the lack of enough information within the question, it will be very difficult to answer.

If the scientist did a proper literature survey and if all the things that are necessary are available then it's always a better option to start the experiment. Theoretical knowledge always doesn't always and really help because when we start an experiment we may face many small issues which theory doesn't teach us. So, it's always better to start the experiment.

dear Siram

what you do is alright for synthesis. characterization and evaluation type research

really good work need go basics modelling and verification

Characterization techniques are useless without good concept - good theory precedes experiments

Most of paper i published my theories are strong ( > 100 papers) and 300 only on experiments

@Alexander, I expect this is cheating. You wrote "Scientists have a project, including theoretical and experimental parts".

Then, to my sincere expectation, all these things should have been discussed BEFORE they got a project.

If not, then these scientists are brave enough, to get project money without preliminary knowledge.

If I did not understand something, please correct.

And it should be good to know, what kind of the project it is.

Sure, Linas, scientist should be an expert in the field his pending project belongs.

But I have 50+ years of professional experience, and never was paid for a project I new the answer before I did the real work. And my work experience was earned in 4 countries on 3 Continents.

@Alexander, it's not about your qualification. It's about the order of things. At least some scientists plan their schedules - start from theory, literature or experiments - before they apply for a grant. Then, possibly, depending of the first results, they might change their order.

If they get money for results already known - well, such is life. I think, such things are happening. And happening everywhere.

@Linas, it really depends on the scientic job you have. Just imagine corporations like IBM or EMI (CT) are open for research only after having received the results. Some times you must make an advanced payment and investigation.

it really depend upon scientific knowledge upon the project we have. first decide the name of it,have a fine search on it and investigate . Which project has major advantage in present situation give priority for that -proceed the experiment-applying simple solutions.

start the simple task in experiment and proceed for better results.

The need to do the work - what is known and what is not known -how to solve known

plan the details - apply for funding - recruit and purchase equipments simultaneously - proceed -

In my view a structured search of literature is must to get in to a detail experiment.

I published several papers based on the above. Your experience gains a lot

Theoretical research should lead you to a lot of indications about the success or failure of your research.

I think one starts with what one is good at and the tools to which he/she has access.