As mentioned only motivated persons can produce and published scientific research in the academic environment. It is a hard job to produce regularly novelty, with enough contribution for the scientific community, impact in the society or industry, and present it in a way that is interesting for the other researchers and for the publishers.

In my opinion, who is really motivated by money usually stay far away of the universities as they do not pay (also cannot) the hours of work you need to achieve (and I underline again here) high levels of novelty, contribution significance and interesting work.

The universities give the scientific environment, the scientific nets, the equipments (labs), the assistants, the computers and software, libraries, inside culture and knowledge, and so on. This is very expensive to build and keeping it along generations as well as maintaining a permanent improvement, beside the serious teaching contribution for which is possible to a university to stay alive within reasonable costs.

I know very few about the universities in third world. Anyway, would recommend to check the payments (are they receiving a dignified wage, i.e. a full-time job must allow to keep a family with kids at university) , to check the number of hours of teaching duties (a very good university lesson is also a hard job, which require preparation, adaptation and a lot of energy which must be balanced between research and teaching) , to check the working conditions given at university, check if they have freedom to study the problems they want or they consider the most important (one must believe in the importance of the work being doing), check the mentioned tolerance to failures, and to check for the access given to the international scientific community as well as to the society.

Universities should invest some of their budget in inviting senior recognized scientists to stay for some periods, to evaluate the environment , transmit experience and their way of working in the field. Young talented future candidates will enrich a lot contacting recognized scientists that are interested in working with these junior fellows.

Of course, with globalization many of sharing opportunities are being closed by the extreme competition and commercialization. Many available knowledge where in the past easily passed from university to university, but not nowadays.

Also, removing responsibility of seniors on preparing future generations to replace them as a natural event when they retire is doing damage. Of course, retirement income should also be a dignified.

Finally, this express only an opinion at this moment which can be changed with discussion and reflection, but hope contribute for the discussion in this very complex subject.

The academic environment seems more appropriate for people naturally motivated to research. However, it is always possible that people who have only vocation for teaching are also entered in these environments. So the motivation for research must come from the subjects to be studied at each institution and the real motivation must come from the interaction between persons with similar interests and exchange of information. I believe that few people have the opportunity to really make money on enough to serve as an important incentive amount. The distance between the start of their careers and the time in which it would be possible to earn a lot of money on research is very big!

I believe in the environment effect but, how can we create this environment?

Dear Esam has raised a very good issue as what motivates academicians to do research. Academic environment itself motivates academicians to do research. If research is made compulsory for promotion or as institute rule then almost everyone will be involved in research which may not be giving fruitful results. All academicians may not be having temperament for research. There should be a customized approach to motivate academicians to do research. In third world countries, there are many societal problems, many problems are there in industries as industries are not equipped with latest technologies. Different geographical areas and industries should be allotted to academicians to do research on their problems. They may be given monetary benefits, promotions, recognitions, administrative responsibilities or freedom in deciding their working hours of teaching.

Passion, purpose and eagerness to learn amounts as prime factors for scientific research and also decides the variance in research productivity.

Money,reputation, competition etc in my opinion are just by-products or catalysts.

I guess the most difficult moment in this process is to attract young talented people. Afterwards some of them will be “infected” and they will work independently of the exterior motivations.

A good known method is to invite mature scientists for certain periods.

I agree that attracting new talent is difficult, but perhaps more difficult to keep vocations found. It is always difficult to obtain the necessary resources, there is always a lot of bureaucracy, there is a rapid growth of competition etc..

It could be a combination for all the issues that you mentioned. However, still it depends on the researcher itself whom approaching this environment. As for me, I always was motivated to finish my PhD and go beyond but I would not do it without resources and support from my institution. If you want to motivate researchers to do good fruitful project, you should look at their needs and try to fulfil them. They might astonish you with their good results once you support them with tools and resources. Of course, the good encouraging environment is highly important as well.

I think the motivation for carrying out research comes from one's inner self. Research cannot be done if one is forced to do against his/her will. The environment is also a major factor but I belive that now a days to find an encouraging environment is really difficult because of the rising competition. I have seen many palces where people are not at all willing to help you in any regards rather they always try to pull you downwards merely because they have the fear that you may succeed them. This happens primarily in academic institutions.

IMHO (open to correction )

1. The primary motivation is already inbuilt in almost every being..it starts

with survival / learning adaptation I suppose as basically propounded

by Darwin... e.g .puppies explore, children explore . insects (ants, bees) explore

2 In the case of humans it might be acceptable to assume a state of Consciousness

and quality of Imagination of the human mind

with driving emotions such as Fear/ Love/ Anger/Envy/ Altruism along with

so called vices Sloth/ Greed etc form the foundation of search for knowledge

and thereby Research becomes important!!!

3. The history of human progress and Research is not confined only to so called

STEM but is found in religion, history , arts ,music , pedagogy(research in theory

of Learning and Teaching).

4 Based on the above it seems that we can motivate research

4.1 Societal reconstructs to prevent acquired inhibitions in Children.

4.2 Inventing a new education system which emphasises individual

satisfaction and mental highs that come from solving problems..not

public adoration...or a derivative of success like money..

4.3 Academic tolerance to failure...

4.4 It is reported that in Finland the school teachers are from the top five

percent of the university grads.. and are specially trained to attend to individual

needs of students .. consequently large number of innovations

4.5 treat every student as a potential researcher .. not a job seeker..

4.6 use media to showcase problems/ solutions not individuals..

4.7 In a semi lighter vein .. see the following which shows research is active in the general public...

http://www.storyepic.com/23-pictures-will-prove-jugaad-greatest-invention-india/

Good Narasim, highlighting the Science behind scientific research and Societal aspects of it. The finer aspect is the specialised attention of teachers ( Gurus ) towards the their students ( sishyas ). A system ( small and beautiful guru sishya) which is left behind in the race of creating world class schools and techno schools with larger than life structures.

Identify the natural inclination of the student and his capabilities / skills before pushing him into so called "advanced specializations." It is like initial thrust to the rockets. Prove only the amount required to reach the orbit. Little less it will fall to the ground and any thing more will reach the unknown destinations.

Simple. Link research outcome to promotion.

As mentioned only motivated persons can produce and published scientific research in the academic environment. It is a hard job to produce regularly novelty, with enough contribution for the scientific community, impact in the society or industry, and present it in a way that is interesting for the other researchers and for the publishers.

In my opinion, who is really motivated by money usually stay far away of the universities as they do not pay (also cannot) the hours of work you need to achieve (and I underline again here) high levels of novelty, contribution significance and interesting work.

The universities give the scientific environment, the scientific nets, the equipments (labs), the assistants, the computers and software, libraries, inside culture and knowledge, and so on. This is very expensive to build and keeping it along generations as well as maintaining a permanent improvement, beside the serious teaching contribution for which is possible to a university to stay alive within reasonable costs.

I know very few about the universities in third world. Anyway, would recommend to check the payments (are they receiving a dignified wage, i.e. a full-time job must allow to keep a family with kids at university) , to check the number of hours of teaching duties (a very good university lesson is also a hard job, which require preparation, adaptation and a lot of energy which must be balanced between research and teaching) , to check the working conditions given at university, check if they have freedom to study the problems they want or they consider the most important (one must believe in the importance of the work being doing), check the mentioned tolerance to failures, and to check for the access given to the international scientific community as well as to the society.

Universities should invest some of their budget in inviting senior recognized scientists to stay for some periods, to evaluate the environment , transmit experience and their way of working in the field. Young talented future candidates will enrich a lot contacting recognized scientists that are interested in working with these junior fellows.

Of course, with globalization many of sharing opportunities are being closed by the extreme competition and commercialization. Many available knowledge where in the past easily passed from university to university, but not nowadays.

Also, removing responsibility of seniors on preparing future generations to replace them as a natural event when they retire is doing damage. Of course, retirement income should also be a dignified.

Finally, this express only an opinion at this moment which can be changed with discussion and reflection, but hope contribute for the discussion in this very complex subject.

First I would like to thank you all for your contributions. The reason behind my question is that many of my friends after they got their Ph. D from well known universities where they publish good research articles, they came back to my university and they were halted and they did not do any research activities.

I want to say that they were motivated and they are not now. They had a target to get Ph. D and they worked hard to reach it. So to rephrase my question (how could we make the scientific research continues target?)

The answer of Miguel Matos Neves is appropriate for the rephrased

question..The really motivated I believe cannot be stopped no matter what...

History of Academics especially in many countries of Asia and Europe and

North America clearly shows shows ... Miguel 's point "Universities should invest some of their budget in inviting senior recognized scientists to stay for some periods, to evaluate the environment , transmit experience and their way of working in the field. Young talented future candidates will enrich a lot contacting recognized scientists that are interested in working with these junior fellows." is the one single point to overcome

the stated problem .. Of course this must not be a one time act but institutionalized

permanently...

Cheers

Infinite curiosity is a gift of many human beens. Einstein sayd (maybe not in his exact words) "my greatest pleasure is to know something that yesterday I didn't knowed" The role of the society is to guide and to support these gifted persons, because the World advances and preserves the best feelings with them.

The should be multiple reasons ranging from university rules combined with real world problems and national needs.

It is my experience that there is great motivation in doing research that has impact. It is one thing to do great research that is recognised by peers, I acknowledge that is motivating, but what gets me excited about what I do is to see it make a difference in practice (industry, society, etc.).

Dear Esam Alkaldy,

Your second question is much more complicated. First of all let me clarify two important points.

If somebody is publishing in high ranked journals it doesn’t mean necessarily that he is a good researched. Nowadays if one has sufficient funding and is smart enough he can be a co-author of papers published in journals with so called high impact factor. Second point is that if somebody has written a PhD dissertation and published in “good journals” it doesn’t mean that he has all merits for that. In many cases it depends on the influence and implication of the director of the dissertation. It seems that many guys who have recently got their PhD degrees feel that they never can achieve the level of their dissertation. That’s why in western countries exist postdoc positions. I believe that measures to boost the research activities should be smooth. The people who have lost the appetite for research should be treated delicately. Such measures as obligatory reports every x years about the research done in this period can be helpful to animate those who can work but they think that there is no adequate compensation for their work . It is also important to create a respectful environment for active researchers.

First of all, the original question is very profound indeed. I'm looking the questions outside of any universities, so hopefully I can distribute something new into this discussion.

Many writers have pointed out that the real motivation comes from inside of every individual. Academic career is rarely pursued due to monetary reasons, BUT, I have to remind that poor salaries in Academia is an issue to many smart individuals deciding their future plans after masters degree. It's very hard to select a career which barely exceeds income level of an ordinary bus driver, cashier, cleaning person etc, at least this applies here in Finland. Naturally, at the point when one achieves a higher position his/her salary goes much higher but those higher positions comes in limited number.

After PhD (referring to the later questions), many individuals have reached the phase in their lives where they have to do many things other than their careers. Family life can be very exhausting (e.g. small children), personal crisis, burnout etc. take their tolls. Also various disappointments and unfulfilled expectations regarding their careers might eat the motivation for further efforts. But that might be just a phase! Children grow up, time usually heals motivational issues and people grow in mentally and get more level headed with their lives. So, just give those fresh PhDs time to live!

I'll continue my commenting later on regarding the issue of third world countries vs. academic careers.

How do you motivate young talents in third world countries into a scientific research? Obviously limited resources are a big issue. I would try to create as agile and free universities as possible, minimum administration and freed monetary resources would be given to researchers.

That won't be enough so additional measures should be taken. What motivates people in general? Usually people like to be a part of something potential and interesting journey. Quite often people have their own visions what that journey would include, so let them choose their research activities as freely as possible. Individuals living in those third world countries are aware of the available resources and therefore can adjust their visions and plans accordingly.

Industrial interest groups would be allowed to participate but only in terms given by researchers, not the other way round. Universities should be more courage and feed all sorts of researches, mainstream or not. In the best case, new discoveries and breakthroughs could happen.

Those would be my plans to motivate young talents into a scientific research (actually everywhere, not only in 3rd world countries).

Motivations: Hire people who are self-motivated. Reward them regularly. The classic American professorial scheme has only three ranks, meaning in your entire career you are only going to be promoted twice. Perhaps more ranks is better. Only some people are motivated by titles. Make very sure that the people administering the show are not an embarrassment or out to enrich themselves at the expense of the people doing useful work. Encourage undergraduate and graduate student participation in research. If you are running the underlying educational scheme, make sure that simple rote memorization of random facts is not rewarded, but that sound knowledge of general principles is.

The scheme where the senior professor decides what is to be done, and the associate and assistant professors are robots doing as they are told, does not work and should be junked at all costs; it means that the people who are often the smartest -- brains deteriorate with age--and most creative are least able to contribute to research, and the elderly, fossilized, and near-senile are making the decisions. A system of graduate and post-doctoral fellowships worked well in the United States for a long time.

If you distribute research money via grant applications (i) the evaluation should be based purely on the scientific content, not on 'helps kindergarten students", etc, etc. (ii) funding should be divided into broad classes, not very tiny levels (iii) allocation of fringe benefits and overhead charges should be centrally set; if your university administration is incompetent or greedy and costs more that is their problem, (iv) should be subject to a rule that everyone paying for research pays on the same rate, as was once done for computer time, (v) the representation of the research record should include the entire peer-reviewed publication list, not little pieces.

The above is not a complete solution, but should be viewed as steps in the right direction.

I shall offer a suggestion. The book is titled "The Gifted and the non-Gifted" (Saturn Press), but I wish anyone trying to find a copy the best of luck. The author did a careful study of the high school and college records of the most successful chemists, iirc organic chemists. The conclusion was that the deciding factor was not genius (high SAT scores, fantastic college grades) it was a willingness to work very hard. I can support this interpretation. The 9-5 five day a week researchers are less successful. The people who sit monitoring a distillation, but who are also reading a journal at the same time, are more successful than the people who set up the distillation and go to play handball. The prior sentence should be interpreted allegorically, since I would be a bit worried about some safety issues in the implications.

Selecting for people who work hard and effectively for long hours sounds complicated. Selecting on quantity as well as quality of output may be effective.

Dear George Phillies,

I find your suggestion very interesting. I suppose that the conclusions of the book that you have mentioned are correct for scientific areas which have direct connection with the industry and can be funded by people or firms which are interested only in the outcome. It will be very hard, if not impossible, to realize similar research in Mathematics. The world of mathematics is hierarchical. Hence, the importance of the work done by a mathematician depends mainly on the opinion and the will of the mathematicians who are above him in the structure. Moreover the number of such persons is not much and if some of them don’t like somebody then he can arrange an agreement between them and close all ways of the escape of the individual.

Fortunately between the great expansion in the number of journals, not to mention alternative means of publication, it is far easier to publish one's work than was once the case. It may be that the importance of your work will net be appreciated immediately, but the record will still be out there, and the satisfaction of advancing mathematics will still be there. Also, as a practical matter, while occasionally a field becomes bound up in politics, a deplorable state of affairs, it is increasingly straightforward to create alternative hierarchies. Such things have happened with some regularity.

As a further inspiring thought, consider the state of English mathematics in the early 19th century -- or so I have read. (My students likely think that I was there.) English mathematicians were convinced that Newtonian notation was perfection, and continental mathematicians had little to offer. It was, I have read, a group of Cambridge *undergraduates* who first formed a group to study European mathematics and bring it to England.

I am trying to be encouraging, but perhaps I am not succeeding.

Professor Kazaruian raises an interesting issue, namely people who tag along and get their names on papers. For bench top and paper-and-pencil physics, I have been persuaded that a very reliable indicator is that the person being evaluated has published significant single-author papers. This approach works less well for, e.g., accelerator physics.

The point is not to encourage or discourage young talents to dedicate themselves to scientific activities. I consider that it is positive when an individual knows what types of difficulties are on the way which he chooses. To encourage I can say that mathematics for a researcher is an area where he can feel completely independent. Usually it is said that one needs pencil and paper to do mathematics. I can say that one doesn’t need even that. One can work in mathematics while walking or doing other activities which don’t require his complete attention. The pleasure which one feels achieving the desired solution is incomparable with other types of satisfactions that a human being can feel. What I am saying that the main issue for a scientist should be the personal satisfaction and not recognition of his work by others.

I would like to add a few points.

In my opinion, motivation in general is strongly connected with personality. It was indeed the title chosen by Maslow in its study "Motivation and Personality" (1954). He also introduced the term Metamotivation referring who go beyond the basic needs (see the Maslow's pyramid) and who looks for continuous betterment.

I assume most researchers develop that metamotivation (or similar) even without thinking on it. Recent studies, added what is known as attachment theory specially for infant problems. I found it very interesting to relate such problems with ones we may see in the university, but I am just a curious on it. That makes me think that the Pygmalion Effect (Rosenthal and Jacobsen, 1968) counts also at researchers, which means that a positive environment calls for your best (even if some consider the contrary: that permanent war environment is needed for high progress. See eg former CEO Jack Welch recommendations on ranking his employs and firing 10 percent every year.).

Institution rules result in duties. I don't think they motivate positively and may be doing the opposite (more papers may mean the work split in several papers instead of one and less books, but more work writing than needed). They may be justified by external funding impositions and nowadays all we know its connected with the citations and impact factor problem. I suggest a look at Prof. Randy Schekman criticism on how some " encourage researchers to cut corners and pursue trendy fields of science instead of doing more important work ". However, some rules really work, as eg the Chinese Academy of Sciences rule that pay the equivalent of $30,000 (£18,000) by paper to Chinese authors that appear in the major journals. ( The Guardian, Monday 9 December 2013).

As mentioned before, I know very few about the universities in third world. From several documents published on scientific research at universities in third world, I see there are some progress specially after 90's. Of course, building such positive environments require considerable time and investment. My better answer to Esam second question is: to give conditions to go beyond the basic needs and promote continuous betterment as a culture among the researchers.

Dear Professors

They say numbers speak and to get out with good results from this question and to guide the investment in each of the motives you mentioned I tried to summarize your answers in term of simple poll. So, as a percentage what is the total effect of each of the following factors on the research motivation in the academic environment?

1- Inner motive of the researcher

2- Researcher income and other Financial benefits

3- Availability of research facilities, tools, equipment, software, ………

4- Research directions guidance by seniors.

5- Linking the promotion to the research outcome and other university rules.

6- Testing the pleasure of the research impact

7- Research groups and collaborative work.

8- Other motives ( please specify and give percentage )

For example I think

1. 40%

2. 25%

3. 10%

4. 10%

5. 0 %

6. 5 % because till now I did not test it

7. 10 %

Dear Esam - Thank you for bringing up this important question, and bringing others for sagacious comments in the thread.

Regarding your second question, I think that the third world countries have two priority challenges of the many they face; and, which perhaps they do well recognize- 1. Knowledge building in society, 2. Providing infrastructure which will enhance quality of life.

And, scientific research is supposed to play a major role with both of these.

Most of the times the tasks required for achieving the above objectives are conducted in isolation. For example, Municipalities will contract out city improvements work to tested and faithful old companies and use same old methods. Or, Colleges will concentrate solely on marks/grades based competition restricted to classroom oriented sessions. A very low level of complementarity between the Academia, Industry, and Authorities exist in developing countries; albeit a few cases. By saying this I mean that there is seldom a research based approach, leave alone 'scientific research', in problem solving. If authorities and their implementation allies can invite Academia in developing countries directly to work on real issues, perhaps this will excite and motivate the latter to a large extent. The academia also needs to be proactive here.

In other words, research based implementation (and vice-versa) should be encouraged in the universities of developing countries.

Most third world countries universities yet need to recognize the maxim- 'problems is the key to innovation', which they have in plenty.

Esam,

Let me propose that the answer is 'we are not all the same'. I do not mean 'we are all different'. There are personality types, and attitudes on issues. As an example, not science-related, the American Pew Foundation, every half decade, does a detailed attitudinal study on Americans and their political opinions. They ask large numbers of questions, and then do cluster analysis. Their cluster analysis finds that most people in America, on political issues, fall into about 10 or 11 distinct groups that are very different from each other, with few people in between. I hypothesize that if you take a large number of scientists, ask them each a lot of questions, you will find a similar result.

For example, when I was a student, close to five decades ago, there was great interest in the claim that most people went into physics because they had along the way had an inspiring teacher, either as an undergrad or a grad student. I found this close to incomprehensible, because I had wanted to be a research scientist since I was about seven years old. There was also the colleague, who became a first rate scientist, whose original motive at a much younger age was the much older brother who had informed her that girls were not smart enough to become physicists. He was seriously wrong, of course, but siblings are like this sometimes.

My suggestion is that you need to provide a range of motivational supports.

George

Dear Esam Alkaldy,

The percentages cannot be fixed because different individuals have different needs. So I will give some intervals which more or less can serve to your purpose. Before I would like to remark that the funding of the pure scientific activities should not be abundant.

Because it can create privileged groups. Those groups afterwards will try to defend their position by any means, with evident negative consequences.

1. 30% --50%

2. 10%--30%

3. 5%--15%

4. 20%--40%

5. 5%--15%

6. 0 %

7. 0%

Fun

Do you think that the funding of your research is based on some principals that have more logic?

Facing the researcher with real, industrial and productive problems.

I think there is no single answer. Because what is research is itself not well defined. Or, the desired outcomes. Is research only about publications and citations? When I am in doubt, or am attempting to encourage someone, I try and remind them of their aim and purpose and that helps. This may be very different for for different people, and may change over time. While a PhDs student needs a job, a tenured professor has got different reasons.

I believe that while publications and patents and grants are all important, we do research because 'I' is important, that I want to solve the problem. We are generally not interested if the problem is simply solved by others. We are looking for challenges and excitement for ourself, which may also lead to money and increase. In our importance and pride.

To encouraging scientific research in the academic environment, we should provide fund for the researchers. In addition to that, databases should be available to researchers.

Beyond all considerations, a certain number of countries have used pay scale as a motivator for more research output. For example, designing a reward system that pulls to the higher ranks in the academic hierarchy seems to work fairly well. All we have to do is look into the salaries of academics across the world and correlate them with other indicators of scientific achievement..

I shall try to answer your question (For the universities in third world countries how can we motivate scientific research in your opinion?).

Universities in 3rd world countries have poor quality research. There is no suitable environment for such noble activity "good quality research". If a staff member wants to carry out real good research, then s/he must spend few months each year in a university in an advanced country. For many staff members, this is not possible for various reasons.

An overall change must be done to amend the situation from top to bottom. At the top, the university administration must be appointed on the basis of merits & not on the basis of political affiliation. If there is a good leader at the top, then other changes become easier to implement.

When the boss & his/her inner circle try hard to enslave others, then those who obey them will have the gates open for research & promotion. The other free-minded staff members will have a hostile environment which suppresses them and they will be subjected to a witch-hunt in which there is hard effort to find & count mistakes.

Yes there is motivation for scientific research in 3rd world countries but it is directed towards the few persons who the administration wants to move up the ladder.

1) Try for an Industrial problem for you Ph.D.

2) If not, try for a problem with a good application for the solution

3) If not, try for a sponsored research problem from a research center. With the financial support, one can buy the needed instrument and equipment for the research work. You may even hire skilled staff for technical support.

Dr.S.Ravindran

Although,I'm still an undergraduate of maths but I do expect lecturers to motivate us( I and my colleagues) to be research-oriented. But, I've come to realize that only lecturers who are researcher themselves, can motivate students to making research. Although, there are some of them that asks questions the intrigues one to make research. Creating an environment to make research would require making the students understand the need for it.

Sirs,

Let me share my experience in motivating scientific research in an academic institute, Mepco Schlenk Engineering College, It is situated at Sivakasi, a southern part of Tamil Nadu, India. We had a chance of initiating a student project, in the field of Safety in Fireworks Industry. It was expanded and we got a project from DST for nearly INR 13 lakhs. It was further extended and we established a center of Excellence and Relevance, with the support of TIFAC, at the cost of INR 41 lakhs. When I left for SWCC, my colleague Mr.Veeramani (late) and his team continued and developed the center with equipment with worth of 3 cores. Many students have got M.E. and Ph.D. degrees.

Creating safety awareness among the workers leads to Saving of few lives, which shall continue for many generations - it is the fruit of hard work. By this service to the humanity we got Job Satisfaction. All other gains like money, reputation, competition look to be too small.

The Govt of India supported in may projects through IGCAR, ISRO, MNRE, TNSCST and many private companies like Kaliswari Fireworks, Standard Fireworks, Ayyan Fireworks Pvt Ltd supported MEPCO in this regard.

Dr.S.Ravindran

A very useful research work is one which has a direct impact on society.

In the case field of Safety in Fireworks it would be nice if the

misery it brings to infants /aged people/ animals in cities could be avoided

It would seem that really attractive parts of fireworks is in the light it produces

and the act of starting it. Creativity/Research could be incorporated by using

simple electronic components to produce attractive light /musical sounds /

robotic effects and thereby bring Safety in Fireworks while also

avoiding pollution. It is also a very good case for design for disposal

after one time use. I suppose many different effects could be produced

with a single platform and different software incorporated in it....It would

also catapult the labor in this industry into the tech industry,..Another

possibility is recycling old electronics..

Cheers

Scientific research for the cause of 'Scientific Research' should itself be a main motivating factor.

Genuinely motivated researchers, wherever they are, understand this and perhaps should try to connect as much as possible , through mails, exchange tours, seminars and joint ventures.

As the world is pretty much flat and informed now, perhaps institutions should aim to-

1. improving quality,

2. create/sustain a scientific research environment,

3. express ethical clarity, and

4. diversity of researchers

as some targets.

All knowledge that is transmitted in the academic environment comes directly or indirectly from research activities. To better understand the strengths and weakness of knowledge production processes requires experience with research practice.

Agreed there can be many sources of motivation to motivate a scientific researcher in an academic environment.  Some of them can be exclusive or conflicting with each others subjective to the individual researcher's present need or priority.  This need / priority also evolve from time to time / 1 phase of life to the other.

Regardless of the abovementioned, we need to constantly remind ourselves that scientific researcher is a noble role that can offer oneself the satisfaction or even self-actualization to discover, develop and share knowledge with others that can bring benefits to human mankind. Knowledge contribution should be measured by its existence regardless whether it is one inch short or one mile long.

Beside the above, a scientific researcher in academic environment also might want to socialize and openly receptive to commercial / industry experts' opinion / advice / direction / reports on what are the potential research problem / gaps / technology frontier etc that academic community should consider in their research.  Because doing so might bring the research outcome / knowledge contribution speedily or impactuflly to the demanding market / humanity world.

To my mind, people are willing to work and do research. There are lots of issues in third world countries that detailed research is needed. However, the where-with-all is not available. Universities in the developing countries are cash-strapped.  Funding is the major problem. Most universities are owned by governments who can barely provide necessary and basic infrastructure for the people they govern. Many universities cannot afford to provide computers and other laboratory gadgets that will facilitate research. Where these are not available, what can be done? Many university lecturers use their salaries, which can hardly take care of their families, to do research. Grants are hard to come by. I believe if we are serious about motivating high-quality research in developing countries, funds must be provided. Again, exposure through training is needed.