Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Basic vs applied research vs development

RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 5:39:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This question comes up constantly among scientists, science administrators and public policy: if we had $100 to spend on science, how should we carve it up among basic research, applied research, and development?

I find myself torn on this too. So here's some context:

Basic research is performed without thought of practical ends. It results in general knowledge and understanding of nature and its laws. The general knowledge provides the means of answering a large number of important practical problems, though it may not give a complete specific answer to any one of them. The function of applied research is to provide such complete answers. The scientist doing basic research may not be at all interested in the practical applications of his work, yet the further progress of industrial development would eventually stagnate if basic research were long neglected.
(https://www.nsf.gov...)

Basic research helps to answer some of the most compelling fundamental questions we can ask, like: What is time? What is space? Where did life come from? Can computers think like people? But it also answers curiosities of interest mainly to scientists, like: how many species of fungi are there? Or how does this virus reproduce?

By contrast, applied research answers questions of immediate interest to industry and society, like: how can we biodegrade plastics, or is there a cure for breast cancer?

And development can be thought of as the productisation or commercialisation of well-understood scientific results -- like turning an experimental Ebola vaccine into a product that could be rolled out over Africa.

The answers to basic research often have far-reaching strategic significance for science and technology, and can produce transformative spin-off products (for example, did you know that WiFi was a spin-off technology from astronomy?) But applied research tackles the problems were suffering from now, while development frequently satisfies immediate need.

In my own career I've worked across the spectrum, and still don't know how to advise on prioritisation. I can't even identify clearly in my own mind the criteria I want to use.

What do other DDO members think?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 5:51:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 5:39:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
This question comes up constantly among scientists, science administrators and public policy: if we had $100 to spend on science, how should we carve it up among basic research, applied research, and development?

I find myself torn on this too. So here's some context:

Basic research is performed without thought of practical ends. It results in general knowledge and understanding of nature and its laws. The general knowledge provides the means of answering a large number of important practical problems, though it may not give a complete specific answer to any one of them. The function of applied research is to provide such complete answers. The scientist doing basic research may not be at all interested in the practical applications of his work, yet the further progress of industrial development would eventually stagnate if basic research were long neglected.
(https://www.nsf.gov...)

Basic research helps to answer some of the most compelling fundamental questions we can ask, like: What is time? What is space? Where did life come from? Can computers think like people? But it also answers curiosities of interest mainly to scientists, like: how many species of fungi are there? Or how does this virus reproduce?

By contrast, applied research answers questions of immediate interest to industry and society, like: how can we biodegrade plastics, or is there a cure for breast cancer?

And development can be thought of as the productisation or commercialisation of well-understood scientific results -- like turning an experimental Ebola vaccine into a product that could be rolled out over Africa.

The answers to basic research often have far-reaching strategic significance for science and technology, and can produce transformative spin-off products (for example, did you know that WiFi was a spin-off technology from astronomy?) But applied research tackles the problems were suffering from now, while development frequently satisfies immediate need.

In my own career I've worked across the spectrum, and still don't know how to advise on prioritisation. I can't even identify clearly in my own mind the criteria I want to use.

What do other DDO members think?

You have to also consider, applied science also attracts a lot of funding from industrial bodies. For example, post grad research in cancer treatments, or energy production, or materials etc are largely out of state funding' hands. Whereas, more speculative fields and research clearly not intended for immediate applications largely require state funding.

They both are important, since virtually all applied science had ties and builds in science that originally wasn't applied. You need new ideas and new breakthroughs to make significant progress in the application side. The replacement for silicon in microprocessors isnt going to come from applied sciences or engineering, the next generation of antibiotics isnt going to come from applied sciences, nor are new modes of space travel. High risk low reward fields needs to be presued in order to make those breakthroughs possible. Applied sciences generally are progressive, and rely on already established fields, they cannot afford to take large risks.

Thus, why we need a balance.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 5:59:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am a basic researcher and my partner is applied, so we both obviously have our preferences and we've quibbled about this before. If you have a fleet of boats and they keep sinking, what is more important: patching the holes in the boats you have or finding out what's causing the problem? In the end, they rely on one another (largely) and build on the progress of the other. Spread the funding around as best you can.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 6:53:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 5:39:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
This question comes up constantly among scientists, science administrators and public policy: if we had $100 to spend on science, how should we carve it up among basic research, applied research, and development?

I find myself torn on this too. So here's some context:

Basic research is performed without thought of practical ends. It results in general knowledge and understanding of nature and its laws. The general knowledge provides the means of answering a large number of important practical problems, though it may not give a complete specific answer to any one of them. The function of applied research is to provide such complete answers. The scientist doing basic research may not be at all interested in the practical applications of his work, yet the further progress of industrial development would eventually stagnate if basic research were long neglected.
(https://www.nsf.gov...)

Basic research helps to answer some of the most compelling fundamental questions we can ask, like: What is time? What is space? Where did life come from? Can computers think like people? But it also answers curiosities of interest mainly to scientists, like: how many species of fungi are there? Or how does this virus reproduce?

By contrast, applied research answers questions of immediate interest to industry and society, like: how can we biodegrade plastics, or is there a cure for breast cancer?

And development can be thought of as the productisation or commercialisation of well-understood scientific results -- like turning an experimental Ebola vaccine into a product that could be rolled out over Africa.

The answers to basic research often have far-reaching strategic significance for science and technology, and can produce transformative spin-off products (for example, did you know that WiFi was a spin-off technology from astronomy?) But applied research tackles the problems were suffering from now, while development frequently satisfies immediate need.

In my own career I've worked across the spectrum, and still don't know how to advise on prioritisation. I can't even identify clearly in my own mind the criteria I want to use.

What do other DDO members think?

Without any idea of the research or technology envolved I might go with:

30% basic research, 50% applied research, 20% development

It is generally assumed that spending on Science leads to economic growth. Curiously enough this has not been scientifically studied to be true or not. The rare cases that have studied if this connection exist, were tainted with science advocacy.

My reasoning for my values are as follows.

Basic Researchers can not see every possible use of their research. Sometimes their research will lead to discoveries not in the field they intend. This more creative fluid research has untold effect on innovation. And that is the problem. "untold". It is hard to quantify spending on basic research such as Return On Investment (ROI). Some approaches end with no real practical value, while others do. Some times you can have a couple of breakthroughs in a short amount of time and other times go decades with out success stories.

What ever the investment into basic research the return will be far less than the investment. Funding basic research should be seen more like funding charity, but without as certain the results. I guess the lottery would be a better analogy.

I would give most to applied sciences. The problems being investigated are problems effecting us right now. The benefit is much more likely than in basic research. The old adage goes "progress over perfection" and that is where applied research comes in.

Development is the lowest but not because of value. I just see funding at this stage will be more from interested business and private funding.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 8:31:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Without any idea of the research or technology envolved I might go with:

30% basic research, 50% applied research, 20% development

It is generally assumed that spending on Science leads to economic growth. Curiously enough this has not been scientifically studied to be true or not. The rare cases that have studied if this connection exist, were tainted with science advocacy.

So you've searched through all of the relevant literature and found no scientific study of the impact of science funding on economic growth/development?

[1] Kealey, Terence, and Richard R. Nelson. The economic laws of scientific research. London: Macmillan, 1996.
[2] Lane, Julia. "Assessing the impact of science funding." Science 324.5932 (2009): 1273.
[3] Coccia, Mario. "Science, funding and economic growth: analysis and science policy implications." World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development 5.1 (2008): 1-27.
[4] Moses, Hamilton, et al. "The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons." JAMA 313.2 (2015): 174-189.
[5] Ngoie, Jacques Kibambe. "Federal research spending and innovation in the US economy." Journal of Policy Modeling 36.3 (2014): 492-506.

No, I didn't read all of these thoroughly (I'm not that interested in the question and I don't have the time to spare), and these are a mix of economics and science papers, but the point is that a quick literature search found many results. Did you look through the relevant literature before you declared that it doesn't exist?


My reasoning for my values are as follows.

Basic Researchers can not see every possible use of their research. Sometimes their research will lead to discoveries not in the field they intend. This more creative fluid research has untold effect on innovation. And that is the problem. "untold". It is hard to quantify spending on basic research such as Return On Investment (ROI). Some approaches end with no real practical value, while others do. Some times you can have a couple of breakthroughs in a short amount of time and other times go decades with out success stories.

What ever the investment into basic research the return will be far less than the investment.

If you say there has been no scientific analysis of the relationship between spending on science and economic growth to suggest one way or the other whether the ROI is positive or negative, then how did you make this assessment?

Funding basic research should be seen more like funding charity, but without as certain the results. I guess the lottery would be a better analogy.

I would give most to applied sciences. The problems being investigated are problems effecting us right now. The benefit is much more likely than in basic research. The old adage goes "progress over perfection" and that is where applied research comes in.

Development is the lowest but not because of value. I just see funding at this stage will be more from interested business and private funding.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 8:37:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 5:39:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
This question comes up constantly among scientists, science administrators and public policy: if we had $100 to spend on science, how should we carve it up among basic research, applied research, and development?

I find myself torn on this too. So here's some context:

Basic research is performed without thought of practical ends. It results in general knowledge and understanding of nature and its laws. The general knowledge provides the means of answering a large number of important practical problems, though it may not give a complete specific answer to any one of them. The function of applied research is to provide such complete answers. The scientist doing basic research may not be at all interested in the practical applications of his work, yet the further progress of industrial development would eventually stagnate if basic research were long neglected.
(https://www.nsf.gov...)

Basic research helps to answer some of the most compelling fundamental questions we can ask, like: What is time? What is space? Where did life come from? Can computers think like people? But it also answers curiosities of interest mainly to scientists, like: how many species of fungi are there? Or how does this virus reproduce?

By contrast, applied research answers questions of immediate interest to industry and society, like: how can we biodegrade plastics, or is there a cure for breast cancer?

And development can be thought of as the productisation or commercialisation of well-understood scientific results -- like turning an experimental Ebola vaccine into a product that could be rolled out over Africa.

The answers to basic research often have far-reaching strategic significance for science and technology, and can produce transformative spin-off products (for example, did you know that WiFi was a spin-off technology from astronomy?) But applied research tackles the problems were suffering from now, while development frequently satisfies immediate need.

In my own career I've worked across the spectrum, and still don't know how to advise on prioritisation. I can't even identify clearly in my own mind the criteria I want to use.

What do other DDO members think?

It's a very challenging question. I'm tempted to say that the distribution of funding should fluctuate according to how much basic research exists from which to build applications, but as far as I know, we can't really predict whether a certain set of results from basic research will be sufficient to enable successful applied research.

It might be too simple to lump all of basic research and applied research together. I think if I was looking at this problem seriously, I would subdivide by field first and take a look at the trends in basic and applied research there. For example, basic neuroscience has only just recently become a developed (somewhat developed) field. That's lead to a huge swell of applied neuroscience, and particularly the emergence of neuroengineering and neurotechnology, in the last couple of decades. So in neuroscience, for the time being, I would weight funding more heavily towards applied research to capitalize on this new wealth of results from basic research. Physics might be in a completely different stage in that cycle of basic-applied research, so the weighting might be different to reflect the current state and trends in physics.

I hope that was somewhat clear - it was quite rushed and I'm tired.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 8:39:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 5:59:32 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I am a basic researcher and my partner is applied, so we both obviously have our preferences and we've quibbled about this before. If you have a fleet of boats and they keep sinking, what is more important: patching the holes in the boats you have or finding out what's causing the problem? In the end, they rely on one another (largely) and build on the progress of the other. Spread the funding around as best you can.

My partner and I are both applied (but very different fields). I wonder how that difference impacts our respective relationships. Just a thought.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 8:56:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 6:53:53 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Without any idea of the research or technology envolved I might go with:
30% basic research, 50% applied research, 20% development

Mhykiel, thank you for your thoughts, and I can't express how glad I am to see you participating in non-evolutionary Science questions. :)

Regarding your suggested mix, for all I know you could be right, but that's not how most governments are doing it at the moment.

In the US at the moment, for example, federal research funding goes approximately 1 : 1 : 2, so for every dollar spend on basic research, Fedgov spends another dollar on applied research and two bucks more on development, and that proportion has been stable for over a decade. (http://www.nsf.gov...)

It is generally assumed that spending on Science leads to economic growth.
Curiously enough this has not been scientifically studied to be true or not.

Actually, economic studies have shown significant benefits from science investment. For example Frontier Economics (2014) writes:

There is a large literature which estimates the rate of return to R&D investments, using firm-, industry- and national-level data to estimate a production function which relates economic outcomes (output or productivity) to knowledge inputs. There is clear evidence that these investments yield high private returns , of the order of 20 to 25% at the median or 30% at the mean. Social rates of return, allowing for spillover effects between firms, industries or countries, are typically two or three times larger than this. The fact that social returns exceed private returns provides a rationale for public support of R&D investments. However, R&D is not the only investment driving innovation. Other "intangibles" such as design, software and firm-specific human capital represent significant amounts of investment by firms, and much less is known about the private and social returns to these wider investments.

(https://www.gov.uk...)

The bolding there is mine, but Frontier's point seems to be that if you put $1 in the bank for a year, you might get $1.05 back at the end. Invest it in science though, and you might get $1.30 -- though you might have to put $1 in each year over ten years, and get it all back with compound interest at the end.

But Frontier points out that the social benefits (broad benefits like over-all productivity, but might also factor in health, longevity and environmental benefits) can be much higher.

Basic Researchers can not see every possible use of their research. Sometimes their research will lead to discoveries not in the field they intend. This more creative fluid research has untold effect on innovation. And that is the problem. "untold". It is hard to quantify spending on basic research such as Return On Investment (ROI).

Exactly. I've worked in basic research, applied research, development and in business, and estimating RoI still for basic research still eludes me. When economists do it I think they do it in hindsight, but I don't know how you plan for it project by project.

What ever the investment into basic research the return will be far less than the investment. Funding basic research should be seen more like funding charity, but without as certain the results. I guess the lottery would be a better analogy.

Yes. Basic research enables a lot of things, but seldom does more in itself than scratch the itch of curiosity. However, it has been illustrated that basic research has done more for diabetes (for example) than spending money on insulin. Essentially, the basic research into proteins done by Nobel Laureate Frederick Sanger allowed the mass synthesis of insulin, where before it previously had to be extracted from cow. (http://www.diabetes.co.uk...)

I would give most to applied sciences. The problems being investigated are problems effecting us right now. The benefit is much more likely than in basic research. The old adage goes "progress over perfection" and that is where applied research comes in.

That's my intuition too - my theory being, the more benefit we see now, the more funding we can justify in future. However, as Envisage pointed out above, applied research and development both see more private funding than basic research does. So basic research typically falls to public funding, and it has been argued that excessive public funding of applied research and development could be likened to 'picking winners' in technology, could perturb market signals and discourage private investment.

Development is the lowest but not because of value. I just see funding at this stage will be more from interested business and private funding.

It generally is, but there are some humanitarian cases where we might feel differently. For example, Ebola was first identified in 1976, and since then, most work on Ebola vaccines has been privately funded by pharmaceuticals companies. However there hasn't been much return on Ebola vaccines because until recently, the victims have mostly been African poor. So research has been going very slowly. However, as with HIV, Ebola could become a world issue. So even if one supports putting commercial profits above human safety (which many don't), strategic funding into Ebola vaccine research and development could be seen as a shared world concern.

(http://jid.oxfordjournals.org...)
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 9:23:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 8:31:15 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
Without any idea of the research or technology envolved I might go with:

30% basic research, 50% applied research, 20% development

It is generally assumed that spending on Science leads to economic growth. Curiously enough this has not been scientifically studied to be true or not. The rare cases that have studied if this connection exist, were tainted with science advocacy.

So you've searched through all of the relevant literature and found no scientific study of the impact of science funding on economic growth/development?

[1] Kealey, Terence, and Richard R. Nelson. The economic laws of scientific research. London: Macmillan, 1996.
[2] Lane, Julia. "Assessing the impact of science funding." Science 324.5932 (2009): 1273.
[3] Coccia, Mario. "Science, funding and economic growth: analysis and science policy implications." World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development 5.1 (2008): 1-27.
I was unaware of this study thank you. But my values and reasoning don't change.

[4] Moses, Hamilton, et al. "The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons." JAMA 313.2 (2015): 174-189.
Clear case of advocacy for more medical research, not objective evaluation. Simply stated it was throw more money at medical research so we can make more patents world wide.

[5] Ngoie, Jacques Kibambe. "Federal research spending and innovation in the US economy." Journal of Policy Modeling 36.3 (2014): 492-506.
This report is just a statement of HOW much money is spent on different research.

I didn't say it was non-existent. I said the rare studies that exist are tainted with science advocacy.


No, I didn't read all of these thoroughly (I'm not that interested in the question and I don't have the time to spare), and these are a mix of economics and science papers, but the point is that a quick literature search found many results. Did you look through the relevant literature before you declared that it doesn't exist?


My reasoning for my values are as follows.

Basic Researchers can not see every possible use of their research. Sometimes their research will lead to discoveries not in the field they intend. This more creative fluid research has untold effect on innovation. And that is the problem. "untold". It is hard to quantify spending on basic research such as Return On Investment (ROI). Some approaches end with no real practical value, while others do. Some times you can have a couple of breakthroughs in a short amount of time and other times go decades with out success stories.

What ever the investment into basic research the return will be far less than the investment.

If you say there has been no scientific analysis of the relationship between spending on science and economic growth to suggest one way or the other whether the ROI is positive or negative, then how did you make this assessment?

Funding basic research should be seen more like funding charity, but without as certain the results. I guess the lottery would be a better analogy.

I would give most to applied sciences. The problems being investigated are problems effecting us right now. The benefit is much more likely than in basic research. The old adage goes "progress over perfection" and that is where applied research comes in.

Development is the lowest but not because of value. I just see funding at this stage will be more from interested business and private funding.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 10:32:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 5:59:32 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I am a basic researcher and my partner is applied, so we both obviously have our preferences and we've quibbled about this before. If you have a fleet of boats and they keep sinking, what is more important: patching the holes in the boats you have or finding out what's causing the problem? In the end, they rely on one another (largely) and build on the progress of the other. Spread the funding around as best you can.

I started my career in basic research, moved through applied science via industry partnerships, and ended up consulting at the development end.

When I was doing basic research I got frustrated at the lack of application. When I did applied research, I chafed at the lack of vision in our partners and the dithering over research priorities; but now I'm working on the development end, and the lack of fundamental insights and paucity of knowledge transfer are driving me crazy. :)
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 10:38:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 8:39:04 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/4/2015 5:59:32 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I am a basic researcher and my partner is applied, so we both obviously have our preferences and we've quibbled about this before. If you have a fleet of boats and they keep sinking, what is more important: patching the holes in the boats you have or finding out what's causing the problem? In the end, they rely on one another (largely) and build on the progress of the other. Spread the funding around as best you can.

My partner and I are both applied (but very different fields). I wonder how that difference impacts our respective relationships. Just a thought.

It hasn't been too much of an issue, especially since we're both in psychology. We joke that I'll diagnosis the problem and she'll solve it haha.

What fields do you and your partner work in?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 10:38:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 10:32:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/4/2015 5:59:32 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I am a basic researcher and my partner is applied, so we both obviously have our preferences and we've quibbled about this before. If you have a fleet of boats and they keep sinking, what is more important: patching the holes in the boats you have or finding out what's causing the problem? In the end, they rely on one another (largely) and build on the progress of the other. Spread the funding around as best you can.

I started my career in basic research, moved through applied science via industry partnerships, and ended up consulting at the development end.

When I was doing basic research I got frustrated at the lack of application. When I did applied research, I chafed at the lack of vision in our partners and the dithering over research priorities; but now I'm working on the development end, and the lack of fundamental insights and paucity of knowledge transfer are driving me crazy. :)

You're right, we need to get out of research lol
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 10:42:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 10:38:23 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 3/4/2015 8:39:04 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/4/2015 5:59:32 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I am a basic researcher and my partner is applied, so we both obviously have our preferences and we've quibbled about this before. If you have a fleet of boats and they keep sinking, what is more important: patching the holes in the boats you have or finding out what's causing the problem? In the end, they rely on one another (largely) and build on the progress of the other. Spread the funding around as best you can.

My partner and I are both applied (but very different fields). I wonder how that difference impacts our respective relationships. Just a thought.

It hasn't been too much of an issue, especially since we're both in psychology. We joke that I'll diagnosis the problem and she'll solve it haha.

What fields do you and your partner work in?

Ah, that's neat =) I'm doing brain-computer interfacing, and my partner is chemistry and nano-materials science. I did half my undergraduate in psychology (the other half in statistics) and I work in the psychology/neuroscience department at my university, so there's probably a lot of overlap in our backgrounds.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 11:02:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Speaking of husband-and-wife teams...

Mrs Draba began a career in inorganic chemistry, moved to ICT marketing, then government policy, then psychotherapy, and now she's a solutions architect and project manager in ICT, working in my consulting firm.

In trying to extract coherence from that career-path, I think she sees herself as an engineer of human systems in knowledge-intensive industries. She's very, very good at doing that.

I'm... not sure what I am. I started as a researcher in computational logic and AI, got into education and industry partnerships in high-performance computing, human-computer research, big data analysis (back before big data was schmexy), then went off to consult in systems integration. Since then I've been running my own consultancy for about 14 years with a handful of staff including Mrs Draba. I've taught project management, leadership, conflict resolution, contract management, consulted in information architecture, project assurance, information strategy... oh, and I write fiction in my spare time and teach others how to do the same.

Mrs Draba can at least tell a coherent story about what she's doing. I'm darned if I can do even that. :D
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 11:52:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 11:02:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Speaking of husband-and-wife teams...

Mrs Draba began a career in inorganic chemistry, moved to ICT marketing, then government policy, then psychotherapy, and now she's a solutions architect and project manager in ICT, working in my consulting firm.

In trying to extract coherence from that career-path, I think she sees herself as an engineer of human systems in knowledge-intensive industries. She's very, very good at doing that.

I'm... not sure what I am. I started as a researcher in computational logic and AI, got into education and industry partnerships in high-performance computing, human-computer research, big data analysis (back before big data was schmexy), then went off to consult in systems integration. Since then I've been running my own consultancy for about 14 years with a handful of staff including Mrs Draba. I've taught project management, leadership, conflict resolution, contract management, consulted in information architecture, project assurance, information strategy... oh, and I write fiction in my spare time and teach others how to do the same.

Mrs Draba can at least tell a coherent story about what she's doing. I'm darned if I can do even that. :D

Haha, I feel like a lot of us have strange paths like that. I originally majored in classical music... then ended up with a double major in psychology/neuroscience and mathematical statistics, and now doing my phd in AI and brain-computer interfacing and sometimes co-teach computational neuroscience with my advisor. I hope I'll go on some other strange twist in my career path. You and your wife are ahead of me in terms of twists.