Research ideas, part 2: This could get ugly

I have a lot of bad ideas. Literally thousands of them. Not just bad, but terrible ideas. And, they are the secret to my success in this job.

As researchers, ideas are what fuel our progress. This fact is both exhilarating and intimidating, and where you lie on that spectrum of emotions is probably closely tied to how reliable of a process you have for generating and developing your ideas. Last month, we confronted the fallacy that generating ideas is a “magical” process of waiting for inspiration to strike, and we explored systematic ways to produce ideas. But, if you do research, you know that having ideas isn’t enough – you need to have good ideas.  This month, we’ll confront a second fallacy – that this process involves brilliant people generating brilliant ideas on the first try.

Adam Grant is a Professor of Management at the Wharton School, where his research includes studying the hallmarks of creativity.  One conclusion that he draws from his work is that “The more output you churn out, the more variety you get, and the better your chances of stumbling on something truly original.” In other words – if you want to have good ideas, you need to have a lot of ideas. And, chances are that if you have a lot of ideas, you are going to have a lot of bad ideas.

How then, do we separate the few good ideas from the overwhelming excess of bad ideas? Next month, I’ll dive into the specifics of this process, but before we get there we need to start with the obvious first step – you need to be willing look closely, even though most of what you see is going to be ugly.

While crucial, this step is surprisingly difficult.  Why is that?  The easy answer is that you might feel like you’re wasting your time looking at bad ideas. I want to challenge you to consider some other reasons you might find this task difficult (I can list these because I struggle with every one of them):

• If my idea is bad, I’ll feel unintelligent
• If other people see my bad idea, they will think that I’m unintelligent
• If this idea is bad, it might mean I’m just bad at coming up with ideas and I will never have good ideas
• The stakes are high – I am relying on my ideas to secure a fellowship or grant, a job, or tenure 

Now that we’ve got all that out in the open, how do we move forward? A big part of the answer lies in how you view your abilities and intelligence.  Carol Dweck, a renowned Professor of Psychology at Stanford, hypothesizes that there are two ways that we can view our intelligence and abilities:

Fixed mindset: Intelligence and talent are fixed traits that are set at birth.  These factors alone determine the level of success you can achieve.

Growth mindset: Intelligence and talent are just the starting point and can be improved thorough hard work. Effort and persistence result in growth, which leads to success.

A detailed unpacking what this means for us as researchers and people is a topic for another blog post, but hopefully you can see the difference that this makes in how you approach your bad ideas.  From the fixed mindset, having bad ideas not only judges your current abilities, but also defines your future potential for success (or lack thereof). That’s terrifying! In contrast, the growth mindset allows you to take an honest look at both the good and bad, as you know that there is a path forward to improvement, no matter what your starting point or the bad ideas you have along the way.

Another way to think about this is to view doubt as an essential step in the creative process.  Adam Grant highlights, “…there are two different kinds of doubt. There's self-doubt and idea-doubt. Self-doubt is paralyzing. It leads you to freeze. But idea-doubt is energizing. It motivates you to test, to experiment, to refine…” The fixed mindset traps you at self-doubt, whereas the growth mindset allows you to skip over this step and focus on idea-doubt.

Next month, I’ll discuss the process that we use to evaluate and refine our ideas, with the goal of quickly discarding the bad ideas and focusing our energy on making the good ideas better. In the meantime, spend some time observing how you think about your ideas – when a new idea pops into your head, do you race to look closely and investigate the potential weaknesses, or do you hide it away to think about later? Challenge yourself to push toward a growth mindset and see if this makes a difference.  The faster you can move through the bad ideas, the more quickly you will find the good ones!

Have thoughts or experiences you want to share? Think my approach to this topic is itself a bad idea? Leave a comment and let’s discuss!

Research ideas, part 1: It’s not magic

As researchers, ideas are arguably our most valuable form of currency, and generating new ideas is a requirement for becoming an independent scientist. However, relatively few resources are available to offer guidance on this process.  Early in my career, I thought that generating ideas was a magical process where I had to wait for inspiration to come to me. However, over time I’ve come to appreciate that it really can be a systematic and reliable practice.  In this series of blog posts, I’ll outline how to generate ideas, how to vet and refine those ideas, and how to manage all of the thoughts and information that you gather along the way. This month, it seems only right to start at the beginning with the question: Where do research ideas come from?

Nothing is new. A key misconception in generating research ideas is that you need to create something entirely new out of nothing.  But, the fact is that almost nothing in the realm of research ideas is completely new.  Even in the rare instances that scientists uncover something truly novel or unexpected, it is usually because they were looking for something else based on existing knowledge. Recognizing this frees us up to think about how we can build compelling ideas by embracing the foundation of current knowledge or technology.  In my view, there are four different approaches for this construction process:

• Apply: Can I use an existing technology or approach to address a different unsolved problem or unmet need in science?
• Elaborate: Is there something important that this technology can’t do? Can I think of a different approach that could fill that gap?
• Connect: Is there a connection or potential synergism between these technologies, theories, or ideas that nobody has realized yet?
• Explore: Is there something important that we don’t yet know or understand? Is there a way to gain the missing knowledge? What could we do once we have that knowledge?

Every moment is an opportunity for inspiration. As I mentioned above, a second key misconception that I used to struggle with is the idea that I had to carve out “idea generation time” and then sit and wait passively for inspiration to strike (or not strike) me. While it is a great practice to have dedicated “thinking time” set aside in your schedule, most ideas strike when we are actively doing something.  This goes hand in hand with the realization that nothing is new.  If most ideas are going to build upon the foundation of existing knowledge or technology, then ideas are most likely to bubble up when you are actively engaged with the world around you. The great news about this is that almost all parts of your day can be turned into “idea generation time.”  A few of my favorite opportunities for inspiration have included:

• reading the literature
• listening to seminars or conference talks
• working in lab
• talking with colleagues
• talking with non-scientists
• everyday life activities – exercise, shopping, driving
• sleeping…?

If you are new to the process of generating research ideas, I hope that this framework does a bit to demystify the process and get you started. Multiplying the diversity of types of ideas with the numerous opportunities for inspiration, it becomes clear that even in an average day, you can generate a lot of ideas! That is encouraging, but can also feel overwhelming. Next month, we’ll discuss why this high quantity is necessary for achieving high quality with your research ideas, and how to confront the challenges that it can pose.

Networking, part 3: Just a friend you haven’t met yet

If you’re reading this, there’s a good chance that you’re in the science business.  What you might not realize is that this is also a people business, and that the relationships you build within (and outside of) the scientific community are not only essential for your career progression, but can also be fun and meaningful.  When we hear the word “networking,” it can trigger visions of an awkward “speed dating” event where people are all trying to get something from each other.  However, as I explained last month, transactional networking is not necessarily a bad thing, and is also a very small part of the whole picture.  The majority of networking is really just about building relationships, and this month, we’ll wrap up this series by taking a look at two different approaches.

In person. Arguably, the best way to get to know someone is by meeting them and spending time together.  This typically happens in person around your workplace, at conferences, or at other events, and video chatting also enables you to network “in person” with people who are far away. If meeting and spending time with new people sounds terrifying or unpleasant because you are an introvert, you’re not alone.  The good news is that most people love to talk about their research and how they got where they are in their career. So, having a set of questions at hand will take you far in building relationships and provides a great opportunity to learn some interesting new things. The questions you ask may vary depending on where someone fits in your network (more info on that here), the context in which you’re meeting them, and your own personal style and career goals. Below is a list (compiled with help from my research group) that offers a few examples to get you started:

Questions you ask mentees:

• What are your career plans?
• What are you most excited about in your research project right now?
• What did you think about [class/lab meeting/project idea/seminar]?

Questions you ask peers:

• How is your day going?
• How did you [find job/postdoc, write proposal/etc]. Would you be willing to send me an example or look over my materials?
• What is the biggest challenge are you facing right now and how are you dealing with it?

Questions you ask mentors:

• If you were in my situation, what would you do?
• If you could do everything in your career over again, what would you do differently?
• What accomplishment are you most proud of?
• What is the advice that I don’t even know that I need?

Questions you ask models:

• Tell me what it’s like to have your job. What do you like? What are the challenges?
• How did you get from the stage I’m at to your current career?
• What do you wish you knew at my stage?
• What were the most important resources for your career development?

Questions you ask champions:

• Can you introduce me to [person]?
• Can you get me invited to [conference]?
• Would you be willing to recommend/nominate me for [job/postdoc/award]?

Electronically. Interacting with people electronically may seem less effective than in person networking, but it can be an important first step to building new connections. While scientists are on many social media platforms, Twitter and LinkedIn seem to be the most popular right now. I was reluctant to join Twitter for many years, even as I heard my science friends talking about how useful it was.  I eventually caved, and over the past 6 months, have found it a great resource for gaining knowledge and building relationships (heck, you’re probably reading this blog because of a link on Twitter!).  If you are a student or postdoc thinking of using social media for networking, here are a few practical tips: 

• Maintain separate personal and professional profiles.  For LinkedIn, you should clearly only have a professional profile.  If you use Twitter for personal posts, consider starting a parallel account for professional posts.  If you follow other scientists, be sure to do this from your professional profile so that they will see this side of you if they follow you back.
• Keep your profiles updated with relevant information, especially if you are about to start searching for a job or postdoc.
• When you meet someone new in person, connect with them soon after via social media by following them on Twitter or sending a request on LinkedIn.
• If you feel like you have been interacting with someone frequently via social media (liking/commenting on posts) and you want to get to know them better, don’t be afraid to reach out personally by email.  They may not reply, but it’s worth a try. A key goal of networking via social media is to initiate relationships that eventually grow via in person interactions.
• While social media interactions may seem fleeting, it does make a big difference when you do finally get to meet that person in real life.  Also, it can be a great way to maintain relationships over long periods of time, even if you don’t get to connect in person.

Hopefully this series of posts has helped to clarify the who, what, where, when, why, and how of networking, and help the process to feel less intimidating and more fun.  While most people embark on a career in science for the thrill of discovery, one of the more rewarding aspects of this career can be the opportunity to build lifelong friendships as you continually expand the scope and diversity of your professional network.