www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/13/science-cool
A cheeky little article in Guardian with various opinions about the growth of affection for science and the possibility that we have entered a golden age. Authors also comment on the worry of future funding regardless of the next party that is in government...
Hello Science Girls who Rock!
ReplyDeleteI was wondering what your opinion on research group size is. Is it better to work in a small or large group?
Basically what I'm trying to ask is - does size matter?
I'm not sure if you're on the wrong blog Iain but I'll answer as sensitively as I can...Having completed my PhD in a rather large research group and now post doc'ing a relatively small group, I can see the pros and cons in both. From my own experience, there was a lot of support amongst the students/ post docs and many different research projects going on in the large group. This was good from the perspective that there was many people to talk to with experience of various techniques etc., problem solving and ideas but I did however, feel I lost out on some of the project and personal guidance I needed and I felt that this showed when it came to writing my thesis up-the last 6 months was spent polyfilla'ing the holes or trying to make the story look less like something Lewis Carroll would be proud of.
ReplyDeleteWorking in a small group is very different. It is much easier to keep on top of what everyone's doing and share your problems, ideas. Good results are celebrated and there is definitely more of a team like element. There is much more direct support from my supervisor. We do lose out on the financial benefits a large group has, however, beg,stealing or borrowing is just another form of networking, no?
As a large group is it easy to become quite insular as you have a wealth of knowledge immediately surrounding you. As part of small group you have to seek out this knowledge.
Ultimately, I would say though, that size is completely irrelevant. Your experience in a research group and as a researcher will be as good and fruitful as you make it yourself, regardless of how big or little it is. The fate of your career is up to only you and therefore it is up to you to make any situation work for you, take advantage of the good, recognise what you lack and seek it out.
What do you think?
Sarah (50% of SGR)
But do you not need to be taught how to recognise what you lack and what is good for you? Is that not an essential part of the PhD experience? No longer are there exams every six months where you know what you're supposed to know, just one huge bit of work. A Prof once told me that the subject of your PhD is irrelevant, their only purpose is to teach you how to do research.
ReplyDeleteI do totally agree with you that size is fairly irrelevant but I'm happy that I did my PhD in a small group before coming to a larger group. In the small group I could go and ask my supervisor a short question and we'd spend another hour or two talking about science, papers we'd read and how they might apply to the project, new directions etc. These times were fantastic, I had to know the literature, think of things off the top of my head and often we'd end up putting a few things on the white board as potential directions.
This not only kept the old brain active but made research much more enjoyable as things would just keep coming up so it never felt that they were starting to stagnate.
However, obviously in a larger group the supervisor doesn't have time for that kind of interaction with everyone. Being a Postdoc now it's not essential for me, though I do miss bouncing ideas off someone, you really need someone with more experience/different outlook to say if it's been done or is just plain stupid, I felt it was a real advantage to my PhD so now I'm trying to fill that role, spending time chatting to people about their projects and lobbing ideas in there from right field to get them thinking. So large groups are good as long as the PostDocs all step up.