The Lab Monkey Thread of Joy and Despair

Is there any way that it has possibly been worthwhile? Maybe if you repeat those techniques you'll be in a better position to do them again, and faster/more efficiently?

Yeah, I've more-or-less fixed the problem, it's just frustrating. It shouldn't take me too long to redo the experiments, thankfully.

I got their Phusion free sample pack today, along with memory stick, pen, transformation float, posters etc. I know it's gimmicky but I still think it's nice to receive free stuff (will never have a need for any Phusion polymerase but thanks )

What subject?

Hm, it depends.

a) At PHD level that shouldn't occur, because you should have already learned how to work sciencey. Thus if anyone doesn't work properly, it can be his research lacks a scientific approach. (e.g. only rewrite, what others have written, without analyzing; doing dumb monkey work)

b) Or do you mean these people, who are convienced that only Humanities teach you how to think and e.g. Mechanical Engineers are in fact mechanics doing an apprenticeship disguised as a University degree because of capitalistic influence in the society? If it is the latter, it can be hard to convince them.

Wait, I don't understand lol. =/

She's basically asking who told you that your research wasn't 'sciency' enough.

I guess it can only mean that the critic believes that your research doesn't utilise a scientific methodology or analysis to a great enough extent.

If your research is meant to be scientific in nature, then of course this would be a valid criticism.

As to whether or not it is concrete depends on whether or not they can be specific about their objection.

I would need to use, what they called 'scientific methodology' during the research, but I'm not sure whether they would want me to do something from a pure 'computing methodology' perspective, because my work overlaps greatly with some other unrelated field, but needed in the research.

As for the last part, if you find their reason to be not concrete, would you specify to them that it is not concrete? I would believe it is important to do so in order to defend the work and not letting them ridicule it without a proper base. But I might be wrong

Owh lol. Thank you.

It was the panel. The panel who would admit me to the program. But not all of them stated it. It's just 2 out of 10 people. The rest of them were supportive or just quiet about it.

The exact thing they said was my research is no longer a technical research - a research that usually has an output/tool (which is something I used to do before and they are aware of it) where now it's more of an empirical research; it's not computer sciencey enough, as one of them put it.

I stated clearly that at this stage, I wouldn't know whether the research would come out with a tool (which is what they defined as 'technical research') or something of a procedure to solve the current problem. When they asked me to clarify my research proposal earlier, one of the panel members did interject and said that I might find the actual solution during the research period, not during the proposal - I stated during that time, I wouldn't specify what is the exact solution just yet since I wouldn't know what it is at this stage.



Thank you for the reply.

I would need to use, what they called 'scientific methodology' during the research, but I'm not sure whether they would want me to do something from a pure 'computing methodology' perspective, because my work overlaps greatly with some other unrelated field, but needed in the research.

As for the last part, if you find their reason to be not concrete, would you specify to them that it is not concrete? I would believe it is important to do so in order to defend the work and not letting them ridicule it without a proper base. But I might be wrong

I wouldn't see it as being 'ridiculed'. From the additional information that you have provided, it would seem that they have already given a concrete criticism. To wit, they would seem to prefer that you use one methodology over another.

Rather than get emotional over this point, why not come back with an advised response justifying your use of a non-traditional methodology in this field and explaining to them how it will contribute to reaching the goal of your proposal.

Are you all at least in agreement on the intended outcome of the work?

From what you have said, there still seems to an ambiguity as to whether they are criticising your intended goal i.e. what you intend this research to acheive or whether they are just criticising your methodology or whether they don't like either. It even seems a possibility to me that they just don't think it is a good fit within their department.