A Memo on Academic Research

These are tough times for academic research in Computer Science. Multi-institution research, technology transfer and exploitation in "real-world" -- the term has come to mean nothing to me and its usage makes me cringe even -- scenarios is more commonly a prerequisite to funding. It is simply not enough to publish in peer-reviewed venues. An intellectual proposition is considered to be of little merit unless accompanied by deliverables -- I don't know the history of this term, but I suspects its origin in industry -- in the form of software, hardware, documentation, and demos.

What are my primary responsibilities to society as a researcher in Computer Science? To apply my mind to the challenges people face and to strive for semantic solutions, not ad hoc ones; to disseminate the results of my efforts; and to mentor students.

These responsibilities conflict with most of the things that are currently passing in academia. For example, applying my intellect pretty much rules out multi-institution research because of the bureaucratic commitments such an activity entails and the reduction of any intellectual proposition to the lowest common denominator. Coordinating two institutions fruitfully is hard enough; coordinating a consortium of 15, each of which brings multiple research groups, is an exercise in futility. Coordination should not be confused with dissemination. Disseminating is like spreading spores -- the spores might take root in fertile ground and germinate into something wonderful. By contrast, coordination is like a marriage of persons who speak completely different languages. Most cultures hold the marriage of minds as an ideal; why in academia then have we created conditions that encourage institutions to enter into a marriage of convenience?

Some of the things I mentioned above, such as cooperation and technology transfer, are not bad in of themselves. What is bad is making them integral to research proposals. Research is risky: one might not achieve the results one had hoped to, and it typically takes many years for a line of research to mature. Such being the case, how can every researcher promise a transfer of technology to industry? I would view with suspicion anyone who promises that: either they are being dishonest or there is little research in their proposal. It would be a thoroughly good idea to have separate funding for transfer of technology; that's precisely the role of incubators. (Some universities indeed have incubators set aside for this purpose.)

Clearly, we are accountable towards those who fund our research, whether it be the taxpayer or a private entity. But how may we be judged? By peer review -- by more or less the same criteria that are used to judge a PhD dissertation. The number of quality publications, citations, technology transfer, the numbers of PhD students graduated, software produced, demos, could all be factors in the evaluation. However, the biggest part of judging will continue to be "did the research lead to significant new results and insights"? The judges could include some of the people who approved the proposal, with the others replaced by independent experts in the field -- it's like being called to do jury duty.

My intention is not to paint the software industry in a malign light. However, we must accept that industry and academia simply have different motivations, different objectives and timescales for achieving those, and different standards of judging achievement. It is best to leave them both to their own devices.