Week 1. Lec 3&4

Week - 01 21 Lecture - 03
Introduction to Research
Prof. Prathap Haridoss
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala
Prof. G. Phanikumar
Prof. Abhijit P. Deshpande
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras
Lecture - 03
Art of inquiry - Postulating
Prof. Prathap Haridoss: I think, many of the points that you heard so far do convey this
idea that first of all, you have to be interested in the area, and that is where we feel, you
know, that you should have… when we keep saying passion is something that comes
because over period of time you have been very interested in that area and you have
recognized that you are interested in that area. So, that itself takes some while for you to
figure that out.
(Refer Slide Time: 00:12)
There many things that you might feel that you are interested in, but there is something
that really strikes a chord with you, so then that is something that you pickup. I think
through this discussion also indicated that there is a general acknowledgment - both in
THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

the student community and you know people who have already been researchers and so
on - that research is challenging. I mean, there are a lot of aspects of it that are
challenging. For I think the most important reason for that is also the fact that we are
learning about research as we do research; so especially the first-time researchers. When
you come in as a student, you actually still may not fully be, you know, aware of what all
is involved here, and as you keep going through the process, you are learning the
process. Whereas, when you do course work, it is something that you have done since
first grade or first standard onwards you have been doing course work, you do classes,
you write exams, you get marks; that is a pattern that you know. This is a completely
new pattern that you are handling, which comes, you know, all of a sudden after you do
your bachelor’s degree or your first masters degree and so on. It becomes challenging for
that reason because you are both trying to work to, you know, go through the process,
and you know complete the process, and if in the back of your mind, the intention was to
get a degree, then that is also there ahead of you. And the whole process of doing it, is
also something that you are discovering. So, that is why, that is one of the reasons why it
tends to be challenging. And as we also pointed out, there is lot of routine work that is
involved here, which you should not over look. It is not like, you know, you come in here
and suddenly you come in to a research program somewhere, and then, you know, one
fine morning, you suddenly get a bright idea and that’s it, your work is done; it never
works that way. It is a lot of routine work that goes on, that you have to keep working on,
and building on all of that routine work, you know, your experience goes up; your
experience goes up, your confidence goes up, your ability to, you know, identify insights
into that area starts going up and that is when you actually start making those in-roads,
which you can look back and say, you know, I was now beginning to do research; so that
is the point that you need to understand. So I would say, you know, even when you look
at research, and when you say from the perspective of how you discuss it in front of
others, when you do experimental work, and you collect data, in a sense you are doing
that drudgery; all those hard work that, you know, is involved in collecting the data.
When you discuss it, when you try to put perspective into it, when you try to say that,
you know, this is the reason why the experiments gave that particular answer, that is
when you are sort of actually doing research, beginning to analyze that data, and convey
something out of it, which is more than just simply saying that you know particular
parameter increases when you an increase some other parameter. So, that is just data, but
why it is increasing is what research is all about.

Prof. Abhijit P. Deshpande: An aspect of why we have said also research is challenging
is, is its long term and cyclic nature of it. This I have experienced with second year, third
year, undergraduate students when they come to try to just see, you know, I want do a
research project, what happens is when you start off, there is of course learning and you
are doing new things, and you might get some good results also, but sooner or later three
weeks or four weeks down the line, you will… may be either something may not work or
may be what you thought actually was opposite of what you are getting, and all those
things - so that’s the cyclic process. So, research, somewhere you will find that there are
things which actually are not according to your expectations and that is where the what I
found is, some of the students who can actually pass that, during those phases to fall
back on routine, to fall back on your knowledge, and try to think of something different,
and then pass through that negative and then come up again, so that’s the big spirit, that
is where it is very, very challenging. You have to persist as Arun said earlier.
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: It is all in the mind.
Prof. Abhijit P. Deshpande: Yes.
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: This quote.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: I think also, may be to reiterate what Phani mentioned earlier, as
you are working through, it is important to keep focus, to stay focused on the short-term
part, but not to lose sight of the big picture that you are working towards, and it always
helps projecting what you have in the context of the big picture. Where does your result
fit in? Is it really fitting into the big picture nicely or is it really taking you away? And
the other thing that I want to mention is in research you may start out with the problem
definition in mind and as you are working towards a problem, solving the problem, you
may find some other problem which requires or probably or which is of equally
important proportion or magnitude, that is probably worthwhile carrying out research in
itself, which means that your problem definition is subject to change along the pathway.
Of course at some point in time, for practical reasons, you have to freeze a problem that
you are working on, but however, in the first year of your working, the problem
definition can change, and some things that you thought were trivial have really not been

addressed by anyone, and you find that there is a lot to work in there, and that can
become your own problem of research and so on. So there is a quite a bit of flexibility in
the initial years, which has to slowly freeze. It’s like you start off making ice cream, and
finally, you have a frozen product as an ice cream, you cannot really have a liquid state
also. There is a molten state, then there is liquid state, and then there is a solid state. It
goes that way, right.
Prof. Prathap Haridoss: So, some of the things that we have been discussing so far are
nicely captured in this quote which is from JC Bose.
And it simply says, “The true laboratory is the mind, where behind illusions we uncover
the laws of truth”. So, that is the quote attributed to JC Bose and it sort of brings out this
idea that, you know, we are applying our mind to look at new things, in new ways, and
trying to come up with learning, which we can then convey to others.

As we also discussed through this process about the mundane aspects of research; we
also had this comment from Abijith, which was that it is a cyclic process. So, often you
start off, and you feel very happy you know that your initial experiment started working,
and then I know two, three weeks down the road something does not work; and I would
say that is the biggest difference between what I say an undergraduate student trying
experiments for the first time goes through and say a more seasoned researcher goes
through. Typical undergraduate student going through research or attending the research
for first time gets totally disheartened, when the first set of experiments fail, and it really
looks like the whole process was pointless, the whole exercise was pointless. Whereas a
true researcher, who has had experience in the process appreciates that, you know, this is
likely to happen, is quite comfortable with the idea that, you know, his first set of
experiment did not work out, and sits back, and then tries to analyze, ok we got this and
it did not go the way we wanted, so where have we gone wrong or where is it that we
need to reassess our approach. That is something that we would like to now discuss,
which is dealing with failure both when you do the work, when you try to present the
work, and may be, how other people have had experience with it.
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: Yes. Actually, if you look at it, most research methodologies
course, layout like a path by which you do your research. You do literature survey, then

you identify a problem, and work on the problem, you solve it, then you publish it, you
get out. At least in my experience, I have seen very few problems work that way. In case
you kind of identify any area, start working, you do something, and then you invariably
may not make progress, then you stumble on something else, then you try something
else, then you see some other area, you listen to some talks, somebody is talking about
that or maybe I try this; so it kind of goes randomly. There is colleague of mine, who put
it very nicely, he said, research is a random walk. So, when you are walking in that
fashion there will be failure, and of course, you should expect that; I mean, this is not
something unknown to people but dealing with that becomes hard. Maybe in the initial
phases you can deal with it little bit because you have not really published it, but when
you try to publish the work, even there you will see things will get rejected. First time
you submit your work, very high probability, it will get rejected because you are trying to
convey something to somebody else, very first time you are writing something, it will
happen that way, and you have to be expecting it. The idea is there are two ways to react
to it, when something gets rejected or something does not work, you can get either totally
dejected or you can throw it away, or you will get totally combative,say, no this guy is
talking nonsense, etcetera. So, you have to hit a nice middle path; you take what is
possible. And one great advantage of research, which you can use to get over your
failure, in many cases, you should change your initial assumptions. You are allowed to
do that, this is not a text book problem, where conditions are given and you have to get
the answer right; you can keep changing the questions. So, quite often people miss that
point; you change some assumptions, you change the application, you can change so
many things to make even your failure become a success.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: That was a keyword; assumption was a keyword ringing in my
mind just a few minutes ago. Every research work is based on certain assumption; there
is no research work which is devoid of any assumptions, and what I tell my students is,
first be aware of the assumptions that you have made. That is the frame work in which
you are solving the problem.
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: Yes.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: And also ask yourself whether those assumptions are too

restrictive; I mean it only applies to your mind and it only that you have conceived of
those assumptions or do you really find many problems falling into this frame work. So,
your assumption should not be too restrictive; as long as that’s not the case, as long as
that’s the case that your assumptions are not too restrictive and as long as your results are
consistent with the assumptions, then you are absolutely fine. And I think failures
definitely are bound to happen, and they can happen at different stages, like Andrew said,
it could be at the publication stage or it could be just in your own discovery as Abijith
said, something completely contrary to your expectation, to your intuition can happen.
But remember there is nothing like success or failure in research, what is important is,
what you expect and what you have discovered, and taking that into your account and
coming up with the solid discovery, with the solid answer to a question. Even saying that
there exists no proof for some theorem or for some result is also a great result. That
should not be taken in a negative stride. Again, failures are very important, but most
importantly what I would say is when you get a result, to avoid may be rejections by
reviewers and so on which are bound to happen, I think you should be convinced of your
result first, that’s a most important thing. Many-a-times, we have come across different
students, some students are not sure of the results and the advisor has to really put in
some effort to convince that yes, this is right. And there are situations where the student,
the PhD student, the researcher is convinced that this has to be the result, even if the
advisor says no. So, that conviction of what your result has is very important and that
requires a combination of your intuition, and of course, a procedure that you have
followed, and of course, with validation. There are three things: intuition, and then
discovery, and validation. If you have done all of these in a proper way, then you can be
convinced about your result and it is all a matter of convincing the other person. But, of
course, dealing with failures is important, and failures occurring towards… what you call
as a failure, you should have to first define a failure, but what people call as failure and if
it occurs towards the end of your degree or so-called expected duration, then yeah, it is
more difficult to say and that is where I think advisors play a very critical role in
cushioning, and in giving comfort, and so on, and giving advice in the right direction. In
fact, sometimes with just change of idea, you can convert your failure to a success.
Prof. Abhijit P. Deshpande: Yeah, and failure can be in various ways, I mean, one
example where I had with my PhD advisor was I was writing some two page summary

report, and it went through iterations and the first, second, third, fourth iteration, and then
we both again met and again he pointed out something, and so that is where I had a sense
of failing because I was getting irritated, and that is where, he then told me that look, this
is not something to get irritated about. I mean, So, there, then if you again persist with it
and say ok let me learn from whatever is being the process I am going through, then
seventh and eighth iteration, finally I was able to write that report. Based on what is
expected of me for being a researcher. So there again a sense of failing was there, but
somehow I was able to come out of it by persisting.
Prof. Prathap Haridoss: I also want to add that, you know, when we talk of you send in a
paper for publication, and then it comes back rejected, and I think there are already few
comments on these aspects. So one of things you should be open to, I mean, I am not
suggesting that you should be over confident, but one of things you should be open to is
the possibility that the expert who looked at the paper may also not be right. So, they
send, they look at your paper from some perspective, their own knowledge of the field
and so on, their idea of what is important and what is not important in that area, their
idea of what is possible, not possible, etcetera. Lot of things they are bringing into the
process when they look and evaluated your paper. So, when you get a review from a
journal, which comes from, you know, few different reviewers whom the journal has
approached, it is not necessary that they are always right. So, feel free to openly look at
the review. When you get the review even if it says, no, we do not accept this paper, it is
not up to the standards or something is not correct about it, you read it, don’t just say that
ok two out of three people said it is not correct, so that is means it is not correct. So you
make an independent assessment of the report that you have got ok. So, you look at it,
you try to assess it, and then see if that makes sense to you, whether you agree with what
they have said or you feel that they have actually missed the point. In which case, you
need to, you know, revisit, how you present your work; you may need to give the right
kind of background so that when you send it to another journal, the reviewer does not go
into the same tangent. You are preparing them appropriately so that they are directed into
your line of thought. So, that is the way you need to look at it.
Prof. Abhijit P. Deshpande: Important aspect of dealing with failure also is to be able to
talk about it and I think there are multiples sort of places, where such help can be there.

So, your own friends first you can talk, your own lab mates or your advisor; and so, there
is a one important point, which we will discuss the later on, is also to recognize a peer
community, so we will come to that little later in our talk.
Prof. Prathap Haridoss: So, one point that I want to bring out here is again when you read
research papers, and you also you know as part of this thing that you were told to, you
should do some literature survey and so on. Often those papers are, in fact, not often,
always those papers are presented in a very systematic and sequential manner, ok so and
as a first-time researcher when you read those papers, and you think of the work that you
are doing in the lab, you really feel bad because you are not doing anything in that level
of sequence at which they are doing it. Now, very systematically they have done some
three, four things; they have systematically identified a specific set of materials which
they need to work on, and they have done only you know 25 experiments, from that they
were able to get a very nice pair of graphs, from that they could you know clearly tell
you that one particularly region is a maximum, they give you the answer. So, that’s very
nicely presented in a paper. The truth is, often in most cases, that is not how the work
actually happened. So, they would have also gone through the same kind of frustration
that you are currently going through, they are trying out various different samples, and
many of them are, you know, completely giving them tangential results or not at all

showing any kind of relevance to that particular parameter that they are trying to explore.
They learn something from it, maybe they have chosen a system that doesn’t work and so
on, they change the system and go on. So, in the paper they publish, they do not often tell
you that we looked at 45 systems out of which 39 failed, only 6 of them were interesting
and those 6… they do not show you all those graphs of failed research, all of that they
ignore; they just show you the 6 that work and in the order in which it logically leads to
the conclusion that they have eventually reached. But behind each paper there is a lot of
failure in terms of samples that didn’t work, in terms of analysis that was wrong, may be
experiments that were wrong, experimental setups that were wrong, all of which is not
getting reported. So what you experience in the lab is not new, everybody experiences
similar stuff in the lab; I mean equipment fail, experiments go wrong and so on. We just
have to keep working with it; so, that is something that I want to.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: Having the analogy that I wanted to give is, when you go to
some one’s place, and you know, that person is presenting you with a new dish, I am
found of analogies, and you really like that dish and it is been presented very nicely,
ornated, and when you ask for the recipe, there is a list of instructions given in a very
detailed and a sequential manner, and you think really that the person followed that. That
has come out of experience. That cook will not tell you that there were ten dishes of this
types which were burnt earlier; this is the eleventh one that is being presented; and this
eleventh one is success because of the experience with those ten ones. And obviously,
nobody wants to present that because sometimes it may not be relevant and sometimes
probably it will put you in bad light. But most importantly for the benefit of readership
and the audience always the paper is presented in a coherent manner, because you don’t
want the reader to go through the same torture that you have gone through in discovering
this. So, I think it is a very important point that Prathap makes, and you should only read
the paper to know what it is saying, but rather not to mimic the sequence in which they
actually arrived at, that they used to arrive at the result.
Prof. G. Phanikumar: Which also means that when we read a research paper, we also do
not read from the first line to the last line in a sequential manner. We can actually look at

what is new there, and what is that I need to do to validate what that person has done,
and then what is it that I can extend. So, even the reading of paper is not in the same
sequence as it is written, and very often, actually, we now need to also think whether we
should go through every single detail that is there in that paper to be able to conform that
they are up to something good that I can build up on. So, I believe that we take some
kind of a philolological approach, that is given these conditions what is it that I need to
learn, pick up, so that I can go and validate my hypothesis, and then, go for the idea that I
want to prove. So in other words, there is something like a black box approach, we do
not need to know every single detail, but at the same time we do not need to also brush
away the importance of details. So we should come to the details where is necessary, but
we should be able to move forward with the assumptions.
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: That is true. So, I think again we have been focusing on a new
researcher who is beginning to do research, and one very good way to start your
research, of course, is to go out and once you fix the area and area is decided, go out and
see what is latest happening in that area.
Prof Arun Tangirala: Not reinvent the wheel.
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: Go, look at recent conferences, the most recent conference
what is been published, what is being talked about, and then maybe you pick a paper
which you like for some reason, and the first thing to focus on, I believe is to be result
oriented when you read the paper. How can I reproduce the same result that this person
has, is it even possible? If your conditions are not allowing you to do it, maybe you
should not focus on that, you should move to other.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: There is always one advantage to that; you are trying to
reproduce a result.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: One, of course is, it helps you get familiar with all the nit bits,
and the other thing is may be that researcher has made a mistake.

Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: Not deliberately of course; hopefully not, but has over looked
and you probably have the chance to do that. Always remember, the creator has enough
made sure that there are enough complexities in this world. That every researcher forever
can actually keep discovering something new; that is what I believe in.
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj:Yes. Yes. That is true. And actually, when you are result
oriented, you will also feel much better about doing your work. You are doing
something; I mean not just reading and reading and reading. So, many initial researchers
fall into this trap that they need to know all the basics of every single tool or technique
that is being used in that paper before they can reproduce that result; that is not really
needed.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: That is why I tell my students that, look at the baby, when all of
us were babies, we really did not say that I learnt how to crawl and walk first, and then
only learnt how to eat or vice versa. I was trying to learn how to pick an object, how to
eat, how to crawl, how to pinch, how to scream everything at the same time and this not
necessarily happening in a sequence. I think beyond a certain point, reading should
happen as a parallel action rather than as necessary.
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: It is true and when your result oriented, once you figure out
how to get that result you will also know what tweaks you can make.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: True and also what material to read up further.
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: Yes. Exactly. So, that does not mean that you can ignore large
chunks of the paper and then hope to get anywhere, you know.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: Right, Right.
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: To be able to reproduce, you should know enough about that

paper, the important aspects of the paper, which help in getting that result, you should
know, and you should know them very deeply; only then you can innovate and make
those little tweaks.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: True. Actually, that clears the lot of haziness that exists in initial
stages and kind of brings clarity.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: You start seeing, where what your direction is, what material to
read up, and your learning becomes more contextual.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: So, you really know which text book to pick up or which
research paper to read, and in fact, how to read future papers.
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: Yes, correct.

Introduction to Research
Prof. Prathap Haridoss
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala
Prof. G. Phanikumar
Prof. Abhijit P. Deshpande
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras
Lecture - 04
Group Discussion on Research Part 4 of 4
Prof. Prathap Haridoss: So, I think one of the things which comes out of the discussion is
that you know, this trying to reproduce a work as the starting point, as Arun said and as
Andrew also pointed out.
First of all, it makes you very familiar with the area and it also helps you built your sort
of the kinds of experiments that you are trying to try out. So, and in that process one of
the ideas that you have to become comfortable with is that, eventually when you are I
mean further down the road your results may add up to something significant. But, on a
day to day basis, most of the time your experiments or your results are going to be small
steps, each individual step will add to something.
So, just making a small experimental setup may take you like 2-3 weeks. To get an

experimental setup, that is working correctly, where you have been able you know when
we said you know reproduce some original, some already published data. That
experimental setup is able to actually consistently reproduce some data. So, that takes
some time. So, if you have managed to you know, taken, if you used about 2-3 weeks to
setup that experimental process that is not a waste of time and you should feel happy,
that you should feel happy that you have actually progressed from having nothing you
had a clean state, you had a clean board ahead of you and then, now you have a setup
that consistently gives you data that is believable, defendable and believable.
Now, you can try some new sample. So, this idea that there are small steps that you have
to work on is something that you have to get used to and for those small steps to occur
you really need to be a regular researcher. So, you have to put in those hours in the lab. It
is not something that you can you know, suddenly one fine day everything will be in the
lab and your first experimental work, it does not work that way. You have to keep
working on it slowly and steadily and therefore, those regular hours in the lab really
make a difference. I would also like to add that you know, sometimes there is this
misconception that only if you are working late night hours that you are actually doing
great work. It is not like that, if you even if you work very regularly from 8 in the
morning to 5 in the evening and then take your evening off and be free and comfortable,
you could still we doing great work. You could still be doing research work, you may be
thinking about your research later in the evening without necessarily running the
experiment at that point and time, but still that would be a lot of good work. So, just
keeping up those regular hours, helps you add those small, small steps which then add up
to something that is significant.
Prof. Abhijit P. Deshpande: All of this, actually the notebook that Andrew mentioned
earlier is a central aspect. So, noting down let say, you suddenly while you are looking at
some equations and you notice some dependence. So, it depends on the cube root, note it
down, observation. So, it is a simple small fact, but it is an observation that should come
into your note book or let say after 1 week of things, you plot it something, something,
plot it graphic, put it in your notebook, that is a simple result that you got.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: It is lot easier to do this electronically also.
Prof. Abhijit P. Deshpande: Yes, electronically. So, all that should go into your notebook.

So, these are all these simple observations, results which then eventually will be helpful
to build later on.
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: Yes. So, one for the point you want make about all these when
you get a small result, you have to be first of all excited by it, you have to believe in it
and you have to be confident about it and you have to proudly talk about it to others;
your students, your advisor, everybody and you have to show that you know, simply it
might look like, why should I be so proud about something so small? I am doing
something so small, other people are doing great. Yes, they might be doing something
great in your opinion, but you have to be also proud of the small thing you are doing.
The reason is, there is lots of reasons for it because when you are proud of that you keep
thinking about it a lot, you keep going back and back about thinking about every single
way in which it can be extended and all that builds up on this small result of yours and
you get a bigger result. So, I mean Prathap was mentioning, it is experiments a lot and it
does not necessarily apply only for experimental work, even for theoretical work all
these things are true. The final big result that you derive, a theorem that you derive, does
not come just like that. You know, you might show it for one special case one day and
then one more special case but, if you don’t believe in it you are not excited by it, you do
not have confidence in it, you are not going to keep exhausting all the cases and build the
general idea that gives you the big result. So, it is very important.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: I just wanted to add, the continuation of what Andrew just said.
Somehow there is a misconception that experiments have to be performed carefully and
simulations don’t have to be. The same rules, when we teach courses on design of
experiments we make it very clear, that all the rules that you learn or the theory that you
learn in design of experiments equally applies to simulations. The only difference in
simulation is you can play around a lot more. But, research is not just about playing
around it, its playing around with a purpose in mind. So, even experiments are done with
a purpose, simulations are done with a purpose. So, you have to choose your simulation
settings. You have to know, how your simulator works? What kinds of solvers are being
used? And what is the engine that’s running underneath and so on?
To make sure that, you have chosen the right settings and tool that you are using is being
used for the purpose because, simulator is a very deadly weapon and you can actually

end up producing so much data and only a small fraction of it is going to be useful to you
and you may be lost in the deep of data. So, please remember that the rules that apply,
the theory that applies to experiments or equally applies to simulation as well and like
Andrew said, even in to theoretical work.
Prof. G. Phanikumar: And then, there is a small point about the discipline also. When we
see one small result that is promising and we are proud of it. To grow into a big topic,
worth making a publication or a presentation and may be becoming a whole thesis by
itself, that process requires lot of discipline. So, putting in those hours every day and the
being very meticulous about the day to day work and then subjecting every extension to
the logical process is very important and, if you go around the labs where research is
being done, whether it is universities or national labs or a research divisions of
companies, you actually do not see too many people in dirty clothes, long hair,
incompetent, working in wee hours, actually you see normal people, well dressed and
coming to their work for a significant number of hours every day.
Maybe more than an average employer because you see that people do put in more
number of hours of work in research than outside, that is mainly because of the passion.
But, you need to put on a regular basis and in a disciplined manner, so that you can grow
your small idea to a big one.
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: But Phani, there are some badly dressed researchers also.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: And having said that, I think I just want to re-iterate what
Prathap just said that. See, in research your thinking does not end with the time you close
your lab or your computer or your notebook and so on. The thinking process is a 24 hour
process; it even appears in your dreams. I do not know if you know Kekule discovered
the Benzene structure in his dream, right. Which means, he was really thinking into it,
may be thinking about it while he was eating, in his shower, where he was walking,
running, everywhere so I think research that thinking process, the thought process that
goes into it, is a never ending one. You cannot close that lab of the mind that JC Bose
mentioned, that lab cannot be closed. All the physical labs you may close, but not the
mental lab that you have. So, make sure that you are thinking about the problem and you
will hit the treasure very soon.

Prof. Prathap Haridoss: So, another quote in this context of whatever we have been
discussing so far, is attributed to Thomas Huxley and it simply says "Science is simply
common sense at it is best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to
fallacy in logic." So, I think that sums up some of the ideas that we have been try to
convey so far. We will now look at, how do you as you start collecting all those small
results and you know, building up your depository of results.
How do you know that your results are right? How do you know they are significant?

And what is the process involved in this? So, maybe Andrew can start with that.
Prof. G. Phanikumar: Yes, I want to say something.
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: Yes, yes.
Prof. G. Phanikumar: So, basically I want to say that, the research enterprise that we
have been having so far several hundreds of years is not a democratic process. That is, if
everybody agrees to it, it is it. No, it is not like that. The one expert can prove everybody
before him was wrong and then his or her idea can then prevail forever after that. So, it is
not a democratic process. It is also not a process where, somebody highly recognized is
able to tell and then everybody agrees. So, it is a process where actually the peers are
willing to review each other and then hold something as true so long that it does not been
disproved. So, that peer part is very important and if you notice the way we go about
disseminating the research results, it is basically by peer review and then peers criticizing
and validating each of this work and going about. So, identifying what is your peer
community is very important and I think professional societies play a big role in that
aspect and you have something to say Andrew.
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: Yes, I think that is important quite a few, we all work like Phani
was mentioning it, it is a global area of work today. I mean you cannot say my work
applies only for India or some in a local way it does not work, research is global today,
your competitors are all over the globe definitely in China, Japan, USA, Europe,
everywhere and all of those places are connected together by the peer community and
peer community is international and there is also a significant national peer community
and you have to identify the peer community. For instance, in Electrical Engineering
many of these areas IEEE is a big peer group and the technical societies of the IEEE
cover almost all the areas of Engineering and I am sure every area has a similar things
that are local chapters, etcetera.
The important thing to do is to identify the journals that are run by these societies of
reputed peer communities and then identify conferences that are run by them. There is lot
of things there, they will give something called Technical course sponsorship etcetera,
etcetera those are different from the conferences that the society itself runs. So, you have
to identify those which are critical and then try to see, how high you can go and there are
different levels there I mean it is there a different gradations for conference, at different

gradation for the journals, even when it is run by the same society and it is ok, to identify
the best you can do and then be wherever you are. But, identify a solid reputed research
to peer communities both, nationally and internationally and try to publish your results
there and that is the number one way of figuring out how relevant your work is, how
good you are.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: So, I just wanted to add. Going back to the question of, how do
you know your results are right and significant? Now, as I think I have made this remark
earlier as well, that you need to have an intuition. Sometimes you do not, sometimes you
do. But, you do develop the intuition with experience and somewhere you know, that this
result make sense or does not make sense which means, that when you get a result it is
important to validate it qualitatively and quantitatively, that is the first important step.
When, if you want to say the result is right, the conviction should begin from you, you
should not depend on someone to say it is right right and then sharing with your,
discussing with your advisor that is a second step because, there is a discussion and may
be you are right and you can convince or maybe you are wrong then sharing it with your
own research group.
So, run your research through you know, make a small group presentation. Even if your
advisor does not insist on it, you say that I would like to discuss this results in the open
with my group mates because and hope that you will get a critical feedback and very

often you will get a critical feedback. Simple discussion like they say, when you are
upset, when you are sad, simply pouring out your grief, listening here will really help
you. Likewise, when you are excited about your results also, sharing it with your group
members really helps you because a lot of perceptives come in.
I think, the key word in research is perceptive and sometimes insignificant results can
become very significant. Just with a change of perceptive and that is a very important
part and then comes sharing it, communicating it to the scientific community, through
conferences, through papers and so on and that is why the peer community plays a very
important role. But, the starting process is with you, you are the owner of the problem,
you are the owner of the result, you take complete ownership of the credibility of the
result, right and that is, for that to happen you should have done enough validation either
theoretically, experimentally, through simulations, whatever. You should have a second
way of showing that your result makes sense.
Prof. G. Phanikumar: There is one point that we want to make about learning. Do we go
into every specific detail of every tool and pick up all the things before we embark on
research.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: For research.
Prof. G. Phanikumar: So, in research I think there is a combination of multiple

techniques of learning.

So, we normally talk about, what is called Just in time learning, which is applicable to
for example, when you are making a dish out of a recipe you know you need to only
know about the detail which is necessary to make the dish. You are not going to the
theory of what can mix with what, for example;
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: And you do not want the science of material.
Prof. G. Phanikumar: Do not want to go to the science of material. Then, there is also
another learning paradigm called Strategic learning. Where, you basically have a goal
and up to achieving that goal only you are interested, you are not interested in anything
else and then, there is another paradigm called In-depth learning, where you are really
interested to know go to the bottom of the knowledge and then get that knowledge to
your long-term memory. I think research encompasses all these three in a way. For
example, let us say you want quickly make a plot in a way that conveys the idea, you
want to pick up a mat lab, the script for that. So, you just learn to that extent, you do not
need to go into see, how mat lab actually is doing all these things?
And then, Strategic learning you need to basically solve a problem. You understand only
to the extent that is necessary to solve but then, when it comes to your own core area of
research, I think it is very important to achieve in depth learning. So, it is very important
to be little agile in the way you learn about in research, the way you have been doing in
this high school or when you are preparing for this entrance exams, doesn’t apply to

research. So, your attitude of learning has to change the moment you want to start on
research.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: And all three have different time scales, obviously.
Prof. G. Phanikumar: All of these are at different time scales.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: Different time scales and PhD typically involves all these three
and while converges to in-depth. Starts with Just in time and ends up with In-depth.
Prof. Prathap Haridoss: Right. So, in research one of the aspects, we have not touched
upon so far is Teamwork. You actually consciously or unconsciously participate in
Teamwork. Rarely have we, I mean it is not that it is impossible but, in general we don’t
have people who are completely isolated and then doing research on their own. There are
some, but most in most of cases we are working with the group. You are typically student
in a group or a Post Doc in a group and so, there are people with a wide range of
different experience who are working along with you some you are learning from, some
you are teaching and sometimes the roles are reversed and so that is a process that you
have to get comfortable with and you have to understand.
So, it is always going to be Teamwork and you have to be you know willing and happy
participant in it. You will invariably find groups and you will invariably find the
occasional researcher who does not like to participate in Teamwork. I think in the long

run that’s not a great idea, maybe in the short run you do see 1 or 2 of them being
successful, they try to hide the resources, they do not share the resources and so on. But,
in the long run that is not a good idea. World does get along, we spoke about peer
community and so on. It is a same peer community, that they will see that you will see
and just a matter of time before people accept that you know, this is not a person that is
easy to work with. So, Teamwork is very important. You should know how to work with
the people around you and you should know how to share credit. So, when you write
publications you should know whose work was this? Was the core of that particular
publication and therefore, that person should get priority and so that something that you
should become comfortable with and just to share a quote here it is from Issac Newton.
And is something I am sure many of you heard of it says "If I have seen further than
other men, it is because I have stood on the shoulder of giants." And, I think that very
beautifully captures this idea of teamwork. In fact, he is talking of teamwork in a grander
scale, where he is talking of you know not just his group but, you know other people who
worked before him, in various parts of the world. Who have contributed to that area and
he has understood those contributions and built on those contributions. So, that’s
teamwork in a grander scale, but there is team work even it at a local scale.
Prof. Abhijit P. Deshpande: Even much local scale for example, you may be using the
same computer, you may be using the same balance to weigh things and so there is

teamwork involved in everything because it is coordination, inter working with each

other. So, all of these are very important aspects of.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: You know, interacting with team really gives you good breadth
of the research. Which is also important in a research not just your own depth getting lost
and so on. Just not going, single one sighted.
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: So, having a active group for instance, going into an active
group which is publishing in conferences regularly, publishing in journals regularly.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: It is positively contiguous.
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: Yes. It is huge. Just gives you the setting in the atmosphere and
completely changes your attitude to everything and you will be surprised how that can
make a big difference to starting out in research, going in to a active groupers, very
crucial and that it is you might say it is, some of them you might work with and they
might be part of a team, some of them you may not even work with. That they are talking
about things and they are exciting you and you are motivated by them. It works in a great
fashion.
Prof. Prathap Haridoss: So, yes. We are sort of a getting closer to the conclusion of this
discussion, just a couple more points, before we look at some general aspects about you
know, Human characteristics, Research characteristics and then we will close this
discussion.

So, one of the points that you should get accustom to is that, you have to be the most
critical examiner of your work. So, while you know, you send your work out and you get
you know, peer review and you are likely to most likely to get some kind of critical
comment. You should be the one who is most ready to critically look at your work and to
examine whether you really have done something to the level of detail that your
discussion is trying to convey and so on and that requires lot of honesty with yourself
with the your immediate group.

Because, when you convey these things in you know, very blunt and clear manner to
your immediate co-workers, you also get feedback which is very, very useful. So, that
you have actually covered much of the ground that you need to cover when you send a
publication out, so that when a peer who is not working with you, looks at your paper.
He or she also understands that you know, you have really covered a lot of a detail, you
have looked at all possibilities and therefore, your result is much more believable. So, I
think honesty is very fundamental in research because ultimately you are trying to
discover something. If you are not being honest about it, there is no meaning in saying
you discovered something in it. So, that’s it.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: In that context, I just want to say that there is nothing like a
final result and that’s it. Research in that field is over, right. People typically use mature
and so on and infancy the researcher infancy and so on. So, what is more important is
when you critically evaluate your results, to ask first of all if the assumptions that you
have made are not too restricted as I remarked earlier. And secondly, whether the result
qualitatively makes sense and most and thirdly whether people are able to reproduce
what you have done. In fact, there is a theory of reproducible research in which the
researchers are encouraged, if they are doing computational work. These days, they are
encouraged to a publish quotes. So, that they can be reproduced or you know if there is
an experimental data out of which you have drawn some inferences, post that data, if it is
not confidential and so on.
So, you should ask yourself if this result is a onetime affair or you can actually
repeatedly do it and in many times, on many occasions when you are performing
experiments there is a repeatability issue associated with it, you should have done
enough repeatability analysis. So, the critical part is that where you get your result, look
at the credibility of the result and ask if it is, if it make sense, if it is reproducible and
then of course, talk to your advisor to find out if it is significant.
Prof. Prathap Haridoss: So, I think in this discussion we started off with certain
philosophical aspect about, what is Research? Then, we have through the past half hour
or so looked at lot of you know mundane day to day aspects of research, which is what
you will actually experience on the ground, when you are researcher in a group and right
now, we will again step back and look at a few more philosophical aspects which will
help us put a larger perspective on the whole discussion and the process and with that we

will close. So, may be Abhijith can.
Prof. Abhijit P. Deshpande: Yeah, I mean we started out by posing the question, right.
That, what PhD and M Phil? And, it is we want to get these degrees, we want to make
good livings. So, that is really the underlying feature in some sense. But, all throughout
our discussion you also heard that you being the centre of all of this. So, researcher
sometimes wants to step back and try to look at you know, what does a researcher do?
And how can how is it? Sort of all this hard work and all these thought and all these labs,
lab mind laboratory being mind. So, how do we sort of place ourselves? How does a
researcher place ourselves and so in all normal things we are just humans? So, just like
humans are curious, all the humans want to actually improve things around us and we of
course, all have very appreciation for beautiful things. So, similarly for motivation for
research you know, we many times want to justify our work that we are doing in terms of
we are trying to do something which because nobody knows about it. So, therefore, I
want to know about it. Therefore, I am a researcher.
Some other times we may step back and say that no, some of the thing that I am trying to
do is actually to improve, may be make less effort for some manual work, may be to take
something in 2 seconds, what used to take longer time? Of course, these days with the
world around us also we are equally, not just humans that we are concerned about it is
the earth as a whole. So, therefore, betterment of society and world around us, is also an

important aspect of why we do research and of course, one very important aspect in all of
this is also we find, I mean we have talked about joy, we have talked about all these
emotions, we have talked about being passionate. So, therefore, there is a duty and essay
text in science. There is something when we look at a nice equation, we feel very nice
about it. When we see a very elegant experiment we say, oh wow! How could it be
shown so elegantly? So, therefore, there is for being a researcher all of these could it be,
could be also involved.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: So, that is an art in researches
Prof. Abhijit P. Deshpande: Yes.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: We have talked about the science part of it.
Prof. Abhijit P. Deshpande: Yes, yes.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: But, I think research is both science as well as an art and of
course, you know the degree of art varies from a research problem to the other. But, I
think it is a very important to ask ourselves and be honestly with the purpose of carrying
out research. I think that’s it.
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: Various, there are various ways of looking at it. I think one
other way of asking this question is we spoke a quite a bit about, how to do a research?
And there is also why aspect and Why, we said in terms of passion extra but, where does
the passion come from. So, ultimately the why is answered individually by different
people and I am sure you will have your own answer in you when it comes to it.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: Yes, yes.
Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: But, you have to answer that question. Otherwise, you do not
survive for a long time in research, if you don’t know or don’t appreciate the why inside
a few very clearly and that is actually a life philosophy. You should know why you are
doing something.

Prof. G. Phanikumar: So, here I want to relate to what Daniel Pink had summarized from
research on motivation. Why do people work? And why people are driven to work? This
is something that he has done very nicely in his book, Title Drive and there he brings
three aspects.
One is Mastery, Purpose and Autonomy. So, very interestingly all these three very nicely
relate to research you know, Mastery for example, is where you see a sense of getting
better and better as you go along. Researchers are like that you know, as you keep on

doing research over a period of time you are very good at the equipment, the techniques,
the methodologies, etcetera. So, you can see that you are gaining Mastery. Purpose, we
have already discussed, Abhijith has said that. So, we see a larger purpose for the work
that we are doing and then Autonomy, researchers want to solve their problems and the
problems for the betterment of people around them in their own way, by choosing the
techniques that they wish to use, by choosing the specific methodologies that they wish
to adopt, etcetera. So, there is lot of autonomy by which people work. So, naturally if
you put all these things together, researchers are intrinsically motivated.
Prof. Prathap Haridoss: So, I think we have now reached the conclusion of this
discussion. We sort of started with a quote from Albert Einstein and I think we will it is
kind of appropriate to close with the quote from him since, many of us recognized him to
be a very significant contributor to the scientific community over the years and it simply
says this, "Imagination is more important than knowledge" and that’s very philosophical
statement.
So, you need to think about it and interpret it in a manner that make sense to you and
then possibly utilize it in the manner that you feel is appropriate. So, I think with that we
will close. I hope you had an overview of what research is and I don’t know if you add
some closing comments.
Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: I think, what is important is this, if you look at if someone is

looking for a work flow for a research, the disappointing answer is there is no sequential
work flow. However, there are at each stage there is a systematic way of doing it.
Whatever you are doing, you have to do it in a systematic way and learn to and also,
make it a habit to analyze what you get out of and then it is a lot of a trial and error.
There is a lot of iterative process, but at every stage there is a feedback you take it and
then you find out where the problem is and fix it there and come back and so on. So,
there is lot of back and forth. However, at each stage you have to do things
systematically and analyze the results that come out of it. But, if you look at the grand
scale of things yeah, I know people go back and forth and research and every researcher
goes through that, not necessarily that the researchers shares those things.
Prof. G. Phanikumar: So, I would summarize saying that, if you want to do research be at
it.

=Introduction to Research
Prof. M. S. Ananth
Distinguished Visiting Professor
Former Director of IIT Madras
Department of Chemical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
Lec-05
Introduction to Research, this is the outline of my talk. I am going to say a few words
about the Idea of a University.
About the nature of science, nature of research, just briefly what drives research, then
what do research scholars work on. This is a summary from when I was doing research
here, I did a summary of what people work on try to classify the problems, it comes
under 6 or 7 classifications. And then I am going to talk about a little bit about learning
and creativity, because while course work is mostly about logic; research is a lot about
intuition. While you use logic, you make your leads only through intuition. And we have
some idea understanding of it from the work of Sperry and coworkers, it is called the
Split brain experiments. Sperry got his noble price in 1981 in neuro research. Then I will
give some advice that I cannot resist for a research scholars and (Refer Time: 01:06)
that’s also based on my experience here with students and a last line on ethics.

Week 1. Lec 3&4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Week 1. Lec 3&4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Week 1. Lec 3&4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Week - 01 21 Lecture - 03

(Refer Slide Time: 00:12)

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: It is all in the mind.

Prof. Abhijit P. Deshpande: Yes.

Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: This quote.

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

(Refer Slide Time: 05:55)

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

(Refer Slide Time: 06:17)

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: Yes.

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

(Refer Slide Time: 15:29)

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: Yes.

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

Prof Arun Tangirala: Not reinvent the wheel.

Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: Yes.

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: Yes.

Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: Right, Right.

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: Yes.

Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: Yes.

Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: Yes, correct.

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

(Refer Slide Time: 00:46)

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: It is lot easier to do this electronically also.

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

(Refer Slide Time: 07:41)

(Refer Slide Time: 08:14)

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

Prof. G. Phanikumar: Yes, I want to say something.

Prof. Andrew Thangaraj: Yes, yes.

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

(Refer Slide Time: 11:57)

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: For research.

Prof. G. Phanikumar: So, in research I think there is a combination of multiple

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

(Refer Slide Time: 13:34)

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

Prof. G. Phanikumar: All of these are at different time scales.

(Refer Slide Time: 15:08)

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

(Refer Slide Time: 16:43)

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

teamwork involved in everything because it is coordination, inter working with each

Prof. Arun K. Tangirala: It is positively contiguous.

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE

(Refer Slide Time: 18:32)

(Refer Slide Time: 18:58)

THIS BOOK IS NOT FOR SALE NOR COMMERCIAL USE