Mark Changizi, a cognitive scientist, discussed in a recent blog post how “a deep and systemic illness in academia” may have prohibited professors from making theoretical advances. Theoretical breakthroughs are often results of the Eureka or “Aha” moments. They cannot be anticipated or planned and nicely laid out in a grant proposal. The reality however is that writing proposals and getting grants are top priorities in universities; incremental, applied work often has better chance of resulting in a successful proposal and an ensuing grant. The entire research direction and career of a professor are inevitably shaped by the academic system. At the end of the day, the problem is simply summarized as : “You can’t write a grant proposal whose aim is to make a theoretical breakthrough”.

I happened to have read Changizi’s “The Vision Revolution”, and find his work to be full of insights and interesting ideas. His argument here sounds reasonable enough from the perspective of a more senior researcher. The emphasis on more operationalizable research work in the current academic system however may not be a bad thing for junior researchers. As someone who just started his research career and has only limited experience, I want to offer my perspective.

Everybody will be more than happy to be recognized as a trailblazer or an “overthrower-of-dogma”, including us the newbies, who want to be acknowledged perhaps more than anyone else. Being preoccupied with the idea of making theoretical breakthroughs and downplaying the importance of practical work can be dangerous for a young researcher. Although the “Aha” moments cannot be systematically deduced or constructed from incremental work, they would be out of reach without years of solid experience in experimentation, in-depth investigation and application building. Reading theoretical literature is not sufficient, especially in areas like HCI and InfoVis. The chemist Frank Westheimer brilliantly summarized the importance of getting one’s hands dirty in practical work: “A month in the laboratory can often save an hour in the library”. The current academic system at least ensures that junior researchers must get enough hands-on training before they attack the holy-grail problems in their fields.

Since theoretical breakthroughs are often “stumbled upon”, we seem to depend more on chance than hard work. Potential creativity is much harder to assess than detailed proposal plans. Without a good alternative funding model, this means that making funding decisions would be a game of throwing a dice. The current model is certainly not flawless, but it seems to better address the problem of fairness and assessment.

I don’t believe that practical, incremental work and theoretical advances are completely separable - this may actually depend on which field we are talking about. Theories may stand on their own in mathematics, but certainly not in HCI and InfoVis. On the other hand, incremental work alone certainly does not automatically entail theoretical breakthroughs. It is perhaps better to think of theories as a by-product of incremental investigation. I think Changizi is not happy with the current contentment with grants and practical work inside academia, and I agree with him. More encouragement and incentives on theoretical work are necessary, but a true theorist at heart will not give up her theoretical endeavors because of practical constraints and considerations.