Is "suffering" an indispensable part of research?

看到 Research as a second language 談 "mentoring .vs. coaching" 的文章,忍不住要問 Is "suffering" an indispensable part of research? 

Mentoring vs. Coaching
The Centre for Development of Human Resources and Quality Management in Denmark is holding a conference to present the results of a PhD coaching project. The project, which involved PhD students from three universities, appears to have been a success.

Specifically, they discovered that:
  • The participants got a lot out of the coaching.
  • The coaching did not get in the way of traditional academic supervision
  • Individual coaching works better than workshops.
My experience confirms these conclusions. But the theme of the conference appears to be captured in the question, "Do you necessarily have to go through a lot of suffering to get a PhD?" That question, and the fact that the coaching was found "not to disturb" academic supervision, got me thinking about what I do. In fact, it got me reconsidering.

First, I do believe that "suffering" is an important part of research (in Danish, as Kierkegaard pointed out, suffering rhymes with science). Second, I've long noticed that "coaching" is often an inappropriate metaphor because outside of actual sports the "coach" is often not a master of the craft she coaches; rather she has a generalized ability to motivate others and help them get organized. (This, by the way, does not always mean she has an ability to get herself organized or get anything done herself.) Like me, she may not know very much about the area of scholarship that the PhD student is working in.



Popular posts from this blog


備忘:在 Mac OS 環境安裝 Python 開發工具

[詩戀] 鄭愁予/定