Research direction is a crucial element for any parties engaging in real problem-solving or life enrichment types of research efforts. A clear direction (or goals) will act as the catalyst in the good times, and reliable enough motivator in the downturn phase. With the goals, we can really “move forward”, i.e. in the research sense. If not, any outcome (no matter how novel it is at the micro or macro-scale) is deemed useless. As the saying goes, “If a skipper doesn’t know where to go, any port is the right port”. So, let us start with a clear research direction. But, can research direction be crystallized? As in “cast in stone” or fixed? As researchers, we seriously hope and assume this is the case. Alas, reality does not normally follow our desire. Research direction can be short and long terms. The point of contention is: how long can the agreed research direction be viable? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? I do not think there is an easy answer to this question. ”It all depends”. This is possibly the best answer one can think of.
Research direction is paramount in ensuring we are working towards a fixed target. It is easier to aim as compared to something that is in a perpetual motion. That is why a forward looking analysis is the pre-requisite. Forward enough in order to anticipate possible breakthrough, and the technology cycle. Future scenario planning is a must. Nevertheless, this is a not an ability for fortune-telling, rather a projection based on intelligent analysis via concrete proof and life experiences. As much as we want our agreed research direction to be vivid and lucid, the element of flexibility to life challenges ensures that the direction is robust. So, on what motivation or basis should the research direction be carved? Is it economic? Is it for societal well-being? Is it for Capacity-building? Certainly, the rational we opt for will determine the kind of research direction we will end-up with. If you think economics per say, element of knowledge may not be of clear importance. Vice-versa, if the rational is grounded on advancement of knowledge, the element of clear economic returns may not be feasible. This is among the trade-offs we have to deal with.
Underwater research efforts are firmly grounded on solid justifications for sustainability of life on earth. The undisputed rational of forming a research direction in relation to underwater/marine resources may be convincing to some. But, there are others who are still oblivious to the arguments (read: explanations). Research direction which goes out to tackle and ensure sustainable exploitation of the marine resources is so novel, that it is difficult to fathom the doubters. Research direction is not the end, but it indicates the beginning. Destinations will never be reached if we do nothing but dreaming. Real efforts must be invested. This is akin to stumble upon a beacon while searching for guidance. We must walk towards the beacon. The beacon will never “walk” to us. No matter how strong and viable are the research directions that we have carved, we still need to put the efforts through. “No pain, No gain” certainly rings true. The anticipation and customary doubts on the chosen the research goals are part of the package. With uncertainty looming, the path will only be taken by the determined. Yes, winners are picked from the braves, neither from the cowards nor the pessimists. Underwater-related research is here to stay. And, we sure look forward for a more active participation from others.
“Setting goals is the first step in turning the invisible into the visible”
No comments:
Post a Comment