By Sivakami d/o Arunachalam
Undergraduate Research Assistant, Centre for AI and Data Governance, SMU
Setting the context
In the wake of Covid-19, virtual meetings have grown to be second nature to us. Thankfully, with the virus slowly accepted as endemic, we are gradually restoring the old normal with in-person gatherings. At CAIDG, we have gotten the chance to do so with the Early Career Researchers’ (ECR) workshop held on 31st March 2022, which saw the first-time assemblage of about 20 ECRs from different institutes exploring the fields relating to AI, data governance and smart cities.
Held at the Lounge in the SMU Administration Building and hosted by CAIDG’s Research Associates Ong Li Min and Sharanya Shanmugam, the line-up for the day was interactive and eye-opening for attendees.
The slew of activities began with icebreakers followed by CAIDG’s internal sharing on ‘Research Methods and Challenges’ and an informative chat on “Getting Published” with Prof. Hallam Stevens. The day concluded with a fringe activity on creative coding with p5.js taught by young artist Siew Guang Hong.
Let us break the ice
The icebreakers were innovative where attendees got into pairs, and introduced their partner’s name, their preferred adjective with an alliteration (e.g. Wonderful Willow, Sincere Siva), educational background and research interests.
Research Methods and Challenges
This neatly segued into the next part on ‘Research Methods and Challenges’ by Li Min and Sharanya which invited any questions and responses from the floor.
Empirical research methods
Some of the concepts discussed include the pros and cons of empirical research methods.
Pertaining to quantitative methods, a participant shared that systematically learning about data cleaning can save time and effort as it minimises the need to do them manually and regression can make more sense when properly learnt and understood.
They added that recruiting human participants can be costly, and often participants may project a positive image which is diametrically opposite from the prevailing situation. In this vein, ‘capturing silence’ is a roadblock. Capturing silence or what was not pronounced is actually as crucial; for the sake of self-reflexivity that instils the consciousness that we as researchers are not perfect and may be missing something out.
As much as we try to prevent the blurring of personal and professional boundaries, it is inevitable that the element of positionality comes into play. Our position and identity – who we are, where we come from, what we know might be intricately tied to how we perceive an issue, and what human participants decide to reveal (and not reveal) to us.
Interdisciplinary research
This was yet another focal point in the workshop. As research is constantly revolutionising, exploring the dynamics between different domains is on the rise. Even at our centre, we have three dedicated research streams that shift away from viewing technology policy singularly but in relation to 1) Society (AI & Society), 2) Business (AI in Business), 3) AI in Specific Industries (e.g. Finance).
Challenges in performing interdisciplinary research include not knowing how to make the research insights applicable and relevant to all disciplines. For example, as a Philosopher, one might explore AI ethics via philosophical theories. However, how can one make the philosophical analysis of AI ethics relevant to someone who views it from a law or policy lens?
Though the diversity of disciplines can be advantageous, it was also perceived as a challenge when standpoints clash or when there is uncertainty on how different theoretical backgrounds can intersect.
In a multidisciplinary team, communication was identified as another hurdle as technical jargons may not be easy to translate to researchers hailing from other disciplines.
Importantly, A/Prof Stevens reminded us that for research to be interdisciplinary in its true sense, social scientists should be actively involved from the beginning of the project, rather than act as a mere intermediary to appeal to politicians or the general public.
Power dynamics with supervisor
Research in itself can be a daunting process of doing, undoing and redoing. But it is made even tougher when the rapport with supervisors is fragile.
At times, supervisors and researchers might want the paper’s end product to take shape differently causing a divergence. For instance, the supervisor might prefer a more theoretical approach while the researcher might favour an applied model. Reconciling the disagreements and negotiating the balance is a sentiment that participants unanimously echoed.
Handling editors’ comments using COPE principles
Prof. Stevens shared useful insights on publishing in a journal especially as a budding researcher. He also provided tips such as the COPE principles to handle editors’ comments, paying attention to the peer review processes.
Peer reviewers may reject a paper for many reasons apart from the paper failing to meet standards. Their comments may be constructive criticism or otherwise but whatever the case, it is crucial to reflect upon the feedback, and ask for clarification to enhance the paper’s quality.
Some reasons for rejection include the paper not being the best fit for that journal, not scoping it within an academic context, and missing on novelty; making it clear how the paper is value-adding in advancing the field among others.
Putting all eggs into one basket and banking on publishing on a single journal may not be the wisest idea. Of course, we can have our favourite journal and strive hard to publish on it but if that fails, having backups as a cushion is recommended. Especially as peer review timelines can be lengthy, having several works at different stages can enable a stable stream and a healthy pipeline of potential publications.
Interesting food for thought
Other things which surfaced during the intellectual discourse include preferences for independent and collaborative work. Some preferred the nature of solo work for time-sensitive assignments as the timelines are easier to manage independently. Others preferred a balance of both to cater to the tastes of readers who enjoy reading different styles of writing.
There were also some inspiring career transitions from fields like journalism to policy and mathematics to the social sciences. This not only expanded the participants' worldview of the gateway of opportunities but allowed them to witness the similarities and dissimilarities of the myriad of industries. In the case of journalism, a participant shared that journalism is fast-paced and uses simple language while academia may not be as fast paced and uses sophisticated lingo.
The first of many events
It is also notable that this event is the first time that CAIDG has drawn ECRs from various institutions which has the potential to develop into a research network as seen from the openness to partner and collaborate that day! In fact, some researchers were willing to organise a similar event in their respective institutions in future.
The attendees were in high spirits, eager to meet like-minded people in the research field, learn and share titbits of knowledge. Through networking sessions during break times, the environment was even more vibrant and upbeat.
A huge plus was that the session was designed to possess a structured flexibility. As paradoxical as it sounds, there was structure with the agenda but flexibility was immense as anyone could pick up the mic and voice out their thoughts. It was clear that attendees enjoyed the unfiltered expression of thoughts surrounding the research scene that delved into both the merits and demerits. The transparency enabled for a more organic and productive session that spotlighted on the pain points and possible solutions to overcome them.
We look forward to more of such events in future to foster a strong bond with a tightly-knit network of researchers whom we can head to for collaboration, mentorship and discussion!
The full report is available here.
Last updated on 11 May 2022 .