15 April 2019
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”- Richard Feynman
Who am I?
It has been seven months since I have started my new position as a Ph.D. student. As a person of immense curiosity and a nagging habit of analyzing everything, it was my dream job. After completing my bachelor’s degree in computer science and information technology, like any other ‘clever’ person in my country (Bangladesh), I joined a multinational company. I was doing quite fine with the research (basically fixing errors in the operating systems and writing codes for the new versions of telecommunication protocols). There is a proverb in my country, “if you are well content, your inner demons will push you to try crazy things.” Well, the wise men were not wrong in saying that. After four years of the job (and promotion in the meantime), I suddenly thought, “well, I need to study again.” So I began to take the road less traveled by and reached the famous black forests’ hilly landscape.
I completed my master’s in ‘computational linguistics’ at the University of Stuttgart, Germany. Then I came to Stockholm to work on my Ph.D. degree. It was (and still is) a crucial subject for me to use deep learning and natural language processing to improve in the health-care domain. I know very well that as a Ph.D. student, my contribution will be minuscule in this vast sea of scientific knowledge. I will not be an inventor (well, if I am lucky, I might invent something as a by-product). Still, I am merely an academic journalist who might help others see the right direction in the future. Still, the sense of doing something meaningful was fundamental to me. I am a human being, after all. We tend to associate meaning, objective, the greater truth, and grand design with everything. In contrast, the world and everything on it is nothing but a chaotic mess. To sum up, I took some risks, started my Ph.D., and life was good.
Sweden fascinated me. It’s rich and vibrant culture (albeit a bit reserved in terms of the social interactions), diversity, efficient plannings, humanitarian efforts, the utter politeness in the social interaction, a semi-invisible social hierarchy, and of course the famous ‘Fika’; I enjoyed these a lot. Before coming here, I was in Germany. The work culture there was much more intense (in my opinion) comparing here. I liked the idea that to work very seriously, you have to be a bit relaxed. In other words, you can not be very serious if you want to be serious in your job. This may sound contradictory, but in my experience, it is the only way to work effectively. Otherwise, one will succumb to the confirmation bias, and one day that person may realize that “well, it was all wrong, and now I have to do it all over again.”
I learned a lot during this time. The winter was very harsh on me. I got sick twice, and I had to take sick leave due to a viral infection in my throat. I studied heavily on deep learning in the health-care domain, reviewed a lot of papers. I attended one conference. I volunteered in another. I took a couple of courses and learned a lot of things from there too. My supervisors were very helpful to me. They were (and still are) very considerate and caring. They provided me necessary suggestions, directions to study and helped me to prepare my plans. It helped me a lot. I especially liked the active participation of them during the discussion process. It showed that they care about the topic and me, and they want me to do well. We worked on a task of early prediction of sepsis using deep learning with the Karolinska Institute’s medical professionals. Finally, we submitted a paper about it in a reputed association. To sum it up, these seven months were chaotic, full of new experiences, sometimes quite painful (due to sickness), but overall it was enjoyable. I learned a lot and collaborated a bit also.
The reflection
Now it’s the time for reflection. Yes, I did a lot of things, but how exactly it affected me and the others during the process of doing it? Was the approach to stressful? How was the collaboration process? How was the supervision process? Is it beneficial for me? Is there any place that can be improved? Many questions should be addressed here, and earlier, the better as I still have a long way to go.
Topics that could be addressed to make the overall experience even better
First of all, it is critical to identify my initial expectations for this Ph.D. study. From the global perspective, a Ph.D. student’s expectations are very clearly defined in the general study plans and the individual study plans. I am referring to these expectations as the ‘goals’ or ‘objectives’ here. To achieve these goals, a well set-of-actions is required, and we (I and my supervisors) had done it for the tasks that I did or was assigned. I am referring to this (a well set of course-of-actions) as ‘planning.’ What I am labeling as ‘expectation’ is my personal (or inter-personal to be exact) choice of actions to make these two items (goals and plannings) a reality. I am now trying to address these expectations very elaborately and as carefully as possible with some observations or comments on possible improvements.
Communication standard
Before coming here, I was in Germany for more than three years. The communication culture there is straightforward and hierarchical. It is very clear there regarding what is expected to be done entirely according to the plan, what is optional, and what could be a nice addition but in a stricter definition not mandatory at all. Moreover, it is always encouraged to come up with a different idea by arguing over it as directly (and ruthlessly) as possible. The communication was entirely on a need to know basis. Unless it is vital and explicitly stated, the acknowledgment or response was not required immediately as long as the task is finishing in due time.
Contrasting with that point of view, I find the communication standard is quite elusive here in Sweden. It took me a considerable amount of time to understand what is mandatory for me and what is optional from the social signals and cues. From now on, I will be much more assertive about it. I will assume something is compulsory or essential unless stated otherwise (literally the opposite way that I was used to), and I will respond to it accordingly.
The expectation of eccentricity, unconventionality, and creativity
I believe I should possess a considerable amount of self-assurance to work using reason, authority, and common sense. I may seem eccentric to many people because of these, which is reasonable as it is supposed to be in a creative work environment. A healthy dosage of eccentricity is suitable in this aspect. With this keeping in mind, it can be said that two qualities are essential here for the research and subsequent contribution, (1) a solid background in my current topics, and (2) unconventionality in my (thinking and working) habits. To nurture these two traits, some level of isolation is required. Our final aim is to ensure creativity, and the creative person cannot really ‘stop’ the working process. It is a continuous process in her / his mind. Including someone else in this process can be embarrassing. For one promising idea that I can generate, I am also generating hundreds of stupid ones. Still, isolation, or working in isolation, is a terrible idea because no two persons can think the same. This notion of ‘synthesizing’ the different opinions is the ultimate ‘key’ to create something truly novel. All of these expectations (eccentricity, unconventionality, and creativity) lead me to the expectation of coverage in the supervision meeting, which I am discussing in the next section.
The degree of coverage in the supervision meeting
The weekly supervision meetings were extremely constructive for me to complete my required tasks. They were well thought out, well planned, and very nicely detailed. The aspect(s) that could be improved is a global perspective towards the ‘goal’ of my overall Ph.D. work. Of course, the detailed tasks are essential, and I had separate research sessions to discuss these far more elaborately. Therefore, I expected the supervision meeting would also focus on the idea of sharing part of the whole process. As I have mentioned earlier, idea generation is a continuous process; therefore, I thought these meetings are not about generating new ideas (right then and there) but to educate ourselves (all the participants) about the facts, recent works, and different possible combinations of these. To maintain its flow and to reflect it, I expected to keep small documentation about it by myself (for example, a short report, summary of the conclusion, or concise answers to the existing problems in our hand).
I expected it (the global discussion process) to be well directed as well. By asking the appropriate questions (without hampering the general discussion flow, of course), by encouraging the participants to come forward with new facts (maybe with one or two examples of his / her previous life as a student, just to encourage and explain the situation), and by gently nudging the topic to the right focus if it is misguided.
The degree of freedom in action and responsibility
I expect a certain level of freedom in my action (choice, selection, etc.). Of course, it is understandable that the ‘scale’ of this freedom will be heavily skewed initially as I am a novice student now. Therefore I must follow the guidance very thoroughly and try to understand the meaning of it. Afterward, gradually, by immersing myself in the learning process, I should be able to show my effectiveness. By doing so, I will also be able to perform some tasks without ‘direct and constant’ supervision. To sum it up, a delicate balance is necessary. Still, that balance must not be a constant one but rather a dynamic one.
Well-defined responsibility in case of accountability
A well-defined set of criteria of responsibility before committing to any tasks would be beneficial to me in case it is decided that I will be ‘held accountable’ for that ‘particular’ task. I have no problem if it (the degree of responsibility) is blurry in a collaborative process (for example, some functions in a collaborative project). Still, in the case of accountability, it should be well defined. I do not expect to assume it from the context as it may create a very unwanted and messy situation because of (the lack of) it. To put this into perspective, let’s take an example of collaboration in writing a paper. Suppose I am the first author, and I am accountable for any mishap in the whole process. In that case, I must have a very clear idea about my responsibility. We can follow a well-defined, well-followed, and well-reviewed recommendation system for this, such as ‘the Vancouver Recommendations’ (section II. A. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors) [1].
Conclusion
To sum it up, overall, it’s been an incredible journey so far. I am enjoying it a lot. I would expect a bit more general discussion, the degree of freedom and assurance in creative thinking, actions, and responsibility. Moreover, I would like to form a profound and meaningful professional relationship with my supervisors and having a memorable time of my life in Sweden while pursuing my Ph.D. degree.
References
[1] International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. “Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals.” (2016).