0
TRAINING FOR RESEARCH LEADERSHIP E. D. AMSTUTZ Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
F O R many years applications for National Research Council Fellowships and others of similar type have required an outline of a problem developed by the student. This requirement has been rightfully considered an effective barrier to all except the unusually mature and capable aspirant,. I t has been a high hurdle to all others because it ~ o u l dseem that only the exceptional student has ever witnessed the birth and development of a research project. Most students, even in graduate school, have never been required to produce anything so ambitiously original. To be sure, some few schools have recognized that a student may well emerge from graduate training with a Ph.D. degree but mith no clear conception whatever of where or how research problems originate. To meet this lack they have required the Ph.D. candidate to submit and defend one or more projects of his own devising. While this training is admirable it does not guarantee and may not provide the close contact between student and instructor which has been found to be so valuable. In most graduate schools, however, the student spends most of his time and energy seeking solutions to problems xvhich occurred first to his research director and were later suggested to the student as acceptable and suitable for degree work. While this system may be easily defended and justified it does, nevertheless, tend to deny to the student the necessity for developing a new technique of thinking which is capable of giving him much profit and pleasure. Because the author believes that it is part of the duty and privilege of every academic research director to attempt, as best he can, to provide the impetus for the development of this technique of thinking and to guide it in its development, he has explored several teaching mechanisms with that idea in mind. Many factors appear to contribute to the ability to devise and develop research problems. A keen intellectual curiosity, a mind which revels in exploration, a deep knodedge of the subject, and a good memory are all desirable attributes. Most good Ph.D. candidates measure up to these requirements fairly well but still they may be poorly productive because they simply do not recognize an embryonic research problem when they meet it. A goodly portion of the training for research-problem development therefore should have to do mith the establishment of new ways of thinking, of an attitude which is systematically critical of what is read, heard, or imagined. Just as one can teach the methods for the solution of general problems in the synthesis of organic structures so also can one
definitely assist in the establishment of a method for devising and developing research problems. Realizing that the fault probably lay in our present system of graduate education and not ~viththe students, and that possibly educators fail to provide the incentive, the occasion, and the guiding hand required, the author undertook several years ago to introduce a small group of good advanced students (incipient Ph.D.'s) to the mysteries of research-problem development. The course took the form of a three credit-hour lecture series on certain plant products including, for example, the anthocyanidin pigments and their related materials. The choice of subject matter vas not actually important because we were primarily interested in the manner in which the field and its problems succumbed to the attack of a number of brilliant chemists who labored in it. The plan was to have the students observe the history of a good research problem from its inception to the best conclusion which brilliant minds could provide. We learned a good deal of interesting chemistry but the course did not achieve the purpose for which it was designed. In the first place, it was largely a lecture conrse and graduate students, by long training, are well conditioned to such courses. In the second place, we found that it is well-nigh impossible to trace, through the published literature, with all its emphasis on brevity, the thoughts, both good and poor, which occurred to the authors of the work during the various phases of its development. Recognizing the result for what it mas, the author next attempted to procure the desired result (with a different group of students) by means of scheduled conferences with individual students. The students prepared for these conferences (one-half-hour each week) by reading original research papers in the (usually recent) literature. While much latitude was permitted in the choice of topics the students were required to avoid reading up on any research problem with which they had ever been associated or acquainted. Likewise, topics which had previously been worked over or touched upon in seminars or term papers were not acceptable. This was done simply so that the instructor could reasonably conclude that what the student brought forth during the conference he had observed and possibly understood by his own effort. I t is quite common during the first conference with a student to find that he does not remember for sure what the exact title of the paper is that he bas read. He can usually state where it appeared and about when, but he may not remember the author's name or where he worked. Sometimes he doesn't have a clear idea
417
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
as to why the work was done or what it proved, if anything. After the second conference these questions can usually be answered easily. Then the questions become more searching. The author of the published research obviously had a problem and a plan and he got certain results. His plan, however, was based upon certain interpretations of structure or reactivity, let UF say. Are these interpretations reasonable, or, if they are open to reasonable doubt, what alternatives are there? On the basis of the student's new interpretations where would the author's plan of attack lead'? Would the expected result be compatible with the experimental results which the author found? Could it be used to explain, possibly, some results which the author was forced to overlook? Likewise, the autho~ found he had to make certain assumptions in order t o reduce his idea to experimental verification. Can the student find and state these assumptions? What are the bases for the assumptions? Are they reasonable'? Assuming one does not wish to grant them, is there any way to establish them more firmly? The author has obviously credited previous workers with successfully carrying out certain basic operations or reactions. Does the student agree with the author that the prohlems which these involve are really adequately settled? If not, in the estimation of the student what more would be required? In a problem in organic chemistry, having to do, let us say, with a natural product, the student should always be asked to name the structure and to identify its component parts. Very often it is helpful if he is made to identify the states of oxidation of the various atoms and to relate these states with the changes involved in a chemical reaction described in the paper. At this point it is sometimes possible for the student to recognize that the overall operation just described is really just afamiliar name reaction (somewhat disguised) that he has known for some time. As the student proceeds to name the parts and to recognize the chemical processes in terms of familiar operations he often sets in motion thechain of associations which leads him to ask questions that may have no answers presently available. At this point he has, with the instructor's considerable assistance, developed a research problem for himself. Depending upon the student and his individual needs, the instructor may require him to fill in the background for the problem by exhaustively examining the related literature, or he can suggest that the student do that later and proceed immediately to a new topic. Since one can never tell what sort of paper a student will read it follows that his development is less likely to be centered around the special field of activity of his instructor. He is less of a carbon-copy of his research director and finds no difficulty whatever in making an independent beginning for himself in other fields of research.
The student is required (as a part of the course) to enter the problem on a page in a bound book, properly dated, labeled, signed, and witnessed. The students are encouraged to use the same book to record all unusual reactions, structures, or items which they do not undentand. By keeping the notebook up to date, by consulting it frequently, by puzzling over its contents and attempting to construct new relationships to any other facts, the student establishes a continuity of thought and development which may easily become the most important and satisfying element in his selfeducation. The function of the instructor should be expect,ed to change perceptibly during the course. Less and less should he he the inquisitor in routine mat,ters as the student begins to take on this function for himself. His task must always be accomplished with finesse. Very often he must lead without seeming to lead, and he must refrain from impatiently reverting to the simpler but inadequate lecture system. So far we have considered the effect on the student, but the instructor, as usual, profits considerably also. In the first place, he finds that he is obliged to maintain a fairly complete coverage of current literature. It should also be admitted that he, too, gains much in understanding of this literature by his questioning of tlhe student. Perhaps of greatest importance to a teacher, however, is the insight gained into the thinking operations of the student. Quite occasionally, too, the instructor can witness the development in the student of methods of reasoning and their fruition in the recognition of inadequately explored areas of knowledge. This is indeed a thrilling experience for anybody. While not all students are equally teachable by this or any other method the author has found that these "classes" are never dull and he heartily recommends the experience to all who will try it. Perhaps in this way we can, in part, at least, meet the challenge recently voiced by J. D. Porsche' who stated: It would seem, however, that much could be gained if marc of our professors of chemistry would impart to their students not, only the knowledgo and techniques which are the tools of research but also the mentd processes and habits which are research.
The author makes no claim for the originality of either the t,eaching method outlined herein (which is as old as education itself) nor the subject matter of the course described. He simply believes that the personalized training described is important and deserves more attention in the graduate curricula of our universities. Although the accomplishment of research is important it cannot he doubted that the main task of graduate education is the training of thinking men.
' PORSCHE,J. D., Chem. and Eng. News, 28,245 (1950).
