5 Lessons for my Graduate Students

ICMPC (the International Conference of Music Perception and Cognition meeting I attended in July) is most succinctly described as a music science conference. Although various fields are represented, including music psychology, music cognition, music theory, music therapy, and more, at its core it’s a science conference. And I find it fascinating to note the differences between the more clinically-focused music therapy conferences I’m used to attending and this one.

In that spirit, my second post-ICMPC blog post is inspired by observing and learning from the talk and poster presentations I’ve attended at this conference over the years. These are written as if I were sharing them with a graduate student, as “lessons” to keep in mind about scholarly practice in general.

Lesson 1: You don’t need to have the answer.

Several talks I attend have the general story line of: First we did this, and it didn’t work. Then we tried this second approach, and it didn’t work. So we went back and tried this third approach, and there’s a part of it that maybe could work…but we need to try again and focus just on that.

In other words, not every study will lead to a big “ah-ha” moment. Nor should it. If the study is well-designed, with research questions guiding the process, then the data that emerges will tell you something…even if it’s not what you hypothesized or even hoped for.

Lesson 2: One big project can generate multiple talks and posters.

I was first introduced to this concept back when I was a masters student. I worked as a research assistant, and my thesis project was based on one outcome measure from a much larger study I was involved in. In fact, not only was my thesis published, but I’m listed as a co-author on multiple other papers and poster presentations due to my involvement in the study.

I was reminded of this at ICMPC last month, when I heard two talks and visited one poster that each presented a portion of a larger study this research team conducted. Each bit reflected a specific research question or handful of questions being explored in the study. Now, this approach may not be feasible as part of your student research project…but it’s a practice you should know exists and should potentially aspire to.

Lesson 3: Tell your research story.

This is arguably one of my faves. Hands down, the best research presentations I attend are the ones where the presenter weaves their research journey as a story. Presenting research does not have to be dry. Describing your work through a narrative can hold your audience’s attention and help them follow the what, why, and how of your research.

Again, I’m mindful that certain situations may require more traditional formality (e.g. defenses). But not all do…

Lesson 4: Make writing and reading a daily practice.

The final two lessons are less directly related to ICMPC, but things research-related that I feel are important to share with the budding scholar.

The first is to make scholarly writing and reading a daily practice. This is akin to learning a new instrument or song. It’s better to practice a little bit each day then a lotta bit once a week. Same with your scholarly practice. It’s better to carve out one hour a day when you’re focused on your scholarly activity, then trying to save it all for the weekend. It’s amazing how much you can accomplish in an hour if you just sit down and get started.

BTW, one of my fave books to inspire you here is called How to Write a Lot by Paul J. Silvia. Check it out.

Lesson 5: Be creative. Be detail-oriented.

When I was a PhD student, I sought a tutoring session with a TA in one of my psych research classes. We spent an hour together brainstorming and figuring out the conceptual framework and subsequent study design for a class assignment. I so enjoyed the process, and made a comment afterward about how much I loved the creativity involved in what we had just done. His response?

“Research is not creative.”

I completely disagree.

Research is a process in creativity. From initial conceptualization to forming the conceptual framework to designing the study to making sense of study findings, engaging in research is a highly creative process.

That said, you also must be detail-oriented. Good researchers need to be organized, must take good notes throughout the process (recording thoughts, ideas, events …), and must be meticulous when reporting numbers, statistical results, and such. Plus, revising a manuscript, which is a part of the process itself, is also a detail-oriented process.

These aren’t the only lessons out there, and I imagine I may add more in the future. But they should be enough to get  started for now.

Tagged as: academia, academic life, Conference, PhD life, research, writing