Photo by Kampus Production
When it comes to increasing your knowledge and skill set, a lot of people think about seeing academia, research and other forms of core learning as the foundations of all forms of knowledge. Behind a lot of this knowledge is methodology and processes to get to the point of it becoming knowledge. But a question that keeps circulating in the academic community is ‘Does academia focus too much on methodology over insights?”.
Some say yes, some say no. Let’s dive into it…
Methodology in Academia
Before we get into it, let’s first define what ‘Methodology’ is. Methodology in an academic context refers to a system of approaches used to carry out research, using a variety of tools and techniques to gather and analyze data.
Methodology is a key element when it comes to research. Research is used to support a statement or look further into a specific statement that does not have enough backing. Therefore when it comes to research, there needs to be a high degree of precision and reliability to it. Without precision and reliability, the research industry's reputation will lose credibility.
Insights in Academia
As you can see with the rise of AI systems, insights have shown us a lot. Things we couldn’t have even imagined. Insight focuses on the discoveries that emerge from all the research, which have later been used to innovate, solve problems and create a different type of future for us ourselves.
You can imagine that in this day and age, more organizations are caring about the value that they can get from insights over methodology.
Methodology vs Insights
With the development of technology in the past 10 years alone, would you say that insights have proven to be more useful than methodology?
But then some might say that insights will never have been derived if it wasn’t for methodology.
It’s not a question of ‘what came first, the chicken or the egg?’. We know that methodologies and processes came first, the question now is does academia focus too much on methodology over insight?
Insights wouldn’t be here if we didn’t have rigorous systematic frameworks in place for research. These have played an integral role in the years of innovation the world has seen, however have these approaches caused people to focus on what’s right in front of them rather than seeing the bigger picture.
We have been taught for so long that education and knowledge is your road to success. You have parents pushing their children to be the best they can be, go to the best universities, and land amazing jobs. Yes, every parent wants their children to be successful, but don’t you think times have changed. There are less and less students wanting to pursue studying at universities, and more and more young millionaires. Something doesn’t seem to be adding up, right?
Well, no — everything's adding up perfectly fine. Not only do the younger generation have better access to the world, education, and resources to learn whatever they want. The one big thing they do have that was not so prominent in previous generations was being creative and unapologetically nurturing it.
Thinking outside of the box makes you tap into your creative side, your unconventional thinking side. This is what has led to breakthroughs, multi-million ideas and a whole paradigm shift. Is methodology killing open-mindedness? Or does academia need to adopt a more creative and interdisciplinary approach?
Finding the Right Balance
Are there dangers of sidelining one over the other? Of course. Sidelining insights to push the rigid process of methodologies can kill peoples creative spirit when it comes to academia. As we mentioned, groundbreaking discoveries have happened due to creative spirit, does it make sense to kill it?
Both methodology insights are interdependent. Academia needs to be flexible and find the balance between embracing different values that insights can bring to the table, without completely taking methodology off the table. You can still have rigorous methods that do not negate or overshadow the potential of what insights can tell us.
The same way we were cautious about electricity for the first time but saw its benefits, or the first telephone. We learnt to adapt to the times we are currently living in. Academia has seen a sharp drop in young people who want to continue higher education. This could be for various reasons, but one naturally is that the learning methods are ‘old school’. It does not resonate with the new generations, because they are living in a completely different time.
We’re going to be surrounded by AI babies who only understand insight and what they can do with that insight. Therefore, it is important for academia to shift in encouraging new creative approaches to research as well as ensuring to teach the importance of robust methodologies.
Wrapping it up
This is my opinion as a millennial, somebody who has had insightful conversations with the baby boomers, Gen X and went to school with millennials. Change does not always have to be bad, and in this case I personally think change within academia will be highly beneficial for the next generations.
Finding the right balance between the two rather than having them do a tug-of-war is the only way to continuously drive progression within academia and innovation to create a better world.
Nisha Arya is a Data Scientist and Freelance Technical Writer. She is particularly interested in providing Data Science career advice or tutorials and theory based knowledge around Data Science. She also wishes to explore the different ways Artificial Intelligence is/can benefit the longevity of human life. A keen learner, seeking to broaden her tech knowledge and writing skills, whilst helping guide others.
More On This Topic
- Dream Come True: Building websites by thinking about them
- Clustering in Crowdsourcing: Methodology and Applications
- How I Redesigned over 100 ETL into ELT Data Pipelines
- Machine Learning Over Encrypted Data
- For SQL, or why I'm so over-protective of my data people
- 5 Concepts You Should Know About Gradient Descent and Cost Function
