Skip to main content

Blue sky vs applied research

So, one of the topics that has come up from time to time concerns so-called Blue-sky research versus applied research. The image of a blue sky research project is one of a researcher or small group of researchers having fun dreaming up some cool technology but with no relation to the real world.

I have always been a little uncomfortable with this distinction. The reasons are two-fold: in my experience, the time-scales associated with a project bear no direct relation to whether the research is 'blue sky' or 'applied'; secondly the actual work done in a research project may be incremental or grand in both blue sky and applied. (In fact, given the general reluctance of people to fund blue sky research, they tend to be smaller and less grand than applied projects.)

So, here is a different, more grounded distinction that, I believe, is more authentic: Bottom-up versus top-down research.

Bottom-up means, of course, exploring from what you have and seeing if there are any serendipitous opportunities that make them themselves apparent. By its nature, you cannot predict the outcome of bottom-up work, but someone has to have some kind of intuition.

Top-down means problem directed. In my book, that is enough to make it applied. You are trying to solve a problem.

The reality dimension (i.e., is the research realistic or not) shows up independently for either. Some bottom-up projects are highly realistic, other top-down projects are somewhat unrealistic.

Popular posts from this blog

Comments Should be Meaningless

This is something of a counterintuitive idea: Comments should be meaningless What, I hear you ask, are you talking about? Comments should communicate to the reader! At least that is the received conventional wisdom handed does over the last few centuries (decades at least). Well, certainly, if you are programming in Assembler, or C, then yes, comments should convey meaning because the programming language cannot So, conversely, as a comment on the programming language itself, anytime the programmer feels the imperative to write a meaningful comment it is because the language is not able to convey the intent of the programmer. I have already noticed that I write far fewer comments in my Java programs than in my C programs.  That is because Java is able to capture more of my meaning and comments would be superfluous. So, if a language were able to capture all of my intentions, I would never need to write a comment. Hence the title of this blog.

Another thought about Turing and Brooks

Rodney Brooks once wrote that robots would be human when treating them as though they were human was the most efficient way of interacting with them. (Not a precise quote.) This is an interesting variation on the Turing test. It assumes that we decide the smartness of machines in the context of frequent interactions with them. It also builds on an interesting idea: that in order to deal with another entity, be it human, animal or mineral, we naturally build an internal model of the entity: how it behaves, what it can do, how it is likely to react to stimuli etc. That model exists for all entities that we interact with; a rock is not likely to kick you back, your word processor will likely crash before you can save the document etc. When the most effective way to predict the behavior of a machine is to assume that it has similar internal structure to ourselves, then it will, for all intents and purposes, be human. So, here is another thought: how do we know that another human is human?...

Hook, Line and Sinker

It is well documented that people’s #1 fear is speaking in public ! Effective and efficient public speaking is a whole topic in its own right; but a few simple tips might help to both improve your effectiveness and help to reduce the anxiety. You may be called on to talk about your work at very short notice; or you may have a week’s notice; and you may be required to give a formal slide show or just a brief verbal update. Many, if not most of the issues, are the same. The Hook Newspaper editors call the first paragraph of an article ‘the hook’. Its meant to hook you into reading the rest of the piece. On the other hand, the classical ‘say what you are going to say, say it, and say what you said’ approach gives people plenty of time to switch off. The hook may be playful, it may be controversial, but it must communicate why the listener should pay attention. The Line Its a conversation! Even if no one says anything they are listening and thinking; and maybe replying to you in their head...