CS & IT: Pure vs. Applied Research

Last minor update on 26th Feb. 2020

Note: This post is from a mail exchange related to the post: CS & IT Academia: Research vs. Teaching
 
Eklavya Sai had written in a previous mail: academic researchers tend to find new ideas more attractive that extending old ideas... But what is important is the quality of the solution and the satisfaction it gives to the users and not whether the ideas/approaches used are old or new.

Friend wrote: Exactly. So putting together the two points we agree on, which are quoted above, academia should look at how to improve things without bringing into consideration whether the idea is new or old.

Eklavya Sai responded: My second statement which you have quoted above is what I made in the context of the "technologist/software engineering perspective" and not in the context of an academic researcher's perspective. See more of my comments lower down.

Friend wrote: I was trying to say, this is perhaps part of what people mean when they talk of the academia-industry gulf. Academia (again speaking in broad strokes) restrictions itself to idea generation. Whereas we need people assembling them into next-generation systems, and in fact new ideas may or may not be called for in solving a given problem. The focus should be on the ends (solve the problem) rather than the means (whether coming up with new ideas or assembling existing ideas in different ways).

Eklavya Sai responded: Well, I think your view is somewhat limited to "practical problem solving" research & development. While I am sure you are aware of the Pure Research & Applied Research differences I feel it will help the discussion to put down some salient points about them (as I, a non-researcher using Wikipedia sources of information, see them :-)].

Importance of Pure Research from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_research

Pure research, basic research, or fundamental research  is research  carried out to increase understanding of fundamental principles. Many times the end results have no direct or immediate commercial benefits: pure research can be thought of as arising out of curiosity. However, in the long term it is the basis for many commercial products and applied research. Pure research is mainly carried out by universities.

----

Pure research generates new ideas, principles and theories, which may not be immediately utilized; though are the foundations of modern progress and development in different fields. Today's computers could not exist without the pure research in mathematics conducted over a century ago, for which there was no known practical application at that time. Pure research rarely helps practitioners directly with their everyday concerns. Nevertheless, it stimulates new ways of thinking about deviance that have the potential to revolutionize and dramatically improve how practitioners deal with a problem.

--- end extracts from Pure Research wiki page ----

I am not a mathematician neither do I know the history of mathematics to know the accuracy and reliability of the statement above, "Today's computers could not exist without the pure research in mathematics conducted over a century ago, for which there was no known practical application at that time." But I would not be surprised if it is true and I presume it to be true as it is on Wikipedia unless some authoritative (knowledge-based authority) person disputes it.

For the purposes of this discussion let us presume the statement to be true. So if all of research & engineering was only towards practical solutions to society's problems then you & I would not be enjoying the computer & internet age!!!

Now I am not a researcher either. But I do have an opinion about research and here is my technologist opinion of research, for all its worth :-).

Industrial research may have very limited scope for "pure research" as industry is focused on providing solutions to society's problems, or rather those societal problems whose solutions have profit potential.

Academia probably is the only large community where "pure research" can be done without worrying about any practical problem-solving ends. And, perhaps, the intellectual excitement and allure of a radical new idea is far more thought-provoking and galvanising than extending an old idea. So I think it is quite natural for academia to have a bias towards new ideas.

But then academia also has "applied research". And I think that applied research publications and project achievements are also well recognised in academia. But "applied research" is also the area of industry research and so perhaps there is some kind of competition there. "Applied research" where the profit potential is very limited like Text to Speech for Telugu or Malayalam or Sanskrit is typically ignored by industry. This is where some academic "applied research" is/can be done. I think here academia is quite receptive to extending old ideas to solve the problem.

However, IMHO, no matter how useful the extension of an old idea may be to solve a practical problem, the radical new idea "breakthrough" will always have more intellectual grandeur and appeal to the researcher & thinker and to the academic community, in general. And so, academia will, perhaps, always have a "new idea"/"original & path-breaking work"/"innovative idea" craze :-)! If somebody is not so comfy with it, like you and me, then we don't fit in 'regular' academia as it is today - as simple as that!

Eklavya Sai had written in a previous mail: That, I think, is a really key difference between a technologist's view and an 'academic' researcher's view.

Friend wrote: And it's obvious which camp I belong to :)

Eklavya Sai responded: I guess I belong to the same camp as you :-). I also am respectful of the other camp and their view and their choice.