Impact

I used to think research impact should be equivalent to the journal impact factor of a research journal, which indicates the extent the journal is cited. I believed then that my research had a significant impact when it was published in a high-impact-factor journal. It is a convenient association - really - but I have to admit a lazy one.

It is a lazy association because most researchers - as most workers - follow what their pioneers have done. University research is no different and has become an industry, complete with its leaders and followers. Researchers who founded new areas become leaders and they define research areas. 90%-plus of all researchers are followers and they naturally worry about the impact factor.

To be a research leader is a lonely road and one has to often fight a conventional wisdom. There are many examples. From Albert Eistein's theory of relativity, which was done while he was a patent officer, to Theodore Maiman's ruby laser invention, to Andrew Wiles' proof of last Fermat's theorem. It is not a stroke of luck, since Feynman has always been genius from the get-go, as it requires years of deliberate preparation and determination.

A lot of areas in physical sciences have been researched to great details. From astronomical length scale to atomic length scale. From attosecond to geological time scale. This type of research is analytical: to find the mathematical laws that govern how things behave. It is very rewarding, but once it is completed and proven by experimental data, it is really d-o-n-e.

Physical science researchers can still do applied research. One can do applied research by first knowing a problem and then working on a solution. A lot of academic research, however, work for a long time on specific areas without caring whether there are problems to be solved. Applied researchers who do their research based on working on the same area for decades usually say, "Well, we have a solution, but we are waiting for a problem." Now, that's funny and might as well be a memorable line from a Jerry Seinfeld episode. More and more I feel though that a better applied research is problem-driven, not area-driven.

Now, there are a lot of problems in developing world. Most have to do with structural poverty, where someone becomes poor - not because he does not work hard - because he is trapped in a conspiracy of low wage, low skills, and low opportunity. A question worth-solving is how do we solve this structural poverty. I don't care whether efforts to answer this question can be published in a high-impact-factor journal, but it is definitely a question worth-solving.

These developing-world problems may look at first glance like mostly social or economic problems, but a lot of them have strong physical-science components. Basically, the economic problems - in my opinion - have the same underpinning: how to increase purchasing power of the poor. It means manufacturing costs need to still go lower to reach the poor billions without sacrificing the environment.

The social problems also have another common underpinning: how to empower the poor through education and civil actions. Internet technologies can help solve these social problems if done at low or no cost. A school system that is faster than 12 years to complete will help young generation to acquire practical skills and thinking frame that will help them adapt continually as they work.

When I think about these developing world problems, I face a dilemma whether to plow ahead with doing research by following my curiosity. "Am I not wasting my time?", I often ask myself. It was one the reasons that made me decide to take a leave from doing research and to spend time living in Indonesia.