, 1 min read
The problem with unidimensional research
Yesterday, I listened to some of the BDA’08 talks. One common issue I noticed is that most work is unidimensional. That is, researchers tell us “my technique is 4 times faster”. The trade-off, if any, is not presented. Here is what I would like to hear: “I use twice the RAM, but I am 4 times faster”.
This is a side-effect of our quest for positive results. People hide the trade-offs because the negative points make their papers less likely to be accepted. I believe this is the main reason why practitioners ignore researchers. Researchers paint a severely distorted view of the world.
Reviewers need to wise up and give extra points to researchers who describe the negative and positive points of a method. We need to stop believing that the one ideal technique is just around the corner.
In my experience as a researcher, there is no silver bullet. Impressive techniques often fall flat when viewed from a different angle. What appears deep and thoughtful may sound trivial a few years later once it is well understood. What appears childish may be the best option in most cases.
Paint a rosy picture of your work and I will distrust you. Paint the shadows and I start believing in you.