Applying GTD to academic research

[biberschuh]

Hello everyone,

The Getting-Things-Done method is still new to me and I am trying to apply it in my everyday life.

It works great in many areas and fields of application, but I still find it difficult to apply it to scientific research projects. How can a research and writing process be productively structured using the GTD method?

Does anyone have experience in implementing the GTD method and the scientific way of working and can give me a few tips?

Thank you very much

PS: Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

 

[mcogilvie]

You can find some helpful material by searching for “GTD scientists” and “GTD academics”. I’m both a scientist and an academic, but my father was a chemist who worked in industry after getting his Ph.D., so I have some familiarity with non-academic research as well. In general, scientists have more “look into” projects and next actions than most people; David Allen uses “R&D” as a shorthand for “look into”, but for us this is literally correct. I find it helpful to distinguish my most active research projects from the others, which range from “next major project” through “thinking about this” to “someday/maybe.” Scientists also have more reference material, and finding good systems and practices is crucial. This varies by field, especially because of digital resources and tools. Writing is also a big important aspect of science. Most people need to find some way to set aside an hour or two a day to make good progress on writing. This could be time scheduled on a calendar, an early morning or late night habit, or whatever works. GTD actually works pretty well for scientists, but those are the major areas that seem a bit different than the needs of most people.

 

[gtdstudente]

You can find some helpful material by searching for “GTD scientists” and “GTD academics”. I’m both a scientist and an academic, but my father was a chemist who worked in industry after getting his Ph.D., so I have some familiarity with non-academic research as well. In general, scientists have more “look into” projects and next actions than most people; David Allen uses “R&D” as a shorthand for “look into”, but for us this is literally correct. I find it helpful to distinguish my most active research projects from the others, which range from “next major project” through “thinking about this” to “someday/maybe.” Scientists also have more reference material, and finding good systems and practices is crucial. This varies by field, especially because of digital resources and tools. Writing is also a big important aspect of science. Most people need to find some way to set aside an hour or two a day to make good progress on writing. This could be time scheduled on a calendar, an early morning or late night habit, or whatever works. GTD actually works pretty well for scientists, but those are the major areas that seem a bit different than the needs of most people.

@mcogilvie

Thank you for your above GTD reply

As such, would you also say it is accurate to say all inquiry is a scientific endeavor ?

Lastly, would you agree when it is said that . . . history in not science ?

Thank you very much

 

[mcogilvie]

@mcogilvie

Thank you for your above GTD reply

As such, would you also say it is accurate to say all inquiry is a scientific endeavor ?

Lastly, would you agree when it is said that . . . history in not science ?

Thank you very much

In the US, we usually distinguish the “hard” sciences or natural sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, et cetera) from the social sciences (psychology, political science, economics, sociology, et cetera). Both are traditionally distinct from the humanities (literature and history, for example). Although methodologies overlap, there are real dangers in scientism, defined as an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation. Natural scientists are likely to use scientism in a slightly different way, applying the word to work outside the natural sciences which pretends to be scientific. Medicine is a good example: it is not an exact science, but a pragmatic profession which depends on science. Over time, scientism misleads people and erodes trust in science.

 

[gtdstudente]

In the US, we usually distinguish the “hard” sciences or natural sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, et cetera) from the social sciences (psychology, political science, economics, sociology, et cetera). Both are traditionally distinct from the humanities (literature and history, for example). Although methodologies overlap, there are real dangers in scientism, defined as an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation. Natural scientists are likely to use scientism in a slightly different way, applying the word to work outside the natural sciences which pretends to be scientific. Medicine is a good example: it is not an exact science, but a pragmatic profession which depends on science. Over time, scientism misleads people and erodes trust in science.

@mcogilvie

Most appreciate your objective observations

Thank you very much

Has one think, all 'data', 'controlled'-or-'uncontrolled', used for/in science is by definition historical ?

 

[biberschuh]

You can find some helpful material by searching for “GTD scientists” and “GTD academics”.

Hi, mcogilvie, thanks a lot! I will dive right into those searches.

I find it helpful to distinguish my most active research projects from the others, which range from “next major project” through “thinking about this” to “someday/maybe.”

Do you seperate those on different lists for projects and context-based actions?

 

[mcogilvie]

Do you seperate those on different lists for projects and context-based actions?

I’ve tried various approaches, but I haven’t found that one way that is clearly superior. Mostly I know which projects are important. Much more important for me is to know that I can make time to work on them- it’s an active choice I have to make.