If portrayals of scientists on TV and in the movies are anything to go by, “pure intellect” is the single most important trait — if not the only important trait — you’ll need if you want to find success in the research arena. Other traits, like having people skills or proficiency in any number of practical concerns, simply aren’t necessary, and might even be disqualifying if you’re looking to be an absent-minded-professor type.
Of course, portrayals of scientists on TV and in the movies are often silly. Certainly, they’re rarely grounded in reality.
The fact is, the core skills needed to be a productive scientist include those we tend to think of as “soft” skills: personal organization, emotional resilience, communication, sustained motivation. Ultimately, the quality of the science depends on the scientist’s ability to wield these skills to navigate the complexities of the broader research ecosystem, the many pitfalls and landmines that inevitably lie in wait. And here’s the good news: the skills aren’t necessarily innate. You can learn them.
Dave Korenchan is a faculty member at the Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital focusing on the development of advanced MRI techniques for advanced MRI techniques for noninvasive measurement of molecular and tissue changes in pathologies such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.
Last year, recognizing the many challenges scientists face, beyond the intricacies of the science itself, he launched a monthly forum — “The Deliberate Researcher” — where Martinos investigators can “identify challenges, discover motivation to work at their best, and share effective tactics, all centered around a general topic related to research life.”
In a recent conversation, Dave shared lessons he’s learned both in the forum and through his own personal experiences. Here are four takeaways from the conversation and Dave’s thoughts about each.
Soft skills matter more in research than most scientists expect
Dave: What soft skills are important? Time management is a big one that comes to mind, and that’s not at all unique to science — though it might have some nuances, like being able to control for risk and uncertainty, e.g.. if a project isn’t turning out as expected.
Another big one would be related to creativity. You might think of creativity in science along the lines of big breakthroughs, like coming up with an innovative new theory, idea, or design that makes a big impact. But it also comes into play in many other ways: how you design your projects and experiments, how you approach unexpected snags or obstacles in the research, what strategies you employ in writing and interpreting results, etc. And creativity is not something purely innate — you can grow in it, by consciously challenging yourself to look at things in new and different ways, and by being willing to come up with ideas that may end up to be wrong or poorly conceived. These ‘bad’ ideas eventually lead to much better ones
Maybe one last category of skills would be all those relating to other people: how you collaborate, how you consult others effectively (threading the needle between thinking about things beforehand vs. waiting too long to ask for help), how you settle questions on authorship and project ownership, etc. People skills are big, especially in an era where scientific research requires collaboration with people from various areas of expertise, and especially since you meet some scientists who tend to be a bit eccentric or have funny personality quirks — and that can include yourself!
Building these skills tends to change you in ways you didn’t anticipate
Dave: I think the skills you develop as a scientist — and maybe along with them, your attitudes and dispositions — have a huge impact on your personal development. One example might be on the level of dependability. If you can learn to be a dependable person in lab — accomplishing the things you commit yourself to, doing them well, and sharing the results in a timely manner — that translates immediately to everywhere else. You’ll follow up more readily when you commit to things outside the lab, and you’ll follow up on things for your friends, spouse, kids, etc., probably using some of the same approaches you use in the lab to make sure you don’t forget about things and do them in the best way possible.
Freewriting is a surprisingly powerful place to start
Dave: Freewriting is simple in concept: write continuously, without editing or stopping to judge what’s coming out. But freewriting goes beyond just getting the right answer: it’s about honing a thought process, and it can easily lead you to ask questions you wouldn’t otherwise have asked. I’ve used freewriting most effectively for brainstorming and for troubleshooting experiments. In the former case, I’ve found myself making connections on scientific concepts I hadn’t quite made before, and/or developing them further, and in troubleshooting it’s helped me to consider other aspects of the experiment I hadn’t really thought of before, or hadn’t seriously considered.
I’ve also used freewriting outside of scientific things. I’ve done free-writing about ways to grow in friendships or to reflect on how things are going with some of the people I’m closest with. It’s a gift that keeps on giving — inside the lab, and outside! Nothing is outside of its helpful influence!
Soft skills can quiet the imposter syndrome voice
Dave: My sense of imposter syndrome is that it stems from a lack of reflection on oneself and one’s abilities, and what it takes to do science well, as well as a possible misunderstanding of what is in fact important. I think imposter syndrome can thrive on vagueness: in a way it’s just a sense that other people “seem” smarter or better equipped to do scientific research than I am (though you might struggle to put your finger on what that thing really is; or if you can put your finger on it, you might not appreciate that it’s within your reach, rather than innate).
When you see that excellence in scientific research depends primarily on skills that are possible for everyone to grow and develop in, it’s a liberating experience. You might not be there yet, but if you’re willing to look and see where the growth points are and make practical steps to develop in these areas, then you’re on the way to being a great researcher, rather than getting hung up on the supposed “fact” that you don’t have any of these “innate” abilities that brilliant scientists have. And as you progress in these skills, perhaps through paths that you’ve developed and are tailor-made to your own needs, preferences, and style, then you grow bit by bit in self-confidence.
