1/ Lit surveys and discovery exercises serve 2 purposes, not 1: providing idea fuel and containing downside of potential blindside errors
Conversation
Replying to
2/ Conflating the two purposes leads to misery and terrible work because very different subsets of discovery findings drive them.
1
1
Replying to
3/ For idea fuel, you want to throw to choose from the ends of the distribution: most-cited and least-cited.
1
3
Replying to
4/ The most cited work gives you foundations to build on. Obscure works give you novel starting points that have chance for high ROI
4
4
Replying to
5/ For the 2nd purpose of risk-containment, it's the middle of the distribution that matters. You'll illuminate your blindsides there.
1
3
Replying to
6/ If you look for both inspiration and risk mitigation in the middle, you'll do low-value, incremental work that is safe.
1
3
2
Replying to
7/ If you look for both inspiration and risk mitigation at the ends, you'll likely make one or more bonehead blunders.
1
1
1
Replying to
8/ If you look for ideas in the middle, risk-mitigation in the edges, you'll end up with an uninspired, non-magisterial lumpensynthesis.
2
2
Replying to
9/ But if you look for ideas at the distribution ends and risk mitigation in the middle, you're in the game for potentially big hits.
1
1
5
Replying to
10/ Nobody told me this when I was doing academic research, but with blogging, if you don't work this way, you're basically dead.
2
3
Replying to
overlooking basic confusions/blindspots, bugs, jankiness, usually fixed in decade 1 of any new paradigm. Clean up mess of new baby
1
Show replies

