As researchers, we are posed with questions that may have only academic value or only practical value, or both. It is essential to delineate these questions and put things in perspective. For example, the research questions in science have an intrinsic value and it is not essential to look for a practical value in answering such questions. On the other hand, research questions in engineering warrant reflection on the end goal, and it is essential to designate a practical value while answering such questions.
The six aspects of a research question, popularly known as 5W1H meaning where (location/geography), when (timescale/history), what (object/mechanics), who (responsible person/student), why(reason), and how (mechanics/methods), help in classifying the problem at hand. Most importantly, the ‘why’ part is the key to answering the question and informs us as to what is driving a particular research question. Nevertheless, in answering these questions, one must be innovative, not because it is desired but is required by the problem. Innovation by its definition refers to a new idea, device, or method, and may include the use of an old method to a new problem in a different setting, or the use of a method from one area of research in a totally different area of research and context. This requires thinking both within the box and outside the box. In thinking within the box, one must be able to use all the available tools and methods in answering the research question at hand, while in thinking outside the box, one must be able to overcome the disciplinary boundaries and look for methods and tools elsewhere, in other analogous problems.
I would summarize the philosophy of overcoming disciplinary boundaries and innovating in a syllogistic way:
Minor premise: We cannot imagine beyond our experience,
Major premise: We cannot innovate beyond our imagination,
Conclusion: Therefore, to innovate, one must expand the horizons of one’s experience.
This means that the key to innovation is in gaining a lot of experience!
In the works of Dr. Amit Bhasin at UT Austin, it is noteworthy to see how the oil-sand problem in Canada and Dentistry helped him understand the physics of moisture damage in asphalt pavement. Similarly, how asphalt binder nonlinearity was informed by the mechanics of underground cables in ocean beds, or how ink industry or physics of bubbles helped him understand the process of foaming in asphalts, etc. Similarly, in the works of Dr. Kim at NC State University, how the theory and models developed at NASA for rocket fuels informed his modeling of asphalt concrete that led to the development of a new branch of asphalt mechanics: Viscoelastic Continuum Damage (VECD) mechanics. On the other hand, it is interesting to see how Dr. Bhasin’s research on asphalt binder adhesion helped solve some problems of car interiors or how his asphalt binder nonlinear models helped understand the nonlinearity of heart muscles, etc. All these examples showcase the wonders of overcoming disciplinary boundaries and how it drives innovation.
At the end, one must be cautious of overexploitation of these principles and how it can lead to misinterpretations rather than innovations. An example being the (mis)use of Atomic Force Microscopy in asphalt binders, and that how this otherwise useful technique did not prove useful in advancing our understanding of asphalt binder microstructure, yet thousands of papers were published on it leading to nowhere.
So, one must take everything with a pinch of salt and be careful when crossing disciplinary boundaries, as Dr. Bhasin righty puts it, “innovation is not in using another new shiny tool”. Finally, the foundational principle that should drive our research, is, we should pursue simplicity and elegance in everything we do.
Note: This write-up is inspired by a course I took in Fall 2021 on “Thinking Big” co-taught by Dr. Amit Bhasin, Dr. Andrew Braham, and Dr. Shane Underwood.