James Akl


Research progress

Often, when researchers disagree about what topics or approaches to prioritize, they are also disagreeing on what kinds of progress are more important. This stems from implicit preferences in research goals and aesthetics. One researcher might dismiss a theoretical model as impractical, while another sees a prototype as ephemeral.

These tensions reflect deeper contrasts in how progress is interpreted and pursued. ‘Progress’ can’t be decomposed cleanly, but it can still be probed through contrastive axes.

Contrasts of purpose and scope

These consider questions like: What kind of progress is being aimed at, and on what timescale? What is the intended breadth and function?

Contrasts of epistemic orientation

These consider questions like: How is knowledge generated, and what kind of evidence is considered valid? What is the work trying to know or demonstrate, and how does it relate to truth or utility?

Closing thoughts

These axes are contrived and may stem from misperceptions of how progress in discovery or innovation is achieved. It’s unclear whether some styles are more promising than others. History may favor pluralism since ‘what helps’ is difficult to anticipate. In effect, foundational discoveries have emerged from speculative or loosely-grounded work, and infrastructural tools can drive theoretical advances.

When researchers disagree, it’s not limited to facts, but also ‘styles of inquiry’, favored risks, and what counts as a contribution. Intellectual humility and mediation are thus critical. Style is also personal: prolonged mismatch between individual preference and project demands can lead to dissatisfaction—even when the work is “important.” Some like loose wide-open problems and others prefer tightly-framed, rigorous domains.

It’s important that we try to support ‘diverse epistemic personalities’ and to resist dogmatism. A healthy ecosystem protects the space for diversification and disagreement until clarity emerges.


Published 2025-06-07 · Opinions are mine and do not reflect the views of affiliates.