心理专业学生如何才能做好学问？第三部分5

sos862004

Problems seem to expand as we delve further into them. Given this, at what point do you know that you have enough to publish or at least submit for publication?

Shelley Taylor.
I never know. Reviewers tell me if I have enough or not, and then I find out very quickly whether I need to do more. Speaking more personally, I have a kind of soft, cognitive and affective criterion or set of criteria. The cognitive criterion is, do I understand this to my satisfaction? If I do, then I may not want to or need to nail down the details. The affective criterion is, is this problem still exciting? If the problem is no longer exciting, I am done. Maybe other people would like to chase other aspects of it, but I am out of there. I want to go on to something that is lighting me up. So it is a combination really of affective and cognitive and the direct feedback of the journals.

Robert Sternberg.
For me, I feel like I am ready to submit something when I have a story to tell, and I think it is a good story someone will be interested in. It is not the whole story, because you almost never get the whole story, but it is like a chapter. It is enough that it will be interesting. It is not so much that it will overwhelm them, and it is not so little that they will feel it is fragmentary. And as Shelley said, then the reviewers will tell their opinion. It does not mean they are right, it means that it is their opinion, but that is part of the game.

Martin Seligman.
I want to agree with Bob and just amplify it a bit. Take something much longer than research, like writing a novel, for example. Life does not really have a beginning, a middle, and an end. What a good novelist does is take a piece of that which makes a good story, and I think searching for knowledge is like that as well. You get this much larger mass of data, and your job is to find out what small piece of that tells a good story.

fanhypsy

问题似乎随着我们的深入钻研而得到了拓展。假设是这样，那么在何种程度上你知道你足够发表或者至少寄给出版物？

谢利·泰勒：
    我不知道。审稿人告诉我是否已经足够，然后我很快就发现是否需要做更多工作。说得更个人化点，我有某种软件，认知和情感的标准或一组标准。认知的标准是，我对这个的理解让我满意了吗？如果是，那么我就不想做更多了，或者需要明确一些细节。情感的标准是，这个问题是否仍然让我兴奋？如果这个问题不再让我兴奋，那么我已经做完了。也许其他人会选择这个问题的另一侧面，但是我们已经做完了。我想做一些让我兴奋的事。所以，这其实是情感和认知的混合标准，以及杂志的反馈。

罗伯特·斯腾伯格：
    说到我。当我有一个故事要讲了，而且我认为是别人会产生兴趣的好故事，那么我就感觉我准备写点什么了。它不是一个完整的故事，因为你几乎很难发现一个完整的故事，但是它必须是故事的某章。只要它有趣就够了。不能太长以致故事掩盖了主题，也不能太短以致让人感觉它只是个碎片。正如谢利所说，审稿人会告诉你他们的意见。这并不意味着他们是正确的，只是意味着这是他们的意见。但那是游戏的一部分。

马丁·塞利格曼：
    我赞同Bob，仅仅补充一点。以比研究（论文）长得多的小说为例。生命并没有真的有个开始、之间和结尾。一个好的小说家只选取其中一段编成一个好的故事。我认为创造知识与这个是一样的（道理）。你收集了大堆大堆的数据，你的工作只是从中选取一个足以讲一个好故事的片段而已。