At first glance, you might wonder if the ‘synopsis syndrome’ refers to a clinical condition....
SPEAK OUT
At first glance, you might wonder if the ‘synopsis syndrome’ refers to a clinical condition. Well, in fact, it doesn’t. I’ve coined this term to describe the state of affairs surrounding the research projects of undergraduate students at my university. As a student of a medical institute, I have always found research to be an intriguing and intellectually stimulating subject. However, the process of conducting research has, over time, turned into an exhausting and monotonous grind for me.
In simple words, research is the systematic way to answer questions and test hypotheses. A research project consists of the following steps: synopsis or proposal writing, institutional review board approval, data collection, analysis of the data, and, finally, writing a research report that presents the results of your research. Ideally, this process takes about six months at the undergraduate level.
All of this seems like a straightforward and smooth process, but that is not the case at my institution. We were given guidelines to write the synopsis according to the format acceptable to the university. We were allotted approximately two to three weeks to complete the synopsis, have it checked by our supervisor, and submit a tape-bound printed copy to the university for approval. We completed these tasks and submitted the synopsis.
However, we were then informed that we needed to prepare a presentation of the synopsis to present in front of a committee for approval. We prepared the presentation, but the committee meeting was scheduled a month later. The presentation went well, but the committee pointed out some mistakes. We corrected these mistakes and were provided with a new set of guidelines, which were originally intended for the research report. However, we were instructed to follow these guidelines for the synopsis as well.
These new guidelines were ambiguous. One thing was stated in the guidelines but was not followed in the attached template. Despite the confusion, we incorporated all the changes as per the updated instructions and submitted another copy of the synopsis.
Some time later, we were informed that we needed to submit a copy of the certificate of recommendation for the synopsis separately, even though it had already been attached at the end of the synopsis. Another unexpected instruction followed: we were required to submit a complete meeting logbook documenting at least ten meetings between the supervisor and the student. To make matters worse, we were given only one day to complete this task.
On the day of submission, mistakes were found in the logbook, and additional time was granted for corrections. By this point, I was thoroughly exhausted by the seemingly endless and repetitive cycle surrounding the synopsis. While I complied with the instructions, I did so half-heartedly. The initial eagerness I had to learn and implement new research methods had long since dissipated.
Unfortunately, this frustrating cycle didn’t end there.
A new instruction came that was neither mentioned in the guidelines nor pointed out by the supervisor or the committee. First, we were instructed to add a rationale as a separate heading, and then we were told to write the references in our institute’s specific referencing style. Our synopses were also reviewed by senior faculty members, who pointed out their own set of mistakes.
Finally, after all this cherry-picking of errors and endless clerical work, a successful meeting with the head of the institution took place, and all our synopses were approved. However, one step still remains: obtaining Institutional Review Board approval.
It took six months to get the proposal/synopsis approved, a timeline during which the entire undergraduate research project should ideally have been completed. After enduring this prolonged and frustrating process, I would like to offer some suggestions to our respected professors and institutional heads.
If you wish to promote quality research among students, please provide them with a clear, unified set of instructions, agreed upon by all involved faculty members. Currently, one teacher says one thing, while another says something entirely different, creating confusion and unnecessary delays.
Furthermore, the entire board of senior faculty members should review the printed synopsis collectively and identify all clear mistakes in one go, rather than pointing out vague errors in an apparently endless series of meetings. This would save time, reduce the students' frustration, and foster a more efficient and supportive research environment.
