pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.19961 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · ⚛️ physics.ed-ph · cs.CY

Recognition: unknown

The Research Guide: From Informal Role to Profession

Sergey V. Samsonau , Matthew Pearce
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 00:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.ed-ph cs.CY
keywords research mentoringscience educationcognitive apprenticeshipprofessional developmentundergraduate researchcitizen scienceeducational rolesmentoring practices
0
0 comments X

The pith

Guiding authentic research for students and adults outside PhD programs requires recognizing a new profession called the Research Guide.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper claims that helping learners develop the ability to frame questions, conduct open-ended inquiry, and communicate findings sits in a middle space between classroom teaching and PhD advising. Current programs default to informal, one-on-one mentoring copied from graduate training, which does not systematically prepare people for the required mix of visible expert thinking, developmental support, and flexible methods. The authors define the Research Guide as the role that makes tacit research moves explicit through cognitive apprenticeship and argue that the combination of pedagogy, methodology, assessment, risk management, and community building justifies dedicated training pathways, career structures, and institutional status. This matters because hundreds of thousands of middle and high school students, undergraduates, and citizen scientists already pursue real research each year without consistent professional guidance.

Core claim

The central claim is that the practitioner who develops another person's capacity to do research—from framing a question to communicating findings—fills a missing professional slot. This role uses cognitive apprenticeship to reveal and scaffold expert moves on unpredictable problems, spans multiple modes of inquiry beyond the hypothetico-deductive cycle, and demands a skill set no existing program produces, thereby warranting a named profession with training, hiring standards, career ladders, and recognition.

What carries the argument

The Research Guide, the named role that develops learners' capacity to do research through cognitive apprenticeship, where an expert's tacit moves on open-ended problems are made visible, scaffolded, and faded while outcomes remain unpredictable.

If this is right

  • Research programs would replace ad-hoc PhD-style mentoring with structured cognitive apprenticeship that makes expert thinking visible to learners.
  • Institutions would create dedicated training pathways that combine teaching skills with research methodology and risk management.
  • Hiring for research mentor positions would require demonstrated competence in scaffolding open-ended inquiry rather than domain expertise alone.
  • Career progression would include recognized steps from entry-level guide roles to senior positions with institutional support.
  • Program evaluation would track both research outputs and the development of learner independence across multiple inquiry modes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same logic for professionalizing guidance could extend to other open-ended domains such as independent writing projects or community-based investigations.
  • Pilot programs testing Research Guide training could measure whether participants retain research skills longer than those in standard mentoring.
  • Formalizing the role might free faculty time currently spent on informal undergraduate mentoring while improving consistency for large numbers of learners.
  • Citizen science projects could adopt Guide standards to structure adult participation and reduce dropout from lack of scaffolding.

Load-bearing premise

That the specific blend of pedagogy, research methods, developmental assessment, productive struggle management, domain flexibility, and community building cannot be supplied by adapting any current teacher or advisor training programs.

What would settle it

A controlled study that trains people through existing education or research methods programs and shows they guide multiple students to comparable research skill gains and project completion rates as would be expected from a specialized Research Guide pathway would undermine the need for a new profession.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19961 by Matthew Pearce, Sergey V. Samsonau.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The pedagogy–methodology gap. No existing training program produces both skill sets together. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The general research cycle shared across modes of inquiry. Every mode (Section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Guiding others through authentic scientific research outside of PhD programs has been practiced for decades in specialized secondary schools, undergraduate research programs, and independent settings. These practitioners work in the middle, between the classroom science teacher and the PhD advisor, guiding learners with aptitude or serious interest. Sport and music have dedicated professions for this middle position (the school-team coach and the school band director); research does not. This paper names that missing profession the Research Guide: the practitioner who develops another person's capacity to do research, from framing a question to communicating findings. Hundreds of thousands of middle and high school students already pursue authentic research each year, even more college undergraduates participate in research with a faculty member, and millions of adults engage in citizen science. In current practice, the programs that serve this middle group mostly default to a simplified version of the PhD apprenticeship model structured around one mentor with a few students at a time, without systematic training; they overwhelmingly frame research as the hypothetico-deductive cycle alone. The role calls for cognitive apprenticeship, a pedagogical approach in which an expert's tacit moves on open-ended problems are made visible and scaffolded, then faded as the learner develops, while the research outcomes themselves remain unpredictable. It spans multiple modes of inquiry (not only the hypothetico-deductive cycle) and demands a combination that no existing training program produces: pedagogy, research methodology, developmental assessment, risk and productive struggle management, domain flexibility, and community building. Together these demands warrant a dedicated profession: a named role, a training pathway, a career ladder, hiring standards, and institutional recognition.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper argues that guiding authentic scientific research for pre-PhD learners (in secondary schools, undergraduate programs, and citizen science) constitutes an informal but distinct role that should be formalized as the profession of 'Research Guide.' It claims this role requires cognitive apprenticeship across multiple inquiry modes plus a skill combination (pedagogy, research methodology, developmental assessment, risk management, domain flexibility, community building) that no existing training program produces, thereby warranting a named role, training pathway, career ladder, hiring standards, and institutional recognition. Current practice is described as defaulting to an unsystematic PhD-apprenticeship model.

Significance. If the uniqueness claim holds, the paper would usefully name and frame a gap in science-education structures supporting the hundreds of thousands of students already doing authentic research, potentially informing policy on mentoring outside classrooms or PhD labs. The conceptual use of cognitive apprenticeship and the contrast with established professions in sport and music are coherent starting points.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract, final paragraph: the central warrant that the role 'demands a combination that no existing training program produces' is asserted without any survey, citation, or comparative analysis of programs in science education, educational psychology, research mentoring, or related fields. This is load-bearing for the conclusion that a dedicated profession is required; if even modular combinations from existing programs cover the listed elements, the necessity of an entirely new named profession and institutional apparatus does not follow.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract, second paragraph: the claim that programs 'overwhelmingly default to a simplified version of the PhD apprenticeship model structured around one mentor with a few students at a time, without systematic training' and 'frame research as the hypothetico-deductive cycle alone' is presented as factual but unsupported by data, citations, or systematic observation. This underpins the argument that current practice is inadequate and requires professionalization.
minor comments (2)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from explicit section headings and numbered paragraphs to allow precise reference to claims about skill combinations or current practices.
  2. The contrast with sport and music professions is suggestive but would be strengthened by a brief reference to how those roles achieved professional status (training standards, certification, etc.).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and substantive comments on our manuscript. The feedback correctly identifies that key claims in the abstract require stronger grounding to support the argument for professionalizing the Research Guide role. We have revised the manuscript by adding citations to relevant literature on undergraduate research experiences, secondary school mentoring programs, and science education training, along with a new subsection reviewing representative existing programs and explaining their limitations relative to the full skill set required. Our point-by-point responses to the major comments follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract, final paragraph: the central warrant that the role 'demands a combination that no existing training program produces' is asserted without any survey, citation, or comparative analysis of programs in science education, educational psychology, research mentoring, or related fields. This is load-bearing for the conclusion that a dedicated profession is required; if even modular combinations from existing programs cover the listed elements, the necessity of an entirely new named profession and institutional apparatus does not follow.

    Authors: We agree that the original phrasing asserted the claim without explicit comparative analysis, which weakens its warrant. The manuscript is a conceptual proposal grounded in the authors' long-term observation of mentoring programs across secondary, undergraduate, and citizen-science settings, where no single pathway integrates all listed competencies (pedagogy, multi-mode inquiry, developmental assessment, risk management, domain flexibility, and community building). In revision we have qualified the abstract language and added a dedicated subsection that reviews established programs (e.g., those from the Council on Undergraduate Research, NSTA teacher professional development, and citizen-science facilitator training). This review shows that while modular components exist, none systematically combine the full set with cognitive apprenticeship across inquiry modes. We maintain that this gap justifies naming a distinct profession, while acknowledging that a comprehensive empirical survey would further strengthen the case. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract, second paragraph: the claim that programs 'overwhelmingly default to a simplified version of the PhD apprenticeship model structured around one mentor with a few students at a time, without systematic training' and 'frame research as the hypothetico-deductive cycle alone' is presented as factual but unsupported by data, citations, or systematic observation. This underpins the argument that current practice is inadequate and requires professionalization.

    Authors: This characterization is based on patterns repeatedly documented in the authors' direct experience and in existing studies of research mentoring. We accept that the abstract presented it without supporting references. In the revised manuscript we have added citations to literature on undergraduate research experiences (e.g., studies from the Council on Undergraduate Research) and secondary-school authentic research programs, which consistently report low mentor-to-learner ratios and a predominant focus on the hypothetico-deductive cycle. A brief discussion of these sources now supports the description of the default model. A new, large-scale systematic observation is outside the scope of this conceptual paper, but the added references provide an evidentiary foundation for the claim. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain.

full rationale

The paper advances a descriptive and normative argument for professionalizing the 'Research Guide' role. It describes current informal practices, enumerates required competencies (pedagogy, research methodology, etc.), asserts that this combination is not produced by existing programs, and concludes that a dedicated profession is therefore warranted. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or first-principles derivations appear. The uniqueness claim is presented as an observation rather than derived from prior results within the paper, and no self-citation chain or definitional loop reduces the conclusion to the inputs by construction. The argument is self-contained as advocacy and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on assumptions about the current state of research mentoring programs and the uniqueness of the required skill combination, with the Research Guide itself introduced as a new named entity without independent validation.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Cognitive apprenticeship is the appropriate pedagogical approach for developing research capacity on open-ended problems.
    The abstract states that the role calls for cognitive apprenticeship in which tacit moves are made visible and scaffolded.
  • domain assumption Current programs default to a simplified PhD apprenticeship model without systematic training and frame research only as the hypothetico-deductive cycle.
    The abstract describes this as the overwhelming current practice in programs serving the middle group of learners.
invented entities (1)
  • Research Guide no independent evidence
    purpose: To designate and professionalize the practitioner who develops another person's capacity to do research from question framing to communication.
    The entity is presented as a missing named profession; no independent evidence such as existing job descriptions or outcome data is supplied to establish it beyond the proposal.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5588 in / 1548 out tokens · 55201 ms · 2026-05-10T00:24:54.778655+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Brett et al

    A. Brett et al. Research software engineers: State of the nation report. Technical report, Zenodo, 2017. URLhttps://zenodo.org/records/495360

    2017

  2. [2]

    we teach them to be free

    S. Gerovitch. “we teach them to be free”: Specialized math schools and the cultivation of the Soviet technical intelligentsia.Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 20(4):717–754, 2019. doi: 10.1353/kri.2019.0066

    work page doi:10.1353/kri.2019.0066 2019

  3. [3]

    Fuller and D

    K. Fuller and D. Malvern. Challenge and change: A history of the Nuffield A-level physics project. Technical report, University of Reading, 2010. URL https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/75 34/

    2010

  4. [4]

    Cohen, D

    J. Cohen, D. S. Katz, M. Barker, N. Chue Hong, R. Haines, and C. Jay. The four pillars of research software engineering.IEEE Software, 38(1):97–105, 2021. doi: 10.1109/MS.2020.2973362

    work page doi:10.1109/ms.2020.2973362 2021

  5. [5]

    Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible

    Allan Collins, John Seely Brown, and Ann Holum. Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 1991. URL https://www.aft.org/ae/winter1991/collins_ brown_holum

    1991

  6. [6]

    20 years of the young physicists’ tournament

    Zdenˇek Kluiber and Ivo V olf. Conference: “20 years of the young physicists’ tournament” at Czech Republic.Latin-American Journal of Physics Education, 2(1):71–73, 2008. URL https://dialne t.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/2735634.pdf

    work page arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Is this TRE for me? Research experiences for teachers, 2020

    AAAS-ARISE. Is this TRE for me? Research experiences for teachers, 2020. URL https://aaas -arise.org/2020/04/06/is-this-tre-for-me/

    2020

  8. [8]

    J. S. Krim, L. E. Coté, R. S. Schwartz, E. M. Stone, J. J. Cleeves, K. J. Barry, W. Burgess, S. R. Buxner, J. M. Gerton, L. Horvath, J. M. Keller, S. M. Locke, and B. M. Rebar. Models and impacts of science research experiences: A review of the literature of CUREs, UREs, and TREs.CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(4):ar65, 2019. doi: 10.1187/cbe.19-03-0069

    work page doi:10.1187/cbe.19-03-0069 2019

  9. [9]

    Pfund, S

    C. Pfund, S. C. House, P. Asquith, M. F. Fleming, K. A. Buhr, E. L. Burnham, J. M. Eichen- berger Gilmore, W. C. Huskins, R. McGee, K. Schurr, E. D. Shapiro, K. C. Spencer, and C. A. Sorkness. Training mentors of clinical and translational research scholars: A randomized controlled trial.Academic Medicine, 89(5):774–782, 2014. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000218

    work page doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000218 2014

  10. [10]

    National Academies Press, 2019

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.The Science of Effective Mentorship in STEMM. National Academies Press, 2019. doi: 10.17226/25568

    work page doi:10.17226/25568 2019

  11. [11]

    Govindan, S

    B. Govindan, S. Pickett, and B. Riggs. Fear of the CURE: A beginner’s guide to overcoming barriers in creating a course-based undergraduate research experience.Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 21(2), 2020. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v21i2.2109

    work page doi:10.1128/jmbe.v21i2.2109 2020

  12. [12]

    L. B. Limeri, N. T. Carter, R. A. Hess, T. T. Tuma, I. Koscik, A. J. Morrison, B. Outlaw, K. S. Royston, B. H. T. Bridges, and E. L. Dolan. Development of the mentoring in undergraduate research survey. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 2024. doi: 10.1187/cbe.23-07-0141. 21

    work page doi:10.1187/cbe.23-07-0141 2024

  13. [13]

    AP program summary report 2025, 2025

    College Board. AP program summary report 2025, 2025. URL https://apcentral.collegeb oard.org/media/pdf/program-summary-report-2025.pdf

    2025

  14. [14]

    Diploma programme final statistical bulletin, may 2024

    International Baccalaureate Organization. Diploma programme final statistical bulletin, may 2024. Technical report, IBO, 2024. URL https://www.ibo.org/globalassets/new-structu re/about-the-ib/pdfs/dp-final-statistical-bulletin-may-2024_en.pdf

    2024

  15. [15]

    Inquiry and analysis V ALUE rubric, 2018

    Association of American Colleges and Universities. Inquiry and analysis V ALUE rubric, 2018. URL https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/inquiry-analysis

    2018

  16. [16]

    Willison

    John W. Willison. Research skill development spanning higher education: Critiques, curricula and connections.Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 15(4):Article 1, 2018. doi: 10.53761/1.15.4.1. URLhttps://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol15/iss4/1

    work page doi:10.53761/1.15.4.1 2018

  17. [17]

    Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): First findings.Cell Biology Education, 3(4):270–277, 2004

    David Lopatto. Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): First findings.Cell Biology Education, 3(4):270–277, 2004. doi: 10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045. URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nl m.nih.gov/15592600/

    work page doi:10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045 2004

  18. [18]

    Weston and Sandra L

    Timothy J. Weston and Sandra L. Laursen. The Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA): Validation for use in program evaluation.CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(3):ar33, 2015. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-11-0206. URL https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC471 0391/

    work page doi:10.1187/cbe.14-11-0206 2015

  19. [19]

    Visible, Trackable, Forkable: Opening the Process of Science

    Sergey V . Samsonau. Visible, trackable, forkable: Opening the process of science, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.10932

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Rodenbusch, Paul R

    Stacia E. Rodenbusch, Paul R. Hernandez, Sarah L. Simmons, and Erin L. Dolan. Early engagement in course-based research increases graduation rates and completion of science, engineering, and mathematics degrees.CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(2):ar20, 2016. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-03-0117. URLhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4909342/

    work page doi:10.1187/cbe.16-03-0117 2016

  21. [21]

    Samsonau, Aziza Kurbonova, Lu Jiang, Hazem Lashen, Jiamu Bai, Theresa Merchant, Ruoxi Wang, Laiba Mehnaz, Zecheng Wang, and Ishita Patil

    Sergey V . Samsonau, Aziza Kurbonova, Lu Jiang, Hazem Lashen, Jiamu Bai, Theresa Merchant, Ruoxi Wang, Laiba Mehnaz, Zecheng Wang, and Ishita Patil. Artificial intelligence for scientific research: Authentic research education framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08966, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.08966

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ science literacy skills and confidence.International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2):16, 2009

    Cara Gormally, Peggy Brickman, Brittan Hallar, and Norris Armstrong. Effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ science literacy skills and confidence.International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2):16, 2009. doi: 10.20429/ijsotl.2009.030216

    work page doi:10.20429/ijsotl.2009.030216 2009

  23. [23]

    How does engaging in authentic research at undergraduate level contribute to student well-being?Studies in Higher Education, 47(12):2497–2507, 2022

    Helen Walkington and Belinda Ommering. How does engaging in authentic research at undergraduate level contribute to student well-being?Studies in Higher Education, 47(12):2497–2507, 2022. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2022.2082400

    work page doi:10.1080/03075079.2022.2082400 2022

  24. [24]

    Schmidt and Paul Kelter

    Kathleen M. Schmidt and Paul Kelter. Science fairs: A qualitative study of their impact on student science inquiry learning and attitudes toward STEM.Science Educator, 25(2):127–132, 2017. URL https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1132100.pdf

    2017

  25. [25]

    J. M. Lakin, M. L. Ewald, E. E. Hardy, P. A. Cobine, J. G. Marino, A. L. Landers, and V . A. Davis. Getting everyone to the fair: Supporting teachers in broadening participation in science and engineering fairs.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2021. doi: 10.1007/s10956-021-09910-7. 22

    work page doi:10.1007/s10956-021-09910-7 2021

  26. [26]

    C. Zimmer. How science fairs became an exercise in privilege.STAT News, 2016. URL https: //www.statnews.com/2016/04/13/science-fairs-white-house/

    2016

  27. [27]

    Engagement insights: Survey findings on the quality of under- graduate education

    National Survey of Student Engagement. Engagement insights: Survey findings on the quality of under- graduate education. annual results 2019. Technical report, Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, 2020. URLhttps://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED604974.pdf

    2019

  28. [28]

    Schneider, A

    K. Schneider, A. Kuperman, A. Watts, D. Barulich, and T. Campbell. Tracking and assessing under- graduate research campus-wide: Demographics, academic success, and postgraduation plans.Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 21(1):107–119, 2021. doi: 10.14434/josotl.v21i1.30290

    work page doi:10.14434/josotl.v21i1.30290 2021

  29. [29]

    Marcus Fechheimer, Karen Webber, and Pamela B. Kleiber. How well do undergraduate research programs promote engagement and success of students?CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(2):156–163,

  30. [30]

    URL https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/ PMC3105922/

    doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-10-0130. URL https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/ PMC3105922/

    work page doi:10.1187/cbe.10-10-0130

  31. [31]

    Undergraduate research participation at the university of california, berkeley

    Elizabeth Berkes. Undergraduate research participation at the university of california, berkeley. Technical Report CSHE 17.08, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley, 2008. URL https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503339.pdf

    2008

  32. [32]

    National Academies Press, 2018

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. National Academies Press, 2018. doi: 10.17226/25183

    work page doi:10.17226/25183 2018

  33. [33]

    M. J. Gruber, B. D. Gelman, and C. Ranganath. States of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit.Neuron, 84(2):486–496, 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.060

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.060 2014

  34. [34]

    Kidd and B

    C. Kidd and B. Y . Hayden. The psychology and neuroscience of curiosity.Neuron, 88(3):449–460,

  35. [35]

    doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.010 2015

  36. [36]

    Dewey.How We Think

    J. Dewey.How We Think. D.C. Heath & Co., 1910. URL https://www.gutenberg.org/eboo ks/37423

    1910

  37. [37]

    Vitone, K

    T. Vitone, K. A. Stofer, and A. E. Lucky. School of ants goes to college: Integrating citizen science into the general education classroom increases engagement with science.Journal of Science Communication, 15(1), 2016. doi: 10.22323/2.15010203

    work page doi:10.22323/2.15010203 2016

  38. [38]

    Sampat, and Daniele Rotolo

    Yasemin Aslan, Ohid Yaqub, Bhaven N. Sampat, and Daniele Rotolo. Unexpectedness in medical research.Research Policy, 53(8):105075, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2024.105075

    work page doi:10.1016/j.respol.2024.105075 2024

  39. [39]

    Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory.Research Policy, 47(1):169–179, 2018

    Ohid Yaqub. Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory.Research Policy, 47(1):169–179, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.007 2018

  40. [40]

    Muthukrishna and J

    M. Muthukrishna and J. Henrich. A problem in theory.Nature Human Behaviour, 3(3):221–229, 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1 2019

  41. [41]

    Galison.Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics

    P. Galison.Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. University of Chicago Press, 1997. ISBN 978-0-226-27917-6

    1997

  42. [42]

    Jumper et al

    J. Jumper et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold.Nature, 596:583–589,

  43. [43]

    doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2

  44. [44]

    Lemos, N

    P. Lemos, N. Jeffrey, M. Cranmer, S. Ho, and P. Battaglia. Rediscovering orbital mechanics with machine learning.Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 4(4):045002, 2023. doi: 10.1088/2632 -2153/acfa63. 23

    work page doi:10.1088/2632 2023

  45. [45]

    Kates-Harbeck, A

    J. Kates-Harbeck, A. Svyatkovskiy, and W. Tang. Predicting disruptive instabilities in controlled fusion plasmas through deep learning.Nature, 568:526–531, 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1116-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1116-4 2019

  46. [46]

    B. C. van Fraassen.The Scientific Image. Oxford University Press, 1980. ISBN 978-0-19-824427-1

    1980

  47. [47]

    F. J. Boge. Two dimensions of opacity and the deep learning predicament.Minds and Machines, 32: 43–75, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s11023-021-09569-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11023-021-09569-4 2022

  48. [48]

    L. S. Vygotsky.Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, 1978. ISBN 978-0-674-57629-2

    1978

  49. [49]

    Laursen, Janet L

    Lisa Corwin Auchincloss, Sandra L. Laursen, Janet L. Branchaw, Kevin Eagan, Mark Graham, David I. Hanauer, Gwendolyn Lawrie, Colleen M. McLinn, Nancy Pelaez, Susan Rowland, Marcy Towns, Nancy M. Trautmann, Pratibha Varma-Nelson, Timothy J. Weston, and Erin L. Dolan. Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: A meeting report.CBE—Life S...

    work page doi:10.1187/cbe.14-01-0004 2014

  50. [50]

    Spell, Judith A

    Rachelle M. Spell, Judith A. Guinan, Kristen R. Miller, and Christopher W. Beck. Redefining authentic research experiences in introductory biology laboratories and barriers to their implementation.CBE— Life Sciences Education, 13(1):102–110, 2014. doi: 10.1187/cbe.13-08-0169

    work page doi:10.1187/cbe.13-08-0169 2014

  51. [51]

    Q. Hao, F. Xu, Y . Li, and J. A. Evans. Artificial intelligence tools expand scientists’ impact but contract science’s focus.Nature, 649, 2026. doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09922-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09922-y 2026

  52. [52]

    Budzy´n et al

    K. Budzy´n et al. Endoscopist deskilling risk after exposure to artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: A multicentre, observational study.The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 10(10):896–903, 2025. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(25)00133-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s2468-1253(25)00133-5 2025

  53. [53]

    The future of jobs report 2025

    World Economic Forum. The future of jobs report 2025. Technical report, World Economic Forum,

    2025

  54. [54]

    Author Note Both authors have practiced the role this paper proposes to formalize

    URL https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-rep ort-2025/. Author Note Both authors have practiced the role this paper proposes to formalize. Each trained in one of the two traditions this paper identifies as historical precedents, brought that training into the American education system, and encountered the same professional gap from diff...

    2025