I do feel for RE's who are not taken seriously on spearheading novelty (of value).
So this is something I've observed. I've worked as an AI RS at many small to mid-sized firms with the biggest being Valve Software (DotA team) which is a pretty hard-to-land gig at least on the gaming side. And at these places, I've mostly always worked alongside PhDs. One observation that I did not expect to make (and this is with the exception of Valve, who I feel really were awesome and yet very humble and unassuming), was that I ended up thinking exhaustively at a meta-level with reference to the core contextual domain and also at lower granularities of computational decision-making, while (often BUT not always) a doctorate (along with non-doctorates too) would go into why a certain problem is too complex to tackle. That, I understand (though I question this too!). But the problem is on the docket now - given that a rigorous conjecture is not possible (soon enough!) to guarantee the solution works in all cases, what can be done as the next best thing... a breakthrough for that was one I would figure out eventually because a rote exploration method for solutions would otherwise be adopted.
And this is the part that I feel mattered a lot. My solution did not come from depth. Yes, I taught areas as abstract as lattices and Hasse diagrams at a grad level, put it in simple words, I can implement and apply them, read pure math papers on it, come to findings and use that too, but this wasn't the cherry on top. The novelty came from my 'WIDTH' of thinking. I've worked as an RS across six starkly different core-fields. There was a point in time I was professionally teaching at graduate level across evolutionary biology, linguistics, Tolkein mythology, organic chemistry, discrete algebraic mathematics, economic game theory, and theory of computation. It was possible because reading and curiosity started long before the formal education in these fields started. I spent years of my school days just mapping different concepts from different domains with each other in piece-wise equivalences. It meant that today when I see a computational problem - given the field of application, I can immediately think of where the experiment trees might qualify for pruning owing to intrinsic properties of the domain itself - hence reducing the 'realistic' NP-hardness of it, at least in context of computational resources. And that is different from a depth-wise study. This research comes from lateral thinking - which I feel is as much in value.
As an aside, I had a chance to do a 'comparatively' well-funded and definitely reputed PhD, and I also feel the original spirit behind a PhD is great! I earned the IBM Research (EMEA) Fellowship for a PhD in AI. But I didn't do it because even the best fellowships don't pay fairly, I had a family to take care of, and the stress and dissertation approval unpredictability of the long affair seemed worth less than the outcome of having that credential.
I ask myself -
What has been my passion? Research.
Can I really give my heart to this under such stress? No.
Without a PhD, have a ever cut corners and been less meticulous than my doctorate colleagues? No.
Have I been less realistic than my doctorate colleagues? Yes, a bit less, and no regrets there AT ALL. 7/10 times, this has actually helped.
Has a PhD stopped me from creating value? No, by evidence from my time in industrial research.
And it is from this personal experience I feel that either RE's ought to be given more freedom in pitching conceptual prototypes, OR the assumption that the relation (directed either way) between a doctorate earned and novel value creation is one-to-one should be softened.
I do feel for RE's who are not taken seriously on spearheading novelty (of value).
So this is something I've observed. I've worked as an AI RS at many small to mid-sized firms with the biggest being Valve Software (DotA team) which is a pretty hard-to-land gig at least on the gaming side. And at these places, I've mostly always worked alongside PhDs. One observation that I did not expect to make (and this is with the exception of Valve, who I feel really were awesome and yet very humble and unassuming), was that I ended up thinking exhaustively at a meta-level with reference to the core contextual domain and also at lower granularities of computational decision-making, while (often BUT not always) a doctorate (along with non-doctorates too) would go into why a certain problem is too complex to tackle. That, I understand (though I question this too!). But the problem is on the docket now - given that a rigorous conjecture is not possible (soon enough!) to guarantee the solution works in all cases, what can be done as the next best thing... a breakthrough for that was one I would figure out eventually because a rote exploration method for solutions would otherwise be adopted.
And this is the part that I feel mattered a lot. My solution did not come from depth. Yes, I taught areas as abstract as lattices and Hasse diagrams at a grad level, put it in simple words, I can implement and apply them, read pure math papers on it, come to findings and use that too, but this wasn't the cherry on top. The novelty came from my 'WIDTH' of thinking. I've worked as an RS across six starkly different core-fields. There was a point in time I was professionally teaching at graduate level across evolutionary biology, linguistics, Tolkein mythology, organic chemistry, discrete algebraic mathematics, economic game theory, and theory of computation. It was possible because reading and curiosity started long before the formal education in these fields started. I spent years of my school days just mapping different concepts from different domains with each other in piece-wise equivalences. It meant that today when I see a computational problem - given the field of application, I can immediately think of where the experiment trees might qualify for pruning owing to intrinsic properties of the domain itself - hence reducing the 'realistic' NP-hardness of it, at least in context of computational resources. And that is different from a depth-wise study. This research comes from lateral thinking - which I feel is as much in value.
As an aside, I had a chance to do a 'comparatively' well-funded and definitely reputed PhD, and I also feel the original spirit behind a PhD is great! I earned the IBM Research (EMEA) Fellowship for a PhD in AI. But I didn't do it because even the best fellowships don't pay fairly, I had a family to take care of, and the stress and dissertation approval unpredictability of the long affair seemed worth less than the outcome of having that credential.
I ask myself -
What has been my passion? Research.
Can I really give my heart to this under such stress? No.
Without a PhD, have a ever cut corners and been less meticulous than my doctorate colleagues? No.
Have I been less realistic than my doctorate colleagues? Yes, a bit less, and no regrets there AT ALL. 7/10 times, this has actually helped.
Has a PhD stopped me from creating value? No, by evidence from my time in industrial research.
And it is from this personal experience I feel that either RE's ought to be given more freedom in pitching conceptual prototypes, OR the assumption that the relation (directed either way) between a doctorate earned and novel value creation is one-to-one should be softened.