1. At one extreme, sometimes the formation of researchers is attempted through training in specific subjects with a technical approach. Beginning with a simplistic academic vision of the strategies of scientific research, the so-called "scientific method", and the absolutism of a particular approach, typically that of surveys, students are taught such techniques as sampling, preparing questionnaires, and processing data (usually at an elementary level). The expectation is that someone who manages these techniques acceptably will be a good researcher.
   
   
2. At the opposite pole, others maintain that it is impossible to systematize the teaching of research, on the grounds of an assertion which, taken literally, becomes an irrelevant platitude: that of the unique character of each object of study. With a clear preference for case studies and ethnographic approaches, the key notion in this case, also simplistic, is that of creativity: courses are useless; what is necessary is to launch oneself into the work and learn along the way. The only way to learn research is to do it, it is said, just as the only way to learn to swim is to jump into the water.

1. Good basic intellectual ability. I accept those modern psychological theories which present a diversity of intelligence types. While none of these should be despised by the researcher, the activity of the latter presents no special need for special or artistic intelligence, or for that of an emotional type. Rather, a researcher needs the kind of intelligence we consider more conventional -that which is manifested in the ability to do analysis and synthesis, or to carry out abstract operations. Although this may seem obvious, there are circumstances which compel persons less capable of intellectually-demanding tasks to carry out research projects. Not only in Mexico, but in the United States and other countries as well, one finds a low enrollment of those majoring in the social sciences. Hence, it is not unusual for all applicants to be accepted, regardless of their ability, in programs supposedly designed for the training of researchers.
   
   
2. Especially, competence in reading, and in written and oral expression. The nature of research presupposes a need to know what others have found in a given field before commencing a new research process, and an ability to produce well-written, well-structured texts, of a literary style suitable for a specialized article, a monograph, or an expository text, so that the research results will be available to others. While such writing benefits others, the author him/herself is the first to be enriched by critiques of the work.
   
   
3. Competency in the specific field of knowledge. I have no wish to deny that the advances of modern science are other than simply lineal; nor do I wish to reduce its history to the simplifications found in textbooks. However, we must recognize that one of the characteristics of modern science is its cumulative nature, a result of the work of growing numbers of persons and groups who dedicate their attention to certain themes. Even with the difficulty implied by the publication of thousands of articles per year, in hundreds of specialized magazines, it is now unthinkable that a good researcher should ignore those important works related to his/her area of interest, whether in a particular discipline or in an interdisciplinary area.
   
   
4. Mastery of a set of related techniques. Although competency in techniques does not in and of itself make a scientist, a good researcher cannot be without it. In those places where research is still in the process of organization, it cannot lways count on the support of technicians or assistants to whom it can delegate the multiplicity of field or laboratory work routines. And, when s/he is lucky enough to have this type of support, s/he must be responsible to train its assistants and supervise them as they carry out a particular project. In addition, regarding the analysis of information, one might have the help of someone who specializes in managing certain statistical procedures, for example; or what is more frequent today, one might have the latest version of a good package of specialized statistical programs. However, no one who lacks the ability to choose the most appropriate type of analysis for interpreting results can consider him/herself a good researcher.

1. The interiorization of appropriate attitudes and points of view. As well as aspects of cognitive character such as the preceding, a good researcher must have developed elements of an attitudinal type, such as attitudes of curiosity, self-discipline, diligence, precision, criticism and self-criticism; intense and regular work habits; willingness to participate in teamwork, etc. The ever-increasing clarity of the collective nature of academic work heightens the importance of these features, without which intellectual capacity and theoretical-methodological training can be of little account with regard to productivity.
   
   
2. The ability to unite already-existing elements. An excellent researcher, in my opinion, not only needs the previous components a to e, but also must be able to combine them in a harmonious fashion within the context of each particular labor. Here, as in general, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

1. Good basic intellectual ability. The cognitive sciences show that it is not impossible to develop the ability for logical thinking, abstract reasoning, etc., abilities which, in an imprecise way, we usually mean when we use the term "intelligence". Nevertheless, these same sciencies show that the preceding is not simple, and that ideally it should be done as early as possible. Otherwise, the old saying that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" suits the case. It seems unreasonable to think that programs focused toward the upper-level education of researchers should have to include among its objectives, remedial chores as complex as those mentioned. Because of this I consider it essential that master's and doctoral programs for the education of researchers employ a rigorous method for selecting their students, taking special care in the admission process to make sure of an adequate level of intellectual ability in all those accepted.
   
   
2. Reading ability; oral and written expression. It seems clear that these abilities may be systematically developed, and that this does not require especially sophisticated focuses. Rather, it needs constant effort and a continual process of correction and feedback, so that the interiorization of these practices become habits. In defining this last word, medieval philosophers used to say it was like second nature. This can happen with reading, and with oral and written expression as well.
   
   It is not rare to hear complaints about how little people read in our society, or about the difficulty implied, for children in the latter part of the twentieth century, by the competition between television and a love of reading. Less well-known is something which should greatly worry many educators: various recent studies show the scant amount of time given to the practice of reading and writing at all scholastic levels. This causes one to consider that schools could counter the influence of a medium hostile to reading in a more effective manner than that which is presently employed. Those programs seeking to educate researchers at an upper level should require that their students do a great deal of reading and writing, and should possess the necessary feedback mechanisms to bring the quality of their students' reading and writing up to a level appropriate for those in a postgraduate course.
   
   
3. Competency in one or more fields of knowledge. Given the presence of the previously-mentioned abilities, it seems clear that the third can also be developed in a systematic manner. The reading of key authors; the reasonable comprehension of their ideas; the action of contrasting these ideas with those of other authors; the critical thinking which detects strong and weak points; and finally, the construction of one's own synthesis… all these are essential tasks in the education of a researcher. These tasks can and should be carried out continuously and systematically, bringing together the student's efforts; the orientation of the teacher; and the discussion and dialogue which takes place within the group of persons of different levels of experience which comprises a good seminar.
   
   
4. Mastery of a set of techniques. It seems clear that this is a teachable component. Still, there is a tendency to underrate its importance, giving the impression that one can ignore the laborious task of mastering a variety of techniques. The correct stance does not seem difficult to establish: a good researcher should be able to utilize the major techniques of his/her field on an elementary level, as well as having acquired a mastery of a sufficiently-broad range of these.
   
   
5. Appropriate attitudes and points of view. This component is much less easy to systematize than the previous ones, so that a direct focus is not suitable. Still, we do not face something that happens randomly: the development of attitudes and points of view favorable to research come from a daily interaction between the learner and those who have previously developed these elements and who use them in their daily labors. For this reason it is most desirable that the education of researchers take place in the heart of established groups where this type of ethos prevails.
   
   
6. The ability to unite already-existing elements. Like the preceding component, this cannot be the object of special courses but requires a tutorial-type support given the learner by a more-experienced researcher who, through dialogue with the former, can help in clarifying his/her ideas and in arriving at the personal synthesis which represents the culmination of the work.

Translator: Lessie Evona York Weatherman
School of Languages Autonomous University of  Baja California at Mexicali