Start wide; quickly narrow your focus, as you discard possibilities that are not working out.

Thank you, Ian!

Some times researchers have possibilities to start wide, but they are in confusion.

Often the circumstances of research do not allow a wide application at the start. Grant applications tend to favor limited, deeper focus by definition. Therefore, begin by going deeply until research circumstances encourage wide-sweeping applications. This has been my experience with Fulbright Grants over a long, thirty-year period of tenure, during which I have only gradually been able to broaden my focus. Breadth is a luxury or privilege, only acquired with effort.

Focus on what you like and can do well: it matters mostly what and where you can publish, and it needs lots of commitment, so it's better if you enjoy it. Don't go too wide, but sometimes it may make sense to widen your topic a bit and sometimes you can find co-authors who can do what you don't do well or add something to broaden your topic.

I agree with both Nelson & Tiia. Some times candidates don't get opportunities to work in different applications. If circumstances allow, confusions will play a good role. In my opinion, if we have opportunities to do in a wide area, we should go for that and we must concentrate later on. During my PhD my prime aim is to learn and fabricate nanostructured membranes. After acquiring pretty much experience, I have got opportunity to do the application part in totally different areas such as energy, water/gas and bio medical engineering. I faced many challenges but it was good experience and I could publish in all these areas during my PhD.

Dear Lijo Francis, Naturally, during the PhD each candidate has synopsis and working on that. But during the process of research many other ideas are coming which no one can stop. However, the candidate should concentrate on the main problem and later after PhD he/she can continue to research further.

My experiance is derived from working in scientific teams. We had to be open and interested in the work of the colleques, that means we had to be generalized. Then we specialized on a certain theme and concentrated to all aspects of this special work but still listening to our team. Otherwise I am fearful to get blind for different aspects of my science. In german we have a very good term to describe the exaggerated concentration to only some aspects of an investigation. We call it "Fachidiot".

Thank you, Hanno..especially for the term, 'Fachidiot'...but it seems to be something related to idiot..lol..

Dear Lijo Francis and Hanno Krieger, Exaggerated concentration drags research work on different path, but filtering from process exaggerated concentration is fruitful. This filtration process is usually accomplished through discussions with supervisor/s and research colleagues.

Confusion in research is very critical stage and some times it leads to frustration, incomplete work, developing tension with supervisor/s, family relation comes to a level of sever stretch, demoralization and degree is not awarded but may be in future a known scientist.

Dear Afaq: That is why I mentioned in my previous comment that it is really challenging...thank you very much for your contribution to the thread...

Generally, when we write a synopsis, we are just aware of what we propose to do. We plan the work and then go about it. As we proceed, we realize that there are various things that can still be included and done. A time comes when we know that now we have to narrow down. So, research work should be like a pyramid, start wide, go narrowing and concentrate on the best observations and results.

Dear Jaya, in my experience what was happened is that my research started and proceeded like an inverted pyramid and from there now narrowing like a pyramid.

Hi Jaya and Lijo, the pyramid is a nice and very well describing picture! The double pyramid is my favorite.

Thanx Lijo and Hanno ! Actually, each one goes through an absolutely different experience, while doing research. One's experiences may not match anyone else's, in this context. What can be done is, just take a note of others' observations and see if we can learn from it or save time from going waste or take guidance of any sort. Pyramids and double pyramids, both are useful in research :))

Yes, Jaya, that make sense...

Usually PhD work start with a specific idea/project, but some times (or most of the times) we need to deviate from the first idea because of several reasons. It takes, 1-1.5 years to reach in this decision. So in my view, concentrating only on application is an ideal case. It is perfectly ok to do two works, and compile them to a thesis. If one of the projects gives negative results, you can focus on the other in detail. How many applications and in how depth you are studying depends on many other aspects also, say your lab facilities, supervisor's attitude, collaborations and, most importantly time remaining to finish your degree.

I'm answering the posted question according to my phd experience. First I did self assessment and formulated my personal goal. Values, time and financial resources were taken into account. I focused on the best research project I am most interested. I love project/product designing related to the academe-industry partnership. After I established my main area of interest I developed generic skills to collaborate with related disciplines leading to multidisciplinary project.

Best wishes.

I was in the 1970s blessed with a dissertation supervisor, the late Isadore Perlman, who agreed that I would concentrate only on the provenance of Late Hellenistic and Early Roman pottery called Terra Sigillata by applying instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA). Several of my colleagues suggested to widen the topic to include also other pottery styles of the same period, but I foresaw that this would take forever. We accomplished the analyses and the writing of the PhD in a single year. So, my suggestion to everybody is to fight with everybody else to get the narrowest possible topic for a dissertation and to keep it narrow. Of course, the chosen analytical technique should be able to answer one's questions, but one time that the technique has been chosen, please, stick to it through thick and through thin.

My fist answer had to do with dissertations. After that one has received a doctorate, it becomes time to have a look to multi-disciplinary research, that as I have performed on Qumran and the famous Dead Sea manuscripts, has evolved into a trans-disciplinary research in nuclear and optical domains. However, in this case, one has to collaborate with the best scientists available in every single domain. Only by collaborative research can one come to good results..