Thank you Prof. Anastas Ivanov,

Very comprehensive answer. There is a study that when a scientist works with someone in a nearby area, both learn a lot and progress. In addition, if they started writing a post, they are eventually published 2-3 articles.

Dear prof. Anastas Ivanov Ivanov ,

Thank you!

Though I work with a clear and specific objective to guide my engagement, but I do leave the door wide and open to pick up an idea which could likely be an area of interest for another day.

In my opinion, we can choose our research partner in the same area to ensure each other can exchange their ideas accordingly instead of resarcher from different area. In this case, they can publish 2-3 articles easily because both are knowledgeable in the same field and they have better understanding in all scopes.

to work in a narrow area

I like to work in both. Different experiences are very helpful for researcher in humanities and I sure in all fields.

Thank you for this question.

I like to work in anarrow area

All of responses are nice especially for Professor Anastas Ivanov. I agree with all of my friends.

Conducting multi-disciplinary research will increase a person's opportunities for more research cooperation, but it will render the researcher's experience in one field weak.

Many impeccable responses which I applaud and agree to them all, hence I would like to add on some other aspects, i.e. in my opinion persisting in a narrow area of science could be possibly more fruitful; by taking this fact into consideration that as the field of scientific-work gets deeper by the researcher or better say by the researching-team, thus they may be able to widen the previous fields behind(notably the more general ones). Last but not least, it is even feasible to broaden many new horizons and/or interconnections among fields of science.

To focus on your specialty is essential. Variety is good though and opens new opportunities and challenges as well.

Dear..........Professor

In order to choose topic narrow or wide area depends on your experience and talent. At early ages you may choose narrow topic and by time you will find out you need to widen your brain to study different research topics.

To be specific in a bounded topic...

To be focused and be in the area of a particular research interest !!! I am not a fan of multi-disciplinary work any more .

My approach is to work on specific projects, connecting diverse areas of expertise by scientific methods and practice.

ذلك يعتمد على طبيعة الظروف والبيئة التي تؤثر على إنتاج العمل والبحث ومدى جديته في تقديم المفيد والافضل للمجتمع

In my opinion, it is best to work in several close areas in the current development, because things are interconnected. When you work in just one area you can achieve higher results but narrow the circle of people you work with. With a large expansion of research, one can hardly succeed with innovation and work in all directions, and the quality and volume of work is diminishing. Therefore, in my opinion, it is best to work in several close-ups where there is a partial overlap.

Nikolay

Според мен при сегашното развитие е най-добре да се работи в няколко близки области, защото нещата са взаимосвързани. Когато работиш само в една област можеш да постигнеш по-високи резултати, но се стеснява кръга на хората, с които работиш. При голямо разшириние на изследванията човек трудно успява с новостите и работата във всичките направления, а и качеството и обема на работата намаляват. Затова според мен е най-добре да се работи в няколко близки направления, където има частично припокриване.

Николай

Interesting!

several contiguous

Yes, people should definitely work in their field. But this area should not be narrow. However, the subject may require different disciplines. People don't know everything. He doesn't need to know. But at least they need to know who to cooperate with. He must have enough knowledge of other disciplines to make this connection.

Благодаря на Николай Долчинков,

Неговият отговор се припокрива и с моето мнение. И аз работя в близки области. Имам колеги, които не са съгласни и мнението им е, че трябва да се работи в тясна област. На всичкото отгоре понякога търпя критика.

I think, there are two aspects of this question to be considered. Topics for work should be adequate to one's professional education, skills, interests, and experience. However, even in one professional field there are multiple subfields in which it may be quite interesting to explore for various reasons.

The criterion I use in making a decision is as to how much I'd have to learn in terms of time and complexity to afford the new topic bordering my professional field. It is the first aspect.

The second aspect is related to the point as to whether I have a professional necessity to include the very same new topic in an active interest portfolio of my professional duties/topics other than just a justifiable interest. In other words, I check whether the necessary and sufficient condition is fulfilled to make me ready to do this step.

Lack of money and a broad interest made me do what I do.

One more short note: there are people having superior learning and creative skills, bordering with having a high talent. Those people can and should explore their reach as far as they can do. Common criteria do not extend to them. We have to respect and allow to utilize god's gifts.

Translations: In my opinion, it is best to work in several close areas in the current development, because things are interconnected. When you work in just one area you can achieve higher results but narrow the circle of people you work with. With a large expansion of research, one can hardly succeed with innovation and work in all directions, and the quality and volume of work is diminishing. Therefore, in my opinion, it is best to work in several close-ups where there is a partial overlap. Translation of Nicholas Dolchinkov's answer

Translation of Teodora Hristovas answer:

I thank Nikolay Dolchinkov, His answer overlaps with my opinion. And I work in nearby areas. I have colleagues who disagree, and their opinion is that we need to work in a narrow area. On top of that, I sometimes face criticism.

On early stage of research several contiguous ,as we go deep in studies,as per requirement of topic and personal interest with latest advanced techniques it goes on narrow and narrow

There is a tendency to delve into one and only one scientific area. If it is little studied, then with each new research new problems arise that require further, more in-depth research. So there are experts on the "right rear leg of Percheron".

(as Kozma Prutkov used to say, "a one-sided specialist is like a gumboil.") This is very interesting, but I prefer to work with broader specialists.

Any, the deepest research requires the involvement of methods from other related sciences. For example, in my field of materials science of a solid state, any study is unthinkable without using methods of solid state physics. It is not necessary to be a great expert in these areas, but at least you need to understand what kind of information is obtained from physical measurements and how it possible to connect with specifically chemical features. Those, I see two problems: working in more than one field of science and using the methods of other sciences. The use of a wide range of other sciences methods in a particular science is practically an axiom. But what about the field of research? As our colleagues rightly pointed out, the most interesting results are obtained at the junction of various fields of research, since in the modern world with a high level of specialization they often find themselves outside the sphere of attention of researchers.

But here another problem arises. Often, researchers take root in fields of science absolutely alien to them (especially, it seems to me, physicists suffer from this in relation to the humanities). As a result, absolutely anti-scientific works appear (I will not give examples, everybody knows). So we should at least have an idea about own methods and principles of a certain branch of science.

Len Leonid Mizrah Amen.

Teodora - In my opinion, there is need to work in a broad areas. Interdisciplinary research is clearly an important aspect of our current research environment. Major universities or organizations offer grants to facilitate interdisciplinary research collaborations. These internal grant mechanisms aim to bring together researchers from multiple disciplines that will lead to large working groups. Interdisciplinary study allows for synthesis of ideas and the synthesis of characteristics from many disciplines. It draw from two or more academic disciplines that work together to create a powerful learning experience and emphasize integrative learning, critical thinking, and creative problem solving. At the same time it addresses students' individual differences and helps to develop important, transferable skills.

It seems to me that the division of sciences into "areas" is an extremely artificial action. In fact, how one can separate, for example, solid state physics and solid state chemistry, materials science and nanoscience, etc. It is impossible to imagine physics without mathematics, chemistry without physics, and sociology without economics. What is history without geography, climatology and literature? Therefore, I am very skeptical about the term "interdisciplinary research". It is very human: to create frameworks for yourself, and then heroically overcome these. As we know, there is the world of God, and there is a material world (Mir tvarnyi) - this is the only division that really exists. Everything else is just for easy classification.

I follow the discussion with interest and thank everyone who has joined.

In the end, it is important for me when I work to be interesting. Naturally, interdisciplinarity is needed, but in neighboring areas. It is clear that writing in very different areas is not good because you can not keep track of the novelties.

This idea is really exciting The best thing is to train people to work in the worst circumstances because working in good conditions is generally guaranteed Thanks for the reference Teodora Hristova Greetings

In my opinion, It is a very good discussion. To distribute our topics' work we need to continue with ourselves and discuss about the main aims which we worked on, then we will converse the problems to available solutions and from narrow area to contiguous neighboring. I like feed in and feed back methods in my sensibilities.

to work in your specialities no matter how wide it is

I recommend working in a narrow area

Best Regards Teodora Hristova

I work on any topic that captures my interest.

Following.

Work in my specialties in any area

There is no "need" to work on any research topic.

It depends on the research interests of the individual academic.

If one is part of a collaborative research team, the direction may be more focused.

Work in any specialties in any area

Academics with many innovative ideas work on a wide range of topics in different disciplines.