There are many different field of research in the academic world, but there is a large disparity in how "valuable" different areas are perceived to be in terms of societal impact. Why the disparity?
Is this difference in perceived value due to bias that most people have against things they don't understand? Or is the perception justified due to different standards of rigor and approach to find answers to problems in different fields (talking about quantifiable differences in quality between fields, not political opinions)?
Or is it primarily economic, where fields that do not produce a "profitable" product (i.e. patents, start-up companies, new drugs, tech workers, etc.) are seen as less valuable simply because they do not "make money" immediately?
NO political discussion please
Good question to generate an interesting debate. One of the answers may be the very nature and consciousness of the human being, which characterizes social research. No doubt this frames a broad universe that encompasses both the various ways in which man has organized himself to be able to live in terms of work and government, as well as the ways in which he has approached the relationship with his habitat and his cultural legacy, between many others.
Pedro Maria Martinez Villar Thank you for the insightful answer. Do you think that the differences in perceived value is due to some bias or because there is a valid difference in value between the fields?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry
- Pharmacology
- Pharmaceuticals
- Drugs