Scientific specialisation is costly in terms of time investment, but it is also risky. So what is the best strategy for a specialist who has picked an unpopular topic: Hope for a (re-)discovery by your peers of your subject? Or change course and move on to something that everyone is doing?
Neither. (Re-)discovery will take time, you need to do something for which you can get funding while you wait, but if you are really interested in a currently unpopular subject that you think has good potential, just take a break. Be prepared to be at the start line when the situation changes, keep working on this subject "in the background" while doing something else that allows you to further your career.
My strategy would be:
1) Try to assess why the topic is unpopular: a) low chances of progress because of current technical/practical difficulties, or b) lack of interest because there is a "feeling" in the scientific community that what you want to study is a problem that has been already solved (e.g. UV and ozone depletion).
* I have gone through both situations: one of my current projects is the direct result of hypotheses generated by research I did about 30 years ago for my MSc thesis. At that time it was not possible to test these hypotheses. Now it is. * I have also being doing research on effects of UV for quite a long time. UV research went into a lack interest phase when the ozone depletion problem was solved by the Montreal agreement. It took some years for the understanding that UV is an important component of solar radiation irrespective of ozone depletion to catch. (During this low popularity phase and current revival, one would have little chance of getting funding if one uses the earlier "typical" justification for this type of research: "expected future increase in UV-B".) *
2) Then decide whether you can go around either of these problems both in practice, and by being able to give enough evidence to make reviewers accept what you are proposing as doable and worthwhile, or not. If you think that you have good chances of succeeding go ahead, if not, find a subject that is close enough so that what you learn (ideas, methods, etc.) will be useful when the other subject becomes your main subject. In my experience, it is mostly a question of openmindness.
* What I write is biased: I am a specialist in one or two subjects, but in addition I have a rather broad understanding of several other subjects. This has made this type of strategy possible for me. Think broadly, you can always get original ideas by working across disciplinary boundaries.
The second option "move on to something everyone is doing" is what I would never do unless I had something really new to bring to the table: otherwise you would be trying to catch up with those who have already been working on the subject. Try to assess what would be the next logical development in the field you are interested in, in what direction are things moving, not were we are now.
I hope this helps to get this discussion started. This is just one opinion, based on what has worked for me until now, and for my own aims. Your aims may be different.
Neither. (Re-)discovery will take time, you need to do something for which you can get funding while you wait, but if you are really interested in a currently unpopular subject that you think has good potential, just take a break. Be prepared to be at the start line when the situation changes, keep working on this subject "in the background" while doing something else that allows you to further your career.
My strategy would be:
1) Try to assess why the topic is unpopular: a) low chances of progress because of current technical/practical difficulties, or b) lack of interest because there is a "feeling" in the scientific community that what you want to study is a problem that has been already solved (e.g. UV and ozone depletion).
* I have gone through both situations: one of my current projects is the direct result of hypotheses generated by research I did about 30 years ago for my MSc thesis. At that time it was not possible to test these hypotheses. Now it is. * I have also being doing research on effects of UV for quite a long time. UV research went into a lack interest phase when the ozone depletion problem was solved by the Montreal agreement. It took some years for the understanding that UV is an important component of solar radiation irrespective of ozone depletion to catch. (During this low popularity phase and current revival, one would have little chance of getting funding if one uses the earlier "typical" justification for this type of research: "expected future increase in UV-B".) *
2) Then decide whether you can go around either of these problems both in practice, and by being able to give enough evidence to make reviewers accept what you are proposing as doable and worthwhile, or not. If you think that you have good chances of succeeding go ahead, if not, find a subject that is close enough so that what you learn (ideas, methods, etc.) will be useful when the other subject becomes your main subject. In my experience, it is mostly a question of openmindness.
* What I write is biased: I am a specialist in one or two subjects, but in addition I have a rather broad understanding of several other subjects. This has made this type of strategy possible for me. Think broadly, you can always get original ideas by working across disciplinary boundaries.
The second option "move on to something everyone is doing" is what I would never do unless I had something really new to bring to the table: otherwise you would be trying to catch up with those who have already been working on the subject. Try to assess what would be the next logical development in the field you are interested in, in what direction are things moving, not were we are now.
I hope this helps to get this discussion started. This is just one opinion, based on what has worked for me until now, and for my own aims. Your aims may be different.
Dear Thomas,
what a great question! These kind of decisions affect so many of us in science, and at times we feel "adrift", particularly after spending years specialising.
Thanks very much for you answer Pedro, I think it might help many of us standing in crossroads!
I think popularity is not the issue. All major advances come from stepping out into the unknown, where no-one else is doing research. New fields of research are created in this way, and the field (and popularity of the researcher) grows from that point on. There are, however, dying fields of interest in which there is little new to discover, or in which the founding paradigm has been shown to be flawed. Promising new fields should be sought; fruitless old ones abandoned; good fields strengthened.
Nevertheless, people have different natures, and what is right for one may be wrong for another. I find that I enjoy and become energized by trying out a new field. New ideas come to me as a result of realizing my mistakes and trying to overcome them. But I know other people who stick with the field they know and plod along, eventually carving out very successful niches.
In nature there are species that have specialized diets and others that are generalist feeders. Similarly there are r and K life history strategists. There is risk tolerance and risk aversion. Successful research strategies can be seen in the same way: different strategies suit different people, and the gene-environment relationship will determine which is most successful.
So at the individual level it's probably best to follow one's nature (which is fixed) and find the environment in which one's nature flourishes.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology