I think a good researcher is a mix of various traits:

1. Intellectual curiosity: absolutely yes, a researcher have to know very well a topic to establish as an active player on a specific field. So curiosity is important to experiment different approaches, ideas ecc. ecc. At the same time curiosity is useful also if a researcher want to apply ideas in contiguous fields to another one... In this sense the ability to imagine a development of an approach is important too (but the curiosity is the engine)

2. Determination: absolutely true. A researcher must be very determinated in order to finish a research. It is not possible to stop if an approach is not satisfying... you have to continue until you're satisfied. You have to work on different problems at the same time so you must be very determinated to obtain jointly relevant results.

3. Self Motivation: absolutely true. You have to be motivated by passion in the topic you are considering. If the topic is not interesting for you... simply obtaining interesting results for other researchers of the field is not simple (the key is perseverance...)

4. Competitiveness: clearly competition is a part of the business, but in my opinion is not the most important. In my opinion learning to work in a team is a more important trait.

5. Team work capabilities and be autonomous in researching: I consider jointly these two traits because you have to be very able to work in groups but at the same time you have to be ready to work alone to obtain results by yourself. Obviously these two things depend on the field chosen but it is important be a good team player but at the same time ready to work on problems by yourself.

6. Humbleness. Yes is a relevant trait. Humbleness is useful to study a result in detail... but at the same time to observe other works with interest... there is a lot to learn in conferences for example... and humbleness is useful to capture these ideas in a constructive way.

My ranking is:

1. Determination 2. Self Motivation 3. Intellectual Curiosity 4. Humbleness 5. Team Work 6. Competitiveness

Best Regards,

Carlo Drago

I would say curiosity and obsession with science. And imagination, of course.

Dimitry thanks for your contribution. So you think obsession would differ from curiosity? Is one the cause of the other? Are they linked via the determination to find explanations of unknowns?

Imagination was not in my list. what do you think is the source of imagination? How can we foster and develop it?

regards

Edoardo

I agree with most of the features you have reported. I think that obsession isn't the same as curiosity though curiosity could lead to obsession, this isn't always the case. Think of someone with curiosity but without determination, he/she wouldn't have the willpower to persist.

Vision or imagination are necessary, too.

Judit why do you think the ranking depends on the research field? What are the motivations for this form of dependency? And do you agree with Andreas that success (could we measure it by pear -researcher recognition - citations is a good proxy?) depends also on funding availability? But under this respect don't you think that funding availability and capacity to attract them is dependent on the relevance (the capacity to influence vast and policy relevant research fields of the issues investigated?

Intellectual curiosity and determination are the most important thing for a researcher. These will set the rest of the "parameters" in line.

I think a good researcher is a mix of various traits:

1. Intellectual curiosity: absolutely yes, a researcher have to know very well a topic to establish as an active player on a specific field. So curiosity is important to experiment different approaches, ideas ecc. ecc. At the same time curiosity is useful also if a researcher want to apply ideas in contiguous fields to another one... In this sense the ability to imagine a development of an approach is important too (but the curiosity is the engine)

2. Determination: absolutely true. A researcher must be very determinated in order to finish a research. It is not possible to stop if an approach is not satisfying... you have to continue until you're satisfied. You have to work on different problems at the same time so you must be very determinated to obtain jointly relevant results.

3. Self Motivation: absolutely true. You have to be motivated by passion in the topic you are considering. If the topic is not interesting for you... simply obtaining interesting results for other researchers of the field is not simple (the key is perseverance...)

4. Competitiveness: clearly competition is a part of the business, but in my opinion is not the most important. In my opinion learning to work in a team is a more important trait.

5. Team work capabilities and be autonomous in researching: I consider jointly these two traits because you have to be very able to work in groups but at the same time you have to be ready to work alone to obtain results by yourself. Obviously these two things depend on the field chosen but it is important be a good team player but at the same time ready to work on problems by yourself.

6. Humbleness. Yes is a relevant trait. Humbleness is useful to study a result in detail... but at the same time to observe other works with interest... there is a lot to learn in conferences for example... and humbleness is useful to capture these ideas in a constructive way.

My ranking is:

1. Determination 2. Self Motivation 3. Intellectual Curiosity 4. Humbleness 5. Team Work 6. Competitiveness

Best Regards,

Carlo Drago

Carlo answered the question in a thoughtful and comprehensive way, and I agree with his assessment.

You may also see this thread

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_your_top_five_values_in_order_of_importance_do_they_facilitate_or_hinder_your_research_How?_sg=3LdGrkG6boDWgJnzqb1dZESX2PaH2fKWVFzRdXMFRZH19pZmzGhJlrTZtrs%2FXCpM

Following up on WERNER'S reflection I wonder if we should inquire the motivations of success. If there is a link between successful research endeavors, research funding capabilities and competition among Universities/Departments and the narrow/Hyper-specialised research fields-carriers, should we worry about homogeneity in approaches and complacency in issues investigated? How strong should be the relationship between research fields financed (think of Horizon 2020 in Europe) and independent research? If success is linked to money attracting capabilities which in turn are influenced by the overall amount of resources made available,,, how concerned should we be with respect to intellectual independence? How interested can we be in (apparently or temporarily) minor research fields?

Dear Edoardo,

I my view the following characteristics are important:

a) spirit of inquiry ,

b) Commitment to seek truth

c) Ability to work in a team,

d) Capacity to think beyond routine

e) Flexibility

f) Ability to communicate and disseminate

g) Ability to think independently and challenge the status quo.

Thanks

SGD

The experienced ideal researcher should possess, in my opinion, 20 qualities: six can be described as scientific, five as personal characteristics and nine can be classified as management-related.

The full range of identifying skills is:Scientific: scientific knowledge; the ability to learn and adapt; the capacity to formulate a research problem; the ability to analyze and master computer skills to a high technical level; the ability to work in an interdisciplinary environment; and the capacity to integrate existing knowledge. Personal: creativity; an open mind; motivation and involvement; adaptability; and the capacity to self-evaluate. Management: the ability to work in a team; communication skills; the capacity to develop a network; a capacity to evaluate; language skills; an enterprise (business) culture and management skills; project management; team management and direction; and the ability to take account of the relevance of one’s research and its impact on the environment.

In addition an ideal researcher should have curiosity and reasoning. The scientific method is a system of asking questions, making speculations, observing and drawing conclusions; a method applied in some form or another to most scientific fields. To this end, scientists who are naturally inquisitive have an advantage, as they will, in a sense, apply the scientific method to what they see and observe with little prompting.

Reasoning. An analytical mind is a boon to a scientist of any discipline. Scientists often work with large amounts of collected data and, especially in fields such as physics and atmospheric science, they must also contend with complex mathematical equations on a regular basis. The ability to correlate data accurately, draw reasonable conclusions and avoid errors in calculations is vital for a scientist. Inaccuracies or findings based in unsound science can have far-reaching consequences, especially among those who may be called to predict likely outcomes based on their data and calculations, such as meteorologists and astronomers.

Although written almost a century ago, the book by the Spanish Nobel Prize Santiago Ramón y Cajal 'Reglas y Consejos sobre Investigación' (translated into English under the title 'Advice for a Young Investigator'), contains a wisdom as fresh and useful today as it was then.

In the original list, capability is only mentioned in relation to team-work. But think about the classic notion of any qualified skill needing 10,000 hours of hard work of preparation, as has been mentioned by many, irrespective of your field being in science, finance, in the arts - anything sophisticated enough. Ability/capability does count for a lot, and cannot be replaced by determination. I would say that capability is necessary, but not sufficient. To ability one must add curiosity and perseverance. Depending on the field, success may depend on many other things, such as luck :-), or - as was mentioned - team-work capabilities, including leadership capabilities. In pure mathematics people still work in teams, and unless you are humble, let's say, you may have a hard time letting many, many hours of proof-reading go by, and you may lose the chance of proving that elusive theorem correctly. :-)

The only things I'd add to the lists above is patience and resilience.

Good researcher: wants to answer question for the purpose of expanding the body of knowledge or help improve the world or both; humble; has strong sense of integrity and ethics; willing to "go against the thought grain" if it is necessary to properly answer the question; willing to acknowledge those who help and give credit where credit is due.

Bad researcher: obsessed with H-score and other such citation indexes; selfish; egotistical; answers questions that are pretty much irrelevant, don't expand the body of knowledge, or don't help improve the world.

One should never research things that one isn't passionate about, and should never do research for fame or fortune.

Dear Edoardo

I love your question and answers by the learned community... I will love to add as PPP, from my experience of applied research to products

1. Patience, 2. Perseverance & 3. Passion

As far as the priorities according to the listed characteristics from my opinion is

- Self-motivation,

- Humbleness,

- Intellectual curiosity

- determination

- team-work capabilities

- competitiveness

I don't think the personal traits of a good scientist depends on the research field. I believe they are common personality features that overwhelm the fact of working in a specific subject.

The above answers are all excellent. The only thing I would add (and it may have been mentioned and I missed it) is humility. Someone else mentioned humbleness in reference to appreciating all the work that has been done before. But I think that many researchers are hindered by ego. You have to be prepared to accept that your hypothesis was wrong. And you have to be willing to publish that as well.

Curiosity and ambition to get (and to accept) the answer to the research question.

All this is mediated to a large extent by available resources, and organizational goals and strategies. That is, a researcher who has all the necessary characteristics will fare differently in different organizations (theoretically, researchers can move, but practically this is not always or even often possible). Perhaps we should discuss at the same time characteristics of organizations that are most successful at fostering good research.

Many important characteristics were already given. I would add honesty and fairness being necessary to inteprete the data and collaborate with others. The researcher must also be smart. I think quite often that there is a similarity of the job of a researcher with that of a detective: they try to find the truth which is often hidden.

Finally, the curiosity seems to me the most important characteristic.

I think there is not a clear recipe what makes a good/successful researcher, there are many ingredients, many were discussed already. Intellectual curiosity is definitively a key ingredient and the 3P’s Passion, Patience and Perseverance.

But there are also other traits that are at least as important:

• the willingness to dig in deep and never give up learning and asking

• do not be satisfied by a quick answer

• do not jump to fast to a conclusion

• be thorough

• be your own toughest referee

do NOT jump a band wagon, try to be original

All the above characteristics and many of those mentioned by others are key to the successful researcher but I believe the most important quality of a researcher is Focus, especially in the modern times we live in. There are so many other things that a researcher could be doing with their time and so many other distractions in modern day living, that it takes real effort for a researcher to stay focused on a project and see it through to completion. I believe the degree of success experienced by any researcher crucially depends on the extent to which they can maintain their focus on their research project.

All above is absolutely right but I think there should be someone to guide a researcher in any research field for the first time, I mean researcher's true and sincere SUPERVISOR. All qualities are necessary and when researcher takes first step, then he/ she gains all through experience. The more we indulge in research, the more we learn....

In spite of all other things one basic point to be remembered:

"Where" there is a "Will" there is "Way".

I believe in 3Ws.......

Good question. I agree with @ Sadia. Not an expert in comenting . @ Carlo Dargo, I truly appreciate ur prespective on successful researcher. Would like to adopt these qualities.

1. Passion towards research

2. Knowledge regarding the subject or research

3. Commitment

4. Time management

5. Planning and executing the plan

6. Competency

7. Effective analysis of the results of the research undertaken

8. Discussing the results effectively and articulating the research study

Click the following link

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Qualities_of_good_researcher

salman thanks for the link

edoardo

This is a long list of comments! I am going to risk repeating what someone else has said on one of those many pages.

I think creativity coupled with a good grasp of what has already been done (knowledge of one's own field) are both critical. Without knowledge, we risk rediscovering the wheel - very creative but already done (this happens too often precisely because researchers do not look sufficiently at past research, methods and findings). But without creativity we keep digging deeper holes instead of making lateral thinking moves and advancing our fields.

Perhaps the ability and drive to consider fields other than one's own can also enhance a researcher's quality.

The two characteristics that are most important in my opinion are persistence and resilience.

A persistent researcher will try 9,999 combinations of substances to serve as filaments for an incandescent light that all fail, but will try at least one more time (the 10,000th try) to find a successful filament, like Thomas Edison did.  He was creative and intelligent, but his continual pursuit even through the failures led to his ultimate triumph.

A resilient researcher will continue to follow a line of scientific inquiry even when their colleagues, bosses, mentors, events, and loved ones try to convince them to stop following their path.  The Wright Brothers persisted in developing flight by heavier than air vehicles beginning with gliders even though colleagues of theirs died in the attempt.  They believed that gliders should be developed to demonstrate the elements of control and stability that would be required for powered flight.  They did not allow their lack of funds or lack of a formal education in aeronautics deter them from their goal.  Unlike their contemporaries, they understood that propulsion needed to be separated from lift and control for successful powered flight and their persistence was the foundation for today's air vehicles.

Eric, persistence without brosd knowledge and creativity is not nearly enough. The second quality you mention is precious, and begging for a name (resilience it is not). It is extremely important to stand one's groundo in the face of all kinds of pressures or group-think. Let's  ask for suggestions to replace resilience,  whose many meanings do not include this one...

Sandra thanks very much for your contribution.

regards

Edoardo

Thanks to all for their sharing their important thoughts and experiences regarding the topic "the most important personal characteristics of a successful researcher ". II just like to add "Individual's time management skill" to the lists. Because in busy schedule of an academician it is very crucial to find time for free thinking, status survey, finding relevance to the society, linking of new ideas or information to the past knowledge and experiences for the development of new methodology and to perform the research or experiment to get the expected outcome, to present the result in acceptable format of publication in appropriate platform so as to get maximum possible exposure.

Regards

Khan

Abdul

Thanks for adding this comment I think what you suggest is important and to be considered. regards

Edoardo

I think a good researcher is a mix of various characteristics:

sociable, cooperative, curious, helpful; clever; courageous; generous; optimistic; Basic foundation knowledge in his field, critical thinking, communication skills  and hard working,

Mohamed, Thanks for the suggestions. I do believe that the "social"aspect you are mentioning is crucial since research is a social activity.

regards

edoardo

Integrity, keenness, motivation, the ability to stay calm, commitment, sacrifice, excellent written and verbal communication skills, sympathetic and humility.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Qualities_of_good_researcher

Patience, determination, drive, courage, curiosity, focus, leadership, networking skills, adaptability, humility, meta-cognition, an intelligence level that is at least 10 points above the mean (I think that intelligence is a surprisingly underrated trait based on what I read from the answers here).