Dear Mohammed:

You can do both: focus on a specific area of interest --a problem you wish to solve, in an area that you think you might be able to make a substantial contribution to-- and look at that problem from multiple disciplinary perspectives. Read widely, attend congresses related to your problem regardless of disciplinary focus, test your ideas by soliciting feedback from experts in a variety of disciplines. Working like this can lead you to fresh solutions that have been overlooked by researchers working within the narrow constraints of a traditionally defined discipline. If you look beyond the artificial, socially constructed academic borders, you will find that all things are connected.

Best regards,

David

I could not agree with David more, Mohammad. Crossing disciplinary lines fuels creativity. One of the downsides of becoming an expert is a form of tunnel vision that restricts and constrains one's thinking.

The advice to narrowly specialize runs amok in academe as the only sound strategy to obtaining a tenure track position at a top tier university. In that restricted context, it is the correct advice, but there are so many satisfying positions in other academic settings. There are other strategies for living a rich and vibrant academic life. I found one.

Young researchers should not only explore their area of expertise, they should also explore themselves. Learning to do what one truly loves can be the most important thing to learn and do.

Dear Mohammad Mosiur Rahman 

I like your question.  I will address the question from the perspective of thinking in psychology and psychology research.

I worry we already have plenty of people looking at rather diverse fields and trying to integrate or relate the findings (and somehow, likely because of lack of training, they often do so in a notably poor manner).  If anything, in behavioral science, they often do so (in a sense) too much, blurring real lines or skewing the picture-as-a-whole (for the diverse field they want to relate their psychology to, especially -- seeing great, clear correspondences, where the findings do not support such conclusions).  A common type of example here is relating behaviors to brain activity (neuroscience).  [ At the same time, though, I believe neuroscience can  provide very helpful hints at times (perhaps ruling out some types of interpretation, which should be ruled OUT). Part of the reason there is so much emphasis or reliance on neuroscience is because psychologists have not come up with a good way of having a working and progressive theory of behavior PER SE -- so much so, I have doubts that many psychologists even think this is possible (and thus they have hopes for nothing but continued further help from neurosciences). ]

Another type of case of "too much" relating/integration happens when psychologists try to relate and/or integrate sub-fields of study in psychology -- and do so, in actuality, too much on their own intuition, believing the effort (any way) yields a better perspective for science (an example here is the thinking of Bronfrenbenner and those who have followed in his thinking -- I have disliked Bronfrenbrenner for DECADES).  I wish I could say something positive here, but in decades it has always seemed in every way a vice rather than any true, lasting-good, help (except perhaps for some applied psychology, like clinical psychology).

I believe to well cover "a specific area of interest " requires a broad-minded outlook: in particular, people need to have a full appreciation of the nature of theories and be able to evaluate them critically; they must essentially come to make some theory truly their own (it may be an existing theory or not -- BUT MUST, of course, involve coming to a complete understanding and appreciation of existing theories as part of "their process").

I believe the coverage of how theories are actually formulated, and how they should be formulated, and how they can be critiqued (in colleges and graduate schools) is miserably lacking.  (How about, for example: evaluating the proposition that behavior is clearly biological, abiding by the same principles (in some ways) as the functioning of other organs, AND psychologists should be able to point to how this shows itself in the behaviors they study.)

All this (outlined above) makes doing what I think all psychology thinkers and researchers really very much need to do (AND MUST DO) still nowadays  something they have to do very largely on their own.  Much more involvement and OPEN guidance from college and university staff (i.e. their teachers)  should occur.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still, yet, if there are real connections between sub-areas or between other fields and behavioral science to be found, it could be good for certain purposes to find them.

Thank you all, dear professors/Dr., I am really delighted to see your valuable comments.  And undoubtedly, they can open up new avenues of thinking for novice researchers like me. I again want to thank you for this.

Dear Mohammed,

I believe in a wider perspective. Broaden your range. the more you research, the more you realise how different disciplines converge. I speak especially for the Arts, which are a result of human activity. And yes, you can do both. start on a specific problem. Your sources will lead you to other aspects, other disciplines.

I truly believe that this is actually the century of interdisciplinary themes whereby we need to widen our research to a wider perspective.

Thank you dear Karwan Mustafa for your valuable and insightful thought.