Hi guys, I might be silly to ask this question. Here is the situation I am facing and any suggestion would be appreciated.
I am writing my first serious research paper in economics. At the beginning, I simply wanted to replicate a similar study using Chinese data set (as a way to get familiar with my data set). During this process, I realize that I can do something more than a replication but that would mean a change of research direction. I have already devoted a lot to the current topic and got all the statistical tests done by now. My tutor thinks it is better to finish this one and get a publication first (although a replication would not be published in a good journal).
However, I am now in my first year of Ph.D study and do not have too much pressure about publication. So I kind of think that keeping on with the current topic would be a waste of time (especially because I have already got familiar with the data set).
I do not worry much about my situation now, since either way would work for me. But this affair alarms me that similar situations can happen in the future. I would be gratitude if you guys can share some experience or advice about the following two questions:
1. When I find another topic more worthwhile, when should I stop the current study and change a direction, and when should I continue on the current topic?
2. If I hold different views about the above question with my coauthor, what should we do?
Thanks in advance.
Forget the matter for a few (say 15) days.
Then autometically you will get the solution from yourself.
It is tested by me several times.
Thanks.
Dear Joy Yang,
I think that you should keep both goals in mind: 1) to finish paper (if it is publishable), 2) to go different direction (if it looks promising). I always have several projects in mind. In some cases starting new project may mean completely new literature survey and new skills, so that it may take you many months. Then better not to jump, at least when you are still PhD student. But slightly different topic will help you to start 2nd paper.
As for cooperation, it should be mutually beneficial. If you argue too much, this is not a good partnership, and I would not continue this in the further projects. But maybe each of both is right in some cases and not in the others. So try to find honestly what is that. I also have a question with discussion about it; see https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_reasons_of_inefficiency_in_scientific_cooperation
You can continue this with little change in methodology or variables to add additional value. Thus, it will be a new something.
Forget the matter for a few (say 15) days.
Then autometically you will get the solution from yourself.
It is tested by me several times.
Thanks.
Follow your heart. But also know that jumping from topic to topic wouldn't get the job done. One thing at a time,, no pressure
The condition that you refer to happens when the main topic becomes redundant and there is too much papers written about this topic. Research must be on a novelty topic, one that really makes the difference.
The truth is that if one needs to publish for promotion etc., the most efficient is to dig on the same hole, the same topic. however, this might shorten your academic horizon. So, one needs to keep a balance.
There is no universal answer because researchers are people and are different. If you can do even a low level publication without taking much time and energy then probably you should--even a low level publication looks good and frankly it would probably feel good. However, I have never thought that decisions should be made based on sunk costs (the time you already put in) so look at how much more it will cost you to finish this project and what you will get from it.
Also, most people find a research area and stick to it for many years and it is a way of building a career--be an acknowledged expert in that area. Others find that too boring to stay productive and skip from topic to topic as interests change and ideas pop up. I started in labor and growth, moved to macro policy, then organizational economics (bureaucracy), use of software in econ education, financial economics, and back to labor markets. You don't publish as much since it takes time to get up to speed on past literature, but it isn't boring. The advice to take some time and meditate on it is good too.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Economics