Exactly the same research topic might be perceived as very interesting by some people, but not interesting at all by other people?
Any idea why this should be the case?
I think that the difference is between "feeling" and "hearing" the same topic.
Dear Marcel,
Good morning. This is interesting...
I might tend to read your question in a reverse manner... «Shouldn't the first step of a research be to "fall in love" with the research topic?»
Researchers throughout the world have been investigating the strangest of topics... As human knowledge evolves so quicly, it tends to be virtually more difficult to get original results...
But if you don't assimilate your topic as the most interesting thing in the world , you may find it virtually impossible to proceed.
You don't choose or decide to become a scientific researcher. You get trapped in your net of research and feel the urge to proceed through links that very much remind the eternal links of human love.
Some researches help us clearly and enlight our lifes. With some research we can learn and go more secure in our life or profession. But things that enlight us could dark to others with other interests or purposes. The freedom is an important thing to valorate it each one.
But why is there variation in the perception what an exciting topic is?
Scientists are permanently confronted with this when a paper is submitted to a journal for publication.....
When a paper is submitted to a journal for publication much interests are put in light. For ones the common well is the most important thing to do, for others it is the personal interest what they search. But the common well is not the sum of personal or egoistic interests, but tradition and culture.
Dear Marcel, don't we all have different backgrounds and different sets of experiences? I believe that it's from our experiences that we perceive things, research topics, as interesting or less interesting. This is good. Would it not be very boring if all of us have exactly the same interests? From mobile. Thanks.
Is this individual-based perception of what we think might be more or less interesting a scientific attitude?
I think that the difference is between "feeling" and "hearing" the same topic.
This is a good question with many different possible answers. Evidence of the many views in answering this question can be found in the excellent answers already given by followers of this thread.
The short answer is: A research topic is interesting if it connects and extends known research.
A researcher needs to see how the points in a topic connect (in a plausible manner) with known research results. A researcher also needs to envision how a research topic of interest extends of existing results, and leads a researcher along new paths and the possibility of new results.
Dear Enzo, your answer is as if readers and researchers are using different 'sensory organs', and so perceive different sensations: pleasant/ interesting; less pleasant/ less interesting. Do I interpret you correctly?
Dear Prof James, I have guessed that a research paper in psychology must connect and extend known research and extend a psychology theory. Does the same hold for science research, for research in math? Is this necessary or not a very crucial matter?
Dear Miranda, the concept of "feeling" encloses an emotional partecipation which is not found in the concept of "hearing"
People seem to be very attracted to novelty, and even better if it would be disconnected from former knowledge? Surprise, surprise.....
It certainly depends on our educational and research background.
We can not be attracted to a research topic on which we do not have the minimum necessary knowledge.
@Miranda Yeoh: ...I have guessed that a research paper in psychology must connect and extend known research and extend a psychology theory. Does the same hold for science research, for research in math?
Definitely, a research topic that connects to and extends known research is important in Mathematics. Take, for example, K. Borsuk's theorem (and proof) given in 1933 and based on the proof of a conjecture by Ulam: A continuous mapping f from an n-sphere X to R^n always results in a pair antipodal points f(x) = f(-x) for x in X. That discovery by Borsuk eventually led to his work on homotopic mappings up until the 1980s.
Thus, the results of an interesting research topic have high external validity, e.g. that the results at a local scale support those at a wider scale?
Dear Marcel,
Interesting is a fuzzy concept and may mean different things to different researchers. Even in one department, professors work on different topics chosen based on their backgrounds.
Different preferences for different topics within families and within teams? But then how to develop inter-disciplinary approaches focusing on so-called interesting research topics at a team level?
An interesting topic matches both our expertise and capabilities and will provide benefit to the field in which we are conducting the study.
Perhaps a topic defined as interesting by an individual differs from a topic defined as interesting by a community of individuals?
Can a topic be defined as interesting/exciting by an individual that is not truly competent in the field, e.g. journalists defining so-called interesting topics to attract readers?
Yes, Marcel, A topic defined as interesting by an individual differs from a topic defined as interesting by a community of individuals.
Why should the general public be more interested in some black traces found on Mars (millions of dollars to make the discovery) than the reproductive behaviour of a common bird on Earth (a few dollars to make the discovery)?
@ Marcel, could the answer to your question be that humans are interested in things that are far fetched and dearly bought, and by sensational or unusual things? Like the possibility of life on Mars, so that when they have destroyed the earthly environment, they think they may explore further afield? But we should be more concerned about preserving our earth, and propagation of plants and animals, including birds. From mobile.
Dear Miranda,
The only future is planet Earth, not Mars! Perhaps all this is an artefact of the functioning of the human brain, e.g. via a process of mental habituation?
What would be the evolutionary origin of brain organizations permanently looking for new stimuli, e.g. new research topics?
Dear Marcel,
here is an interesting publication by the NFER…
National Foundation for Educational Research. Exploring young people’s views on science education. Report to the Wellcome Trust (September 2011). http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_peda/documents/web_document/wtvm052732.pdf
Be well! Martin
“Wide Mix of Factors Influencing Public Views on 22 Science-Related Issues” (June 30, 2015): http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/americans-politics-and-science-issues/pi_2015-07-01_science-and-politics_0-01/
Dear Marcel, this question is related to my research in preferences. Mine was to investigate factors that affected music preference; but your question is about preference regarding research topics. I still think that preferences are determined by the degree of complexity. For music preference, I found that students liked most melodies that are moderately complex (like Mozart, Beethoven as compared to Debussy).
For research preference, do we not love topics that are somewhat challenging, but not beyond our abilities, within the scope of our experience, just to extend the research topic further? Have a look at my thesis that has been condensed.
(You are right that earth is our only habitable home. But humans are destroying it as if there are new world to discover...)
Conference Paper MUSIC PREFERENCES OF TEENAGE STUDENTS IN RELATION TO LISTENE...
Dear colleagues, have a look at this paper also on aesthetics that I have just found today on RG! This is what I conclude after a brief reading, "Personality has a role in determining the research preferences of each one of us." Some will like a simple research topic, but a person who is more adventurous and like more challenges will be more happy with a research topic that's at least moderately tough!
Article What determines preferences
This report takes a closer look at how opinions vary among different groups of scientists…
Pew Research Center. An Elaboration of AAAS Scientists’ Views: A deeper examination of views about key science topics by members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. (July 2015). http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/07/Report-AAAS-Members-Elaboration_FINAL.pdf
I may add a short point of view to all the interesting aspects. Since the decision to perform science and research is very often done in young age, I think that besides possible interest to earn money, one of the main reasons are emotion guided rulings. This decision may look naive. But when remembering my own youth there was a lot of emotional steering by and admiration of famous scientists and names.
@Hanno Krieger: ...when remembering my own youth there was a lot of emotional steering by and admiration of famous scientists and names.
You have hit the proverbial nail on the head! Now that you mention it, I have noticed the same thing: a strong emotional steering attributed to my study of giants in my own field of research, starting with Euclid and moving ahead in time to the Italian School of Mathematics that includes A. Di Concilio, G. Gerla, G. Di Maio with their counterparts G. Beer and S.A. Naimpally. And then of course there is the enormous influence of F. Hausdorff, M. Frechet, V.A. Efremovich, S. Leader, and M. Lodato on topology
And I have also noticed just how much my admiration for a great many scientists have profoundly influenced my own work.
The reasons are, first historical attractions and influence they create on a person to foster passion and interests to study them and search and seek/develop knowledge about those specific topics strengthened in later courses by their resourcefulness, expandability and popularity they have.
Why did most people concentrate on particular areas of investment in businesses, because of their resourcefulness and future potential or existence power to generate profits as profits are the sole driving power of such activities.
Doing scientific research is a passionate intellectual investment of a scientist makes with foreseeable returns through beautiful results that solves problems, expand knowledge and attract many researchers in that field.
It is quite natural that a certain research topic may be interesting to some persons or may be uninteresting to others. I think that the researcher plays a significant role in engaging the interests of more persons but before that happens, s/he ought to be curious & passionate about the research topic. If the aim, of the research done, is just to get a degree or promotion or inflating the ego then the effort will concentrate on reaching such goals. I came to know persons who did research just to please those in authority in order to get their approval upon increasing their monthly salaries. Such persons proved that they are not interested in their own goods so how come they will instill interest in others?
Think different people will perceive different research topics with different levels of excitement / interest. Reason being each person comes from different background, has different exposure, experience & form different mental models in his or her mind. These might cause him or her to have different preferences or likes / dislikes etc. that can cause him or her to compare / judge differently.
I would be surprised if everyone is interested in the same things. That would be a very boring world.
Although people share ideas, values , and interests with many other people in their society and, in this globalized world, also in other cultures, the biography of every individual is unique. There are differences of interest as there are differences in life experiences and personality. I do not see how it could be otherwise.
On the other hand, a small initial difference of interests between individuals A and B becomes a growing gap over time..This is because knowledge and motivation are related things. When a topic interests me, I look for information on it. As my information on the subject Increases, my interest grows in similar measure.
What happens to research topics also happens with methods and techniques to address phenomena.
All the researchers are unique in their own way and therefore have different areas of interest. What would have happened if Einstein, Mari Curies, Leonardo da Vinci, etc. all had chosen the same research area!
As many of you already mentioned, researchers have different area interests because there are differences in educational background, life experiences, abilities and talents.
I like to add the role of chance as well.
Consider a M.Eng student who has no idea on what to do for his thesis and chooses a topic solely based on his supervisor's recommendation. There is a good chance that expansion of the topic forms his future area of expertise (interest) .
People can provide arguments or reasons why a research topic is interesting, but how can they find arguments why a topic is not interesting, especially when they don't truly know the topic?
In any area of study, the research topic will be better and interesting if it is innovative and give new line of action in this area!
The interesting ideas are those that are fascinating and intriguing on a personal level.
In addition, what makes a research interesting also depends on the research audience.
Research ideas and questions are likely to be interesting to other scholars if they address puzzling issues or unsolved mysteries or if they support a set of theoretical assumptions that have been a source of intellectual debate.
Source: Conrad, C. F., & Serlin, R. C. (2011). The Sage handbook for research in education: pursuing ideas as the keystone of exemplary inquiry. Sage.
Interest and excitement are personalized and depends on the level of motivation of a researcher for doing research for excitement or for furthering his/her career.
Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought.
--- Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
If you think it differently, you obviously also see it differently?
Assume that a professor told the press about having an idea to manufacture a novel deadly weapon. The professor will be contacted, material support will be promised, and the research project will become highly interesting.
Assume that the same professor announced, one week later, that s/he meant a novel deadly weapon against cancer cells, then there will be disappointment & the flash lights will be switched off one by one.
The list of priorities for research topics is ultimately set up by those who hold power & who decide about what to finance generously & what to ignore or finance meagerly.
Does this imply that those that are less/not competent in research practices decide how to conduct research practices?
Dear Marcel, I don't think that's what Dr Nizar means. But the meaning is likely to be that people are far more interested in research on weapons of destruction than in research against diseases of mankind. Have a look:
"Since its inception in 1994, the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD Center) has been at the forefront of research on the
implications of weapons of mass destruction for U.S. security."
http://wmdcenter.dodlive.mil/files/2014/07/CSWMD_OccationalPaper-10.pdf
U.S. Security: There must be a misinterpretation of the meaning 'In God we trust'?
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
WHAT MAKES MANAGEMENT RESEARCH INTERESTING, AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?
The first criterion by which people judge anything they encounter, even before deciding whether it is true or false, is whether it is interesting or boring.
--- Murray Davis (1999: 245)
Sometimes academics take very exciting, engaging, and important work and present it in such a way that it looks like a butterfly squashed between two pieces of glass.
--- Blake Ashforth, quoted in Bartunek (2003: 203)
http://aom.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/AMR/BartunekRynesIrelandMgmt%20Research%20Interesting.pdf
But does it answer the question why some people think topic A is boring whereas other people think topic A is exciting?
Dear Marcel, certain people may perceive things that do not directly affect them to be boring, because they are the center of their own world. In the same way, reviewers may say that my research topics are boring and reject my papers because I'm far off in the east.
Concerning "in God we trust", there may be several responses a person may make. Let me list:
- Even though US say they trust God on their currency, they still must use their God given talents to protect themselves.
- They may say they trust God, but not humans.
- It's sad that the phrase must be on the currency to remind people of God's goodness and mercy. Does it mean that humans have departed from God?
Interesting is fuzzy concept and its meaning is different for every scientist and every research community.
Every researcher is unique in their lifetime experience with different educational background, abilities , previous research works and talents.
Obviously, as they have different views about choosing research topics, they select choose topics which fits in their career plan and needs of society they live in.
Thus, research topics dealing with environmental protection will become more and more important in the future, whatever the education background of the scientists (green biology, green chemistry, green energy, green social behaviour, green .....)?
Did someone estimate the environmental consequences of war/destructive weapons for wildlife? Interesting research topic?
It should be mentioned that not always a scientist say the same what he thinks about a research topic. Influential scientists are converted by the time into politicians.
I can give my opinion about the research in mathematics. One should say that the research in mathematics has components which are very close to the art. In order to give an opinion about a topic one should know the previous results and ideas in the area. If the research needs some knew and original ideas then it should be considered interesting. Of course the deepness of understanding of different experts is not the same.
It depends on people's competency and specialty, expertise, and experience. It depends as well on the topic purpose description, the team work competency and fairness, the resources, and the target results.
Dear Fairouz Bettayeb,
You are very correct. Additionally, innovative thrust areas may also be considered.
Sure dear Subhash, innovation should be the pillar of any research topic, researchers do not spend time to reinvent the wheel.
The more curious we are about a research area, the more enthusiasm and motivation we have to do the research projects. This results in perceiving the project as more interesting compared to others.
The projects that arouse curiosity in the minds of many people are considered interesting by society.
Which is why Thomson Reuters’ scene-scoping study on “100 Key Scientific Research Fronts” is a welcome report for science enthusiasts eager to stay updated on cutting-edge research but lacking the time to read every issue of Science or Nature cover-to-cover.
http://www.wired.com/2013/08/the-10-hottest-fields-of-science-research/
Is a so-called hot research field always truly an interesting research field, e.g. consequences of acidification/plastic of/in oceans? Are research topics that high-light problems (always) interesting, and if so, why?
Interesting is in the eye of beholder!, dear @ Marcel, hot research topics are interesting for some and boring for others.
Interesting # important
Fahrenheit 451: How Hot is Your Research?
Many young researchers would probably want to study a hot topic, and at first glance this seems like a reasonable justification for the exercise. The authors conclude with the following advice for young investigators: Look for topics with few articles and many citations.
I found this advice quite preposterous. Impact factors and other such indices may be of great interest to those assessing our case for promotion, but they are of little value for choosing the next research question. For the benefit of any young investigator who may have taken the advice seriously, I decided to respond.
The authors admit that there are probably many confounding factors, but the problem is much more fundamental than how these numbers may be biased. First, people’s interests are not determined by numbers. If I am interested in visual cognition, I may be persuaded to look at multisensory integration, but even a million citations won’t make me study cross-cultural psychology or molecular biology for that matter. Additionally, zooming in on a research area is a long way from coming up with an interesting and worthwhile research question.
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2007/september-07/fahrenheit-451-how-hot-is-your-research.html
Yes, Dear Marcel M. Lambrechts,
Research topics must address current problems that serves the society most.
But these topics that address current problems are not necessarily perceived as interesting/exciting?
Dear Marcel
Hot topics # interesting in the eyes of all researchers in the field
The attached articles is interesting as it ranks research areas with a special sauce formula that first divides the entirety of scientific research into 8,000 categories that form the “Thomson Reuters Essential Science Indicators” database. Within each subdivision, a set of core papers is designated by frequent and clustered citations, identifying foundational scientific literature that earned a lot of shout outs in reports of subsequent discoveries. To find today’s hottest research fields, only core papers published between 2007-2012 were considered; the number of citations of those papers and their average publication date were compiled.
As the report notes, “a research front with many core papers of recent vintage often indicates a fast-moving or hot specialty.”
This doesn’t necessarily mean these fields are the most important or the most beneficial to society – it just means scientists (and, by extension, groups funding the research) are getting pretty excited about what they’re learning. Here, we take a quick look at the hottest research front in each of ten thematic categories – the sharpest of the cutting edge.
http://www.wired.com/2013/08/the-10-hottest-fields-of-science-research/
Dear Marcel M. Lambrechts,
Topics that address current problems may not be perceived as interesting/exciting, but results shall be interesting!
Excellent remark! Reliable results are more important than topics in the decision whether a research topic is interesting, or not?!
It depends on interests,motives of using, assimilation, and applying new methods.I think,the most interesting topic may be polyparadigmality of the methodological approaches in researches.
I agree dear @ Irina, Researchers have different area of interests because there are differences in motives, educational background, life experiences, abilities and talents.
A project that seems interesting to a theorist might seem boring to an applied scientist!
Dear Behrouz,
I only upvote, not downvote, so it is someone else that is voting in my place! Theoretical people might also claim that what seems exciting by an applied scientist might be boring for a theorist, I presume
Interesting topics and interesting results create interest among both applied scientists and theorists.
I agree dear Marcel, scientists who do basic and applied research have different tastes. Different type of scientists ,different backgrounds, different interests. Each researcher is unique in a sense.
Dear Marcel, just was looking at your question list and found this one interesting. Although, the discussion seem to finish 2 years ago.
I will share my private experience. It goes without saying that a narrow scientific topic is likely to attract attention only among narrow group of specialists. Most of research published in journals is like that. Still, 2 papers of similar quality may have substantial difference in reads and citations (now we can track this on RG). This can depend both on research quality and efforts on publicity. Now a lot of research that is not online (and especially when one needs to pay for access) find less readers.
Some hot research addressing public policy and written in non very technical language (less mathematical and less using special narrow terminology) may attract more public attention, because a broader audience can understand that.
this link is useful
https://123writings.com/research-paper-topics/
regards
Yes, indeed it is useful. The trick is that these 100 top topics are in business, history, psychology, literature - so that people without special education can also understand at least most of the titles. Perhaps some geophysical sciences (climate change, tsunami, extreme weather) and environment (pollution, extinction of species) can suggest a similar list.
In some sciences (math, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine) new research is often possible only on very special topic (like a class of chemical substances, treatment of some diseases, proof of a theorem in some abstract math space without application to normal life, complex concepts about elementary particles that we cannot normally observe). Such questions are unlikely to attract attention from the general public, and also little attention from specialists in other topics of the same science.
Human psychology
There is also the potential problem that people (e.g. non-specialists) habituate to topics/findings. There is this curiosity drive looking for Something 'New and unexpected' not giving scientists the time to solve a problem for good?
Interests differ greatly from one person to the other. However, I bet you that topics that address pertinent issues in society which is constantly on the minds of people act like magic. It has the potential of charming many scholars if not all.
But then again what are 'pertinent issues in society'? You have short-term visions (e.g. protecting 'self') versus long-term visions (e.g. protecting future generations and their environments)?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science
- Research Topics