(A) identification with the goals of the research ("it would be cool if somebody did this")
(B) curiosity about research questions ("I want to understand the whys/hows of these phenomena")
(C) skills fit ("I am good at the general/specific skills/knowledge needed for this kind of research, so I'm likely to make good progress there.")
(D) enjoyment of work ("I enjoy this kind of work/challenge")
(E) "fixing" the methodology used by others (including enjoyment of debates) ("I have ideas about how the practice could be better, OR most researchers are thinking about it the wrong way, so I should get into it in order to prove it.")
(F) altruism ("the world will benefit greatly from it")
(G) profitability ("I will make a lot of money doing it")
Which criteria are most important for you and why?
For some of these questions, your answers to are likely change once you are busy with the daily grind.
Also, using criterion (B) it may well be the case that your curiosities are not research questions. I enjoy thinking about the
foundations of physics, but I doubt any of my ideas could count as original research.
*For me, it's easy to think that an area would be good for me because I get a short-term reward from thinking about it (and to think that my ideas are original). Long-term reward, however, is more related to concrete success (e.g. findings, publications, working systems). Perspiration, rather than inspiration, is the answer to long-term research satisfaction.
What areas have you worked on? How did they score on the above criteria? How did they work out for you?
* - I think there is a case to be made for creating prizes for papers that publicize unjustly neglected research. As it is, the incentive is for obscure papers to remain obscure: who wants to find out that their ideas are not original?![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}