For me there are two criterion: 1) theoretically founded, 2)empirically relevant.
There are many jokes about research trends in economics and statistics. For econ, research in macro is adding a price rigidity, and run the log-linearization of DSGE model; for micro, it is looking for some exotic instrumental variable. For statistics, it is about having a big (and fast!) computer, or on the other hand side, bringing some exotic measure-theoretic results.
I am not that interested in these.
I am not interested in doing research for the sake of research, or publishing for the sake of publishing. I will find an area (or areas) that interest me, and I will try to ask important questions in those fields. Once I have those questions, I will try my best to answer them. If I do not have those questions, I will stop and think. Think. I am not an idealists. I know myself--unless I can convince myself what I am doing is interesting, I will not do well. (The recent poetry class is a strong piece of evidence). Since working on trivial questions is a losing deal, then why should I bother?
I have a dream. One day, when one asks me about every piece of research I do, I will be truly passionate about every single piece of them. I will be able to tell him why I do research on them, and why I care at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment