Fabio Rojas describes his attitude towards social science research:
Here’s how I evaluate research importance in social science. Averages, of course:1. Great problem, great solution.
2. Great problem, partial/boring solution.
3. Decent problem, great solution.
4. Great problem, empirical/descriptive work.
5. Decent problem, partial/boring solution.
6. Decent problem, empirical/descriptive work.
7. Small problem, any solution.
8. Bizarre/highly technical approaches to any problem.
9. Definitional/taxonomic/philosophical writings on any problem.
10. History of social thought.
Sounds about right, but all of those categories are more-or-less in the eye of the beholder, yes?