Thread. I really love this advice! And it’s something I’ve had to learn. In my PhD I was very quickly attracted to unusual research. Very political/Institutional. But what to do with that? Embrace the weirdness? Or make it conform more with traditional methods/questions https://twitter.com/claudia_sahm/status/1343616899922485249

And I spent tears bouncing around on where I stood. First I just embraced it! Might as well do the kind of research I wanna do as a first try. But initially there were issues in translation. How do I effectively explain all this history? How do I motivate political topics?

I kept finding that the evidence I found compelling wasn’t the same as what other people did! I leaned on the historical evidence and institutional details. Others preferred regressions and formal models.

My first presentation (on a paper I believed was really good and still do!) was a total disaster. Despite everyone having really good intentions in the seminar and my advisor telling me the paper was good, I was distraught. Cried at my desk.

And I took the wrong lesson. I saw all the flaws and none of the encouragement that I can see was all over the place in hindsight. I assumed “this research path just isn’t workable”. And I ran from it.

I tried much harder to write papers with regressions and identification strategies and tackling traditional Econ questions. Thinking people would be more interested and find the methods more palatable.

It didn’t work. I was still having a hard time explaining the research. I still wasn’t fully nailing identification. But now, the research wasn’t very interesting either... I had run from what made my research distinctive! And I couldn’t put lipstick on that pig

Now, I’ve gone back in the other direction. I’ve just done the research I thing is interesting and compelling. But now... with a bit more practice presenting and more confidence in my own voice, people are interested! And I didn’t have to compromise anything.

I think it’s so important to lean into what you are good at and what you find interesting. Especially if you are a little bit of a “freak”. That’s where the most interesting questions come from. And I promise it is the only way you will enjoy the research. Be distinctive.

None of this is to absolve Econ of its failings. Econ should be more interdisciplinary. Econ is also racist, sexist, and hierarchical. It is not lost on me that I am a white man and this gives me privilege to get a fairer hearing.

So at a structural level, we have to be better. But on a personal level? I think the best route is to embrace yourself and what you can bring to the table. Be a freak