Motivation is one of those things everyone wants but which seems to be in very short supply, especially in these pandemic-ridden times. The fact that we suddenly seem to live in a world devoid of motivation has made me think about the components of motivation and how those work together to push us to do the things we do. I don’t have any groundbreaking conclusions to offer but I did discover two very simple factors that keep me going when it comes to science: being curious about a question and having the determination to pursue that question.

What’s weird about these ingredients - curiosity and determination - is that they both propel me forward but at the same time they are also forces that oppose each other. I’ll explain: imagine a world where scientists have endless curiosity to explore research directions, but they have no determination. These people are the visionaries, the innovators, the head-full-of-ideas types that make you dizzy with all the possibilities they have to offer. However, having unconstrained interest to explore new ideas that they get wind of, they also jump from idea to idea, following exciting thoughts on a whim without engaging with any of them for long. Then there is the opposite universe where we have scientists who are incredibly determined but have no curiosity to speak of. These are the robots: extremely good at seeing things through but lacking any intrinsic curiosity to lead their research. They have the drive but simply lack direction.

I have days where I lean to either extreme, following curiosity and abandoning projects that need work to follow up on references of questionable pertinence (I’m looking at you, paper on the composition of penguin eggshells!) or following determination and digging myself into a hole stubbornly trying to finish something I should have given up on a long time ago. At school, this conflict was even more palpable. Being determined to do well on exams generally meant having to suppress any curiosity to dig deeper into interesting topics at hand - there simply wasn’t enough time otherwise. The MSc by Research I am doing now lets me decide what I learn and research, meaning that I can actually be determined about the same things that I am curious about. I have to say, it has made such a difference to my motivation to have curiosity and determination align instead of having them engaged in an internal battle for dominance all the time.

Although I often think of them as opposite forces, determination and curiosity can also team up, sort of like a bow and arrow. Curiosity is the arrow that provides the direction of research, whereas determination is the bow that facilitates the arrow reaching its chosen target. This analogy also fits well with the mental picture I have of curiosity as something more passive and determination as something active. When I am curious about something, I can just let myself follow wherever my curiosity takes me without it feeling too taxing, whereas being determined and pushing myself to achieve something tends to require more active effort. Simply put, curiosity has a certain “pull” to it, whereas determination feels more like a “push”.

Both curiosity and determination are good to have, then, but is there some sort of optimal curiosity-to-determination ratio to have as scientists? And could you cultivate one or the other to achieve that optimum? These are obviously hypothetical questions but I do wonder if the environment we are living in today might favour curiosity over determination. When we have constant easy access to information, is it becoming too tempting to feed our curiosities? And if we spend more and more time satisfying our curiosities, is our determination to pursue long-term projects is taking a hit by this?

Of course, curiosity and determination are not distinct forces even though I sometimes think of them in that way. They are obviously interlinked: it is not really possible to have one without the other. If you are curious about something, you tend to be determined to pursue that something. It is also overly idealistic to consider curiosity to be the main force that decides what you do your research on. In the real world there are other factors that often have greater influence: what there is funding for, what questions can be addressed with the technology available and (quite frankly) what research might be advantageous for your career.

I will leave you with a final thought: curiosity is a trait often associated with children, whereas determination is associated with hard-working adults. Academic research seems to attract and reward people who have both of these traits more than many other careers do. So are researchers just real-life Peter Pans, highly determined creatures who show up for work every morning to feed the curiosity that was never beat out of them when they were younger?