Here's a true story about one of my professors. He stated clearly that he was a "generalist", as opposed to "a specialist who researches a very, very specific area and nothing else for the rest of his life." However, he was later forced into early retirement from his university because he did not publish enough papers. He later became a novelist, no longer a professor of any university. This is a tough decision for me. If I specialize in a very specific area and do nothing else, I will get bored within a year. If I become a generalist, I will be constantly intrigued in my research because I am going from topic to topic and happy with my wealth of generalized knowledge. However, by generalizing to many different areas, I will always be far behind the various experts who have specialized in the areas that I am generalizing to and thus my research can hardly compare to theirs. This is like a dilemma. Being bored but producing many papers to stay in the job, or being happy and intrigued in my research but not being considered valuable to the scientific community. What are your thoughts?