Randy Wang:
What research topics are you currently interested in?

Steven Goldman:
I have two main interests at this point in time.  The first is Probabilistic Choice—a look at whether preferences are probabilistic as opposed to precise.  I would like to use my research in this area to help explain behavioral irregularities. A second area of research that I am involved in is within the realm of Health Economics.  I currently am on the scientific advisory council for the SRTR (Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients).  Through my involvement with the organization, I have developed an interest in issues of fairness and efficiency in assigning organ transplants.  Given the current scarcity of organs for transplantation and the length of current waiting lists, interest has evolved into the use of hitherto marginal or substandard organs. I would like to model the decision problem of a potential recipient as to whether to accept or reject such an organ.  It is interesting to note that the decision process a patient goes through in deciding whether to accept an organ transplant is technically very similar to job search models.

RW:
How do you decide on research topics?

SG:
I enjoy problem solving so I begin by finding a problem that interests me.  Some problems I simply stumble across – e.g. my work of infectious diseases, some evolve out of an interest to understand a particular aspect of economic thought – e.g. my research on fairness and liquidity.  Still other problems catch my interest from refereeing other people’s work – e.g. my work on depreciation.  After I have identified a problem, I then do a literature search.  My favorite sources are JSTOR and Google.

RW:
 What is your take on theoretical versus empirical research?

SG:
 Let me begin by saying that I don’t think I have ever done significant empirically-based research.
 The reason why theory-based research is often considered more difficult is because you never know where theory-based research will lead.  As a result, it is seen as much riskier.  With empirical studies, on the other hand, it is often possible to assess from the beginning whether or not an answer will be attainable.  But really what it all comes down to is being confident enough that there is a conclusion to your research.
 In response to undergraduates who feel they do not have the mathematical background to work on theory-based papers, it is my belief that if you understand what you are doing well enough, you can create an effective, logical argument without using much math at all. But, to be sure, mathematics is a most useful tool in sharpening one’s understanding.

RW:
 Will you be available to act as a thesis advisor in the spring?

SG:
 Sure.  I encourage students to come speak to me—especially if they share similar interests to mine.