Which is more important? Breadth of knowledge or depth of knowledge?

Breadth refers to knowledge on a wider range of topics while depth refers to more specific knowledge on one particular topic.

This question on which one is better is perhaps an offshoot of my search to improve myself on this front.

Although I have had extensive experience in designing and developing software applications, there is no particular language or tool that I have memorized like the back of my hand as some “experts” have. I have gathered knowledge from various sources on a variety of tools/languages and make use of that knowledge whenever I work. I will rarely hesitate to begin working in a different language if it suits my purpose, despite the learning curve associated with anything different.

Some people, though, think differently. They prefer to become specialists in their chosen field. Here we come to a crossroads. To specialize or not to specialize?

Being a specialist (somebody with depth of knowledge) has its advantages. More detailed knowledge will enable you to work faster and more efficiently than if you were to spend most of your time googling for more information. Functional specialization is also the basis for the organization for more complex systems. I firmly believe that none of the top-quality software we use today would have been possible without specialists.

Studies have shown that when working in a particular niche, specialization might be the best way to get things done. A study regarding this particular question showed that specialists (people with depth of knowledge) generally outperformed generalists (people with breadth of knowledge) particularly during times where market turbulence is low (Turner, et al, 2000).

If this is the case, why am I so hesitant to specialize?

The first, and probably most influential factor in this, is my personality. I am an adventurous person who jumps straight into anything that catches my interest. That said, I usually only learn what I need to fulfill my needs for a particular project and move on.

One other factor is the current state of my field - information technology. With the fast pace of development of new technologies, I don’t know whether a technology I choose to specialize in will soon be rendered obsolete or not. I have come to the conclusion that learning the basics and implementing them properly, is the best way to work.

Further, one qualitative advantage I have observed among people with breadth of knowledge is that it is far easier for them to adapt to different working styles and new technologies than it is for the specialists.

Nowadays, the internet makes it easier for the generalist. Need help with a particular issue? Google it. Want to gain understanding on the internal mechanisms of a particular language? Join the newsgroup or mailing list. With the internet, learning more about the topic of your choice requires only the right keywords, and a few clicks of the mouse button. Of course, this advantage also applies to the specialist. My observations indicate, however, that specialists are oftentimes hesitant to diversify, afraid to dilute their expertise in their chosen field.

The ideal situation would then be, to have a balance of both breadth and depth. But what is the right balance? That question, I’m afraid, is for each of us to decide for ourselves.

Would you rather be a specialist or a generalist? Leave a comment below! I’m interested in hearing your thoughts.