A series of forced choices between two researcher fates. There are no wrong
answers — the reasoning is the point. Pick the one you'd rather, and watch a
picture of your research values take shape.
A reflective party game, not a validated test.
Everything runs in your browser — nothing is sent anywhere.
One quick thing — what's your field?
The trade-offs are universal; the wording isn't. This re-voices a few cards so a
bench scientist, a theorist, and an archival historian aren't all asked the same way. Optional —
pick General to keep it generic.
Would you rather…
— or —
·
Keys: A / B · S skip · ← back
Would you rather…
— or —
Say why out loud. Then tap a side for the next one.
· keys A/B/space
Your research-values fingerprint
Each spoke is one trade-off. Your dot sits
toward the side you leaned — out at the rim for the bold pole listed below, in toward
the center for its opposite; sitting on the dashed ring means you were balanced. A
hollow, greyed dot means too few cards to call.
The spokes (bold = the pole on the rim):
Where you leaned hardest
A tension native to your field that the nine
shared axes don't capture — scored from two extra cards, so read it as direction, not degree.
Your notes
Your research values, loosely in Schwartz's terms
A loose analogy, not a measurement — this is our interpretive overlay onto Schwartz's
cross-cultural value wheel, not derived from his instrument. Schwartz's two master
tensions are Openness-to-change ↔ Conservation and
Self-Enhancement ↔ Self-Transcendence; a strong lean isn't "better" — the wheel
works as a balanced set (Aristotle's golden mean).