Concerns about the value of the research domain I am a PhD student in applied computer science methods, halfway through the program, and the question that is in the title is what have occupied my mind almost from the beginning of my study. I can't find much help from my supervisors, and this is putting the whole pursuit of my degree under question. 

I have read some literature in the domain of my research, and most of the time my critical thinking is not satisfied with what the authors have achieved in the end of their work. Somehow, the conclusions do not seem convincing to me. In my understanding, the idea of a scientific article is to be useful, but what I see in my field of applicational studies is that the articles suggest no real applications, rather some dull scientific examples, saying that it demonstrates its usefullness. Applicational studies should have real applications, not examples in a vacuum. 

And it is the same thing, if not worse, in almost all the articles. It gets worse if they start to overcomplicate things, adding one method on top of another to achieve no evident benefit at the end. For me, such research seems like they cannot find a good problem.

Is it just an impression of a sceptic, or could it be that my subfield of research has reached the point where it has closed on itself? I mean, producing papers not to investigate real problems, but just to keep the field afloat, although it has no potential for anything innovative. 

I am just starting to doubt that research itself has some special value, as it seemed to me in my idealistic view when I just started my PhD. At this point, I am overwhelmed with the thought that the years that I am spending on my PhD eventually will result with a similar contribution: It will have no use or value. Maybe except to support my supervisor's career and add to the mess of the literature of my domain, where I already have sunk.

So my question for you is: What does motivate you or give you certitude that the things that you work on do have impact, and the work is worth working on?
I cannot possibly agree with the currently most upvoted answer by Pete L. Clark. I clearly cannot comment on the particular subfield that OP is asking about since I know nothing about it. 

However, daily I see stillborn research papers --- they were conceived not to dispel the ignorance, but to be added to a CV. There are definitely research communities that are mired in posturing, complexity and obscurantism.

On a personal level, it does not matter whether the field in question is one such area, or whether the OP lacks the background to see how this field adds to our knowledge. It is impossible to do good research without seeing the goal. So, action is necessary.

I suggest talking to the advisor, and gently asking these questions. If the answers are not enlightening, change field/advisor. Doing otherwise is a waste of OP's time.