I had my weekly meeting with my advisers yesterday, where I provide them a 30 minute update on what I've been working on.
Recently I've been finding my advisers less. Partially because I know what still needs to be completed before I can defend, and slowly I'm learning they don't necessarily have the answers I want for the things I'm investigating. Also I fear that by talking to them more would generate new scientific ideas, that would delay the experiments I already am behind / still need to perform. (Although I secretly think they've been finding me less as well to be rid of me...)
Our EBSD microscope has actually been down the last two months, so I've avoided doing any of the experiments that I need / actually should be doing for my defense. Instead, I've been revisiting some old data from the abnormal grain growth in nanocrystalline nickel, as well as generating synthetic microstructures with annealing twins to match real FCC microstructures. Neither of which, at the end of the day, will end up in my thesis.
So I gave my update yesterday on these two topics and the corrections that were made such that everything is "right" now. As the three of us were leaving the room, Tony made the remark that I looked like I was on the "right track".
I was on the right track for doing research that wasn't related to my thesis, especially when I'm expected to graduate in the next four or so months?
This led me to think, what is the right track for a PhD study (and for the purposes of this discussion focusing on US institutions). Should one focus on publishing three papers and get out? I know this is quite popular. Or should one just do whatever their adviser tells them to do, without question, and eventually follow the path given to their defense (with whatever publications along the way). Or should one do what I've been doing, which is investigating three or four things all at once, such that one almost never makes strong progress on their work (or the other things either), but gain exposure to lots of other things for a more well-rounded scientist upon leaving?
I hope to update and write more frequently on this topic over the next few weeks.
Obviously every project, student, and advisor combination is different. Each program has different requirements as well. I think it would have been helpful to have a discussion about this early on in the PhD (or even in college when you are thinking about whether to go to grad school). Ultimately, it's up to the student to determine what he/she wants to get out of his/her PhD. Some prefer a lot of structure, others like the freedom. Some want exposure to as much as possible, others are just happy in their little niche. The only thing is, it's going to be hard to change past a certain point. So whatever path is taken, whether it may be "right" or not, just keep on traveling.
ReplyDelete