Navigating the troubled waters of PhD

by Prof. Basudev Biswal 

Pursuing PhD is challenging for many reasons, the main one being the confusion surrounding it, partly created by memes and misinformation about PhD struggles on the internet. Many students start PhD with the notion that it’s simply a continuation of their academic journey. In reality, it requires a different level of intellectual rigor. In a blog post I wrote in 2019, I provided a few suggestions for prospective PhD students. In this post, I highlight the importance of being independent during PhD. Broadly, there are two types of PhDs: Type 1 PhD: The adviser hands over a problem statement (research proposal). The student conducts literature reviews to figure out the steps for execution. The student and adviser work together to do the analysis, discuss the results, and frame the story to publish the findings. Type 2 PhD: The student conducts literature reviews and comes up with a problem statement. The adviser helps the student polish the problem statement. The student executes the plan with or without support from the adviser and frames a story to publish the results. The adviser helps improve communication. Type 1 PhD is much more common, either because the student does not know how PhD actually works or because the adviser already has a plan for the student. Type 1 PhD is less risky. Your adviser knows the expected outcomes, and publication is easier if the adviser has a strong publication track record. Type 2 PhD is riskier. If the plan doesn’t work out, you have only yourself to blame. Publication is difficult because the adviser may not be familiar with the approach or methods. Type 2 PhD, if successful, gives you a lot of confidence. You are more likely to be successful after your PhD. However, if successful, Type 2 PhD gives you a lot of confidence, making you more likely to succeed after your PhD. The two scenarios I have outlined here are an effort to highlight the contrast between two broad possibilities: reliance on the adviser (Type 1) and eagerness for independence (Type 2). Since PhD is a learning process or a journey rather than a fixed template, every student should seek to transition from Type 1 to Type 2 to maximize the learning experience, unless starting without hand-holding seems too risky. One reason why a big percentage of students remain comfortable with Type 1 PhD is due to the lack of understanding of how PhD actually works. Once a student speaking to me was very upset because his adviser gave a nice problem statement to his lab mate, not to him. This entitlement stems from pure ignorance. If you have done Type 1 PhD and think that publications in good journals alone will help you to secure a job, there may be disappointment waiting for you. You need to look back and make efforts to understand the reasoning behind your adviser’s problem statement. While I strongly recommend to be an independent thinker, I must warn that the Type 2 path must be taken with a lot of caution as there is a risk of getting drawn into a conflict with the adviser. Consider the scenarios below for clarity.

1. The PhD position is funded by an external agency, and the project plan is largely predetermined before the student joins. The adviser is under pressure to deliver. In this case, there is limited scope for independent thinking while formulating the research proposal. However, if the main part of the project is completed, the adviser may allow the student to use the remaining time for independent exploration.
2. The student proposes a case study that seems likely to yield a quick publication. However, the adviser is not impressed as he/she sees little scope for original contributions. Concerns like this should be taken seriously and discussed openly.
3. The adviser disagrees with the student’s research proposal, either because of unfamiliarity with the subject or because he/she doubts the student’s ability to handle it independently. This situation can be tricky. If you are strongly convinced of your proposal, attempt to persuade your adviser. If that fails, try to formulate another proposal that you both agree on. As a last option you might consider changing the adviser. This is possible only when the fund is with the student (the student has received a fellowship). It should be noted that most PhD positions in India are created by fellowships, whereas most positions in the USA are created by sponsored projects given to professors. To my knowledge, Europe stands somewhere in between.

Overall, maintaining open communication with your adviser is essential. Have a lot of patience when handling disagreements. Don’t doubt your adviser’s intentions. Remember, almost all advisers genuinely want their students to succeed after their PhD. (The article first appeared in Medium in October, 2024)