Want some PhD guidance

[Capt_BlackAdder]

Hello everyone,

I was just hoping on getting input from other PhD students.

I am a soon to be 3rd year engineering PhD student and I have passed my qualifying examinations. The problem I have at this moment is that I don't feel like I am doing any worthwhile research. Let me explain. Over the course of the past two years, my adviser has switched me between almost four projects. Needless to say, I am not an expert on any of the four topics because one does not become an expert in the course of four-five months. The topics are somewhat interrelated, but each of them can be categorized in a separate field of research. Currently, It does not seem like the thing I am working on is long term either. I have communicated this to my adviser, but he seems to ignore it and keep me busy with work. I should mention here that my advisor communicates very frequently with his students, that is he is not the type of adviser that asks what a student has done after a couple of weeks, he asks what a student has done after a couple of days.

The second biggest problem is, as I mentioned, that I don't feel like I'm actually doing PhD level work. In the end, all my adviser asks of me is to run a million simulations and then derive conclusions from simulations. That's it. All of it is something "suggested" by simulations. There is no solid theoretical backing to any of the work I have done. Sure there are some equations involved here and there, but these are just about the setup of the problem, there is no theoretical analysis. I always hoped that ultimately, we will dig into the theory and understand why something happens in a certain way, but he is just satisfied by simulations. This is something I feel that an undergraduate can do. Let me try to explain what type of research I do with an analogy:

Suppose my research group made a car, and let's assume that a BMW is the best possible car. So for my first test, I remove one tire from both cars and do a drag race. Then I remove the roof from both cars and do another drag race. This goes on till I have done about a million tests. Then I conclude that our car works better than the BMW when both have no roof. Stuff like that.

I honestly do not feel like I have learned anything significantly, or grown mentally after working with my adviser. On paper, he looks absolutely brilliant, but working with him for two years has revealed to me that he has diversified his research interests to an area that he is not a 100% expert on, and now relies on simulations to make conclusions. Every other student in the group is ok with this because ultimately they will have a PhD, but I am least bit interested in a piece of paper and a title of Dr. before my name. I do not want to dedicate any more time of my life to running simulations because that is something I already know how to do and it is not an activity that I gain anything from. In short, I do not feel that the course of my research will result in me being an expert in anything.

Honestly speaking, I am thinking of confronting my adviser about this, but this is not something easy to do. I am pretty sure he will drop the "what do you want to work on then?" question, to which I don't really have a solid answer. The fact that he himself is not an expert in this field makes me worried that I might pick something in which he cannot guide me at all, but even that is something I prefer to running mindless simulations.

I am quite lost.

[wtncffts]

I can't relate to that kind of control by an advisor because it seems far removed from the social sciences norm. I'm assuming, since you've passed your exams, that you're working on your dissertation. I don't know how it works in engineering; isn't your dissertation research supposed to be your own? The situation you describe sounds more like you're just an employee of the advisor and not a fledgling independent scholar, which I assume is the point of grad school. I might be underestimating the difficulty, but if you want to look at the more theoretical aspects involved, couldn't you take some initiative and try to work out something on your own? Perhaps you can change the state in which you don't have a "solid answer" to the question you brought up. If all else fails, is there the option of changing advisors?

[newms]

Have you communicated your concerns with your advisor? You mention that you are thinking about confronting him, but do you have regular communication where you feel secure enough to give him your honest opinion on what you're thinking right now? If you haven't I suggest you do, since as wtncffts says- you really should be a fledgling independent researcher, rather than just an employee of your advisor.

[Arcadian]

What project did you want to work on when you started with the program? Since you're so opposed to these simulations, that couldn't have been your goal from the start. What research attracted you to the program?

[ogopo]

You definitely need to take charge of the situation. Like Arcadian said, what drew you to research here in the first place? You are likely interested in a lot of things but you need to find one project and stick to it. If your prof says, "what do you wanna do then?" good! Just make sure you have an answer. If your prof doesn't have the expertise, could you bring aboard a co-supervisor? (This would work at my current university in Canada, I don't know about your school). Use your supervisor's wide range to your benefit. Find something that your supervisor dabbles in that you are interested in then bring aboard either a co-supervisor or strong committee members that know something about the field. A good scientist should be able to recognize when he/she is limited in a field and collaborate to make up the difference.

If all else fails though, talk to the department head. If your supervisor is just using his students as cheap labour and is unwilling to change, get out and find a new supervisor.

[Capt_BlackAdder]

Thanks for the replies.

It seems like communication is the best route to finding a solution here.