pigeonholing and research

[phdthoughts]

Does anyone worry about being pigeonholed with current research? My thesis topic was rather nontraditional in subject and although I see the field pretty well exploding in the next 20 years, it's a bit on the fringes at the moment. Although my thesis itself was well received, and continues to be, I think I need to take a broader approach with my dissertation. It would be amazing if I came away working as a professor, but I'm not going to count on it, and want to make myself as marketable as possible to other sectors. I'm thinking of these things as I start to write my SOP, and deciding on where to apply. How much does this even matter at this point in the game?

[TakeruK]

This may depend on the field.

I think it matters but not to as much of an extent as some people think it does. When I talked to my undergrad thesis advisor about picking grad school research topics, the advice I got was to make sure it's something that will still be interesting to the field in 5 ish years when I graduate. You don't want to do a project that only you and a handful of other people care about for your graduate work. 

The trouble is that it's hard to predict what will be "hot" in a few years. At least in my field, things move quickly! For example, the current popular model for planet formation (where almost all the work is happening) became so in 2012, just 3 years ago. 

However, some things in my field also move very slowly. For example, there are no currently confirmed mission plans to send probes or anything to Uranus or Neptune. These missions take decades to plan, get funded, build, launch, arrive, and then finally send data back. So, I don't think the subfield of studying these planets with data is going to grow at all for the next few decades, unfortunately. Also, Cassini, the current mission at Saturn is going to end shortly (but there will still be data to work on for a long time afterwards). On the other hand, there are multiple Mars missions in the works and Juno, a mission to Jupiter, is arriving next July. There will lots of interest and data from these topics to work on for the next few years! 

You should also remember that (at least in my field), your PhD topic is not going to be your lifelong speciality. It's literally just the first step of your career! Most faculty members I know start their postdoc with work related to the field and then slowly branch out to other subfields and topics. Usually, in my field, by the time you are tenured, you will have strong research programs in more than just your PhD thesis topic! 

Overall, I think the take-away message is that you should think certainly about your future and the future of your field when deciding on your dissertation topic. However, you should definitely remember that trends will change, your own interests will change, and that it's possible to do other work after your PhD! Also, I would think this advice best applies when you are already partway through grad school and finally picking a dissertation topic, rather than at the application stage. Of course, where you apply affects what work you can do, but at this stage, as long as you are applying to places with multiple professors you would work with and multiple potential dissertation topics, you are not going to pigeonhole yourself yet

Edited September 29, 2015 by TakeruK

[phdthoughts]

This may depend on the field.

I think it matters but not to as much of an extent as some people think it does. When I talked to my undergrad thesis advisor about picking grad school research topics, the advice I got was to make sure it's something that will still be interesting to the field in 5 ish years when I graduate. You don't want to do a project that only you and a handful of other people care about for your graduate work. 

The trouble is that it's hard to predict what will be "hot" in a few years. At least in my field, things move quickly! For example, the current popular model for planet formation (where almost all the work is happening) became so in 2012, just 3 years ago. 

However, some things in my field also move very slowly. For example, there are no currently confirmed mission plans to send probes or anything to Uranus or Neptune. These missions take decades to plan, get funded, build, launch, arrive, and then finally send data back. So, I don't think the subfield of studying these planets with data is going to grow at all for the next few decades, unfortunately. Also, Cassini, the current mission at Saturn is going to end shortly (but there will still be data to work on for a long time afterwards). On the other hand, there are multiple Mars missions in the works and Juno, a mission to Jupiter, is arriving next July. There will lots of interest and data from these topics to work on for the next few years! 

You should also remember that (at least in my field), your PhD topic is not going to be your lifelong speciality. It's literally just the first step of your career! Most faculty members I know start their postdoc with work related to the field and then slowly branch out to other subfields and topics. Usually, in my field, by the time you are tenured, you will have strong research programs in more than just your PhD thesis topic! 

Overall, I think the take-away message is that you should think certainly about your future and the future of your field when deciding on your dissertation topic. However, you should definitely remember that trends will change, your own interests will change, and that it's possible to do other work after your PhD! Also, I would think this advice best applies when you are already partway through grad school and finally picking a dissertation topic, rather than at the application stage. Of course, where you apply affects what work you can do, but at this stage, as long as you are applying to places with multiple professors you would work with and multiple potential dissertation topics, you are not going to pigeonhole yourself yet

Thank you! This puts things in perspective. My field is in Communications, and there are some topics that are popular and mainstream and found across the board in almost every school. For example, computer mediated communication or media studies come to mind. I feel like every field has those interest areas where you could throw a stone at any department and hit three faculty members who would be willing to work with you. Mine, unfortunately is not one of those. I also have another consideration, which is my spouse who, don't get me wrong....is my wonderful, supportive cheerleader through all this, but who has voiced concerns about my studying a narrow topic. And, he should - like you said, I don't want my work to only matter to the other 10 people in my field. On the other hand, sometimes is hard to describe to someone who isn't fully entrenched in academia that I can't just pick something I'm mildly interested in, otherwise I won't get through it.

[TakeruK]

I can't just pick something I'm mildly interested in, otherwise I won't get through it.

I think this is a common feeling among many academics (but also non-academics can understand this). I just want to point out that the amount that this applies could depend on the person. Also, maybe a different perspective may help here: 

When I came to pick my topic, I didn't really choose it based on my interest in the inherent nature of the things I'm studying. I presented my thesis plan to my committee earlier this year. A year ago today, I knew what kind of planetary object I would study but not the big question I wanted to answer. And when I was applying to grad school (and even when I chose my current school), I did not even know that I would be studying "hot Jupiters". 

Personally, my interests are more of a process-driven rather than content/topic driven. So, I agree with you that having some passion/interest towards my work have helped me get through the tough times in grad school, but I didn't need to be deeply interested in "hot Jupiters" in order to pick this topic. I am much more interested in the methods used to study these objects and my main goal in my PhD is develop a certain skillset that will help me study whatever planetary topics I want later on. 

And honestly, I feel that during the course of a PhD, the day-to-day life becomes less and less about the actual topic of study and instead more and more about the small individual processes and methods you do to make tiny incremental discoveries. I feel like I could be just as happy using the same telescopes and performing the same studies whether I'm looking at "hot Jupiters" or any other planetary science object. 

I'm not sure if one can just "choose" to be interested in the process. But, for me, I found that it is very convenient that my passion is in the "how" science gets done and not the "what" that is studied. This allows me to develop useful skills and switch projects/subfields when I need to.

I didn't always think like this--I used to think that I was interested in one particular thing only--asteroids and their orbits. It was what I worked on for my undergrad thesis. I was applying for grad school for this topic and writing research interest essays etc. My undergrad advisor read them and said that it's great that I loved my undergrad work with him so much, but how do I really know that asteroids is really the thing that makes me tick and want to get up in the morning? What if it was just one of many possible things? So, I thought more deeply about what made me love research and what motivated me to go to grad school and then also tried doing research on other planetary objects. That's when I learned what my true passions were! 

So, if you are feeling like you might not be interested in a different subfield but want to open up more opportunities, maybe thinking about what about your specific project that makes you happy and see if you can find similar things in other subfields. It might also help to consider the process itself a passion---most people, including me, seem to overlook the process and only focus on the end product / the big picture story. But the reality is that grad school is all about the tedious tiny details from the process and if you hate the process/techniques/methodologies, then sometimes, having a super interesting topic might not be enough either!

Edited September 29, 2015 by TakeruK

[phdthoughts]

TankeruK - You've given me a lot to think about about with your reply, hence my long delay in response! When I was completing my thesis, it was a lot about the process. I mean, I loved the subject, but what remained interesting to me was indeed, the methods, and how I was getting there. I actually really liked the tedium of some of it, and the other methodologies we studied. I suppose I had not thought about it in those terms before. Very good advice.

Edited October 4, 2015 by phdthoughts

[rising_star]

To give another example, phdthoughts, the topics I studied during my master's and my PhD are different but they're united by using a similar theoretical framework and methodological toolbox. So, you might want to think of sort of "big tent" topics which would use the same methods and theories you're interested in. Then, you could not only frame your specific research so it's clear how it fits into that but also potentially do side projects which also relate to the "big tent" area. 

Predicting what will be popular in 5-6 years is insanely hard. One of the most popular subfields in my discipline now was fledgling at best when I started my PhD. Had I known it would be the thing that everyone was searching for, I might have found a way to integrate it into what I do (again, by taking the big tent approach and doing a side project in a slightly different area) but, I didn't. I'm moving somewhat in that direction now but it'll never be what it could have been if I'd done it during my PhD. That's just something you have to accept, if that makes sense.