Assigned paper topic at PhD level?

[Still ignorant]

So I am a first year PhD student in my first semester of coursework. I am taking a course in an area that is outside my discipline, and my professor has been very kind toward me for whatever reason.  She sees that I am enjoying the class but that it is not easy for me. I've articulated both in private and during class discussion about some of the methodological challenges that I'm facing. But she thinks that I am actually doing well based on our class discussions and some small assignments that we've done so far. 

Anyway, she knows that I'm struggling to find a paper topic, so she offered one to me that I might like. I am definitely thankful for her thoughtfulness, but what does it mean when a professor offers a paper topic? Does it mean that she doesn't think I am competent to come up with one on my own?

Incidentally, I came up with my own paper topic at the same time, but I don't know if it's a good one. I think hers will gain some traction as she mentioned that the ultimate goal of these papers is for journal submission, and she is one of the experts in her field. 

Should I just take her topic? Or would it be better for me to go with my own topic? Personally, both are very interesting so I don't have a preference. Hers will require much more work whereas I'm not sure if mine will be substantial enough for a full fledged journal article. But hers is basically an application of her dissertation, whereas mine would be a nuanced way of interacting with an ongoing discussion that seems to be reaching a scholarly (and, in my opinion, a myopic) consensus.

[dr. t]

I mean, there are topics and then there are Topics. Is this a topic like "maybe think about the question posed by the juxtaposition of X and Y", or is this a Topic like "Read A, B, and C, then apply method D to primary source E"?

[fuzzylogician]

Why read anything into it? The professor is being supportive, and that's a good thing. If it were me, I would bring up my idea and ask what she thought about it, then choose the one that I think would make for a better topic and paper. Having a paper that's a lot more work but is outside your area of expertise isn't necessarily the best choice. If it's so much outside your field that people won't be able to evaluate the paper and the prestige of the journal it's in, there is something to be said for getting the fastest and easiest publication. But if she's giving you a topic that could be a well-regarded publication in a respected journal in your field, why not run with it? She may be helping you with the topic, but you'd be doing the work.

[TakeruK]

I second everything fuzzy said  

[Still ignorant]

Thanks for the quick and helpful responses. Her topic would be working with more primary sources than mine, but both are quite primary-source oriented. Her topic is actually very interesting and exciting. My only reluctance is that I've been reading too much into the idea of not using my own topic and also the extra work that it would involve since I've done my preliminary research for my topic already along with a tentative bibliography. However, with hers I already have the methodology while mine would require additional work in finding the right method(s). Also, my topic may not warrant a full 20-25 page research project (unless if I elaborate on my methodology) while hers can go well beyond that page length. 

I emailed and asked her what she thought. I think at this point my main criterion is relevance to scholarship in hopes to get something published. But I always feel apprehensive about making my aim for publication so transparent to professors. Am I again reading too much into this weird apprehension? 

[TakeruK]

1 hour ago, Still ignorant said:

Am I again reading too much into this weird apprehension? 

In my opinion, yes, you're reading too much into everything (both this apprehension and the assigned topic). 

This part may depend on the field, but I don't understand the apprehension about the desire to get something published. Yes, there is the consideration that you may look a little silly/over-eager to suggest that something be submitted for publication when it is definitely not ready, or if the intention of the class' term paper is not to get something at the publication level.

But in general, especially outside of classes, there's nothing wrong with being transparent about your aim of a publication. At least in my field, that's the only reason to do anything at all. The first question I usually get asked when I start thinking about a new project is "what will the publication be on?" (i.e. what new answer would this work provide?). If there's no clear question to answer then there's usually not a good reason to do the work (not that the work is worthless, it usually just means I have to do more background reading to be able to see how this new work would fit into the existing literature). Also, the main questions I get each year at my committee meeting is something like "where are your projects at and what are your publications plan for the next year?" 

[marXian]

I don't know that much about publishing in the sciences, so correct me here if I'm wrong. But my impression is that publishing in the humanities is, generally, quite different from publishing in the sciences primarily because in the humanities, we can't publish "incomplete" or "failed" research. In other words, whatever argument we're making, we have to be really really confident that we have a new angle on something and that we're right. My impression of the sciences, however, is that it's more acceptable to publish "works in progress" so to speak, because everything is a work in progress. All research is always, in some sense, "incomplete" but our journal articles are expected to stand the test of time as much as possible, whereas, I think, the results of most science publications are assumed to be surpassed and obsolete within a relatively short amount of time. Because of that, it's not that common for humanities PhD students to publish more than two or three articles during their time as students. Some don't publish anything except for maybe one dissertation chapter along the way.

All of that said, I agree with the mods that you're reading into things too much. If a professor from outside of your field thinks you've written something good enough to develop into a publishable article, that's fantastic. But you should be talking with your adviser about publications as well. Some advisers feel strongly about their first, second, or even third year students not trying to publish. As I alluded to above, arguments that turn out to be shaky could come back to bite you later. Because of that, some advisers feel better about publishing once students are candidates (i.e. have passed their quals/comps). 

[TakeruK]

2 hours ago, marXian said:

I don't know that much about publishing in the sciences, so correct me here if I'm wrong. But my impression is that publishing in the humanities is, generally, quite different from publishing in the sciences primarily because in the humanities, we can't publish "incomplete" or "failed" research. In other words, whatever argument we're making, we have to be really really confident that we have a new angle on something and that we're right. My impression of the sciences, however, is that it's more acceptable to publish "works in progress" so to speak, because everything is a work in progress. All research is always, in some sense, "incomplete" but our journal articles are expected to stand the test of time as much as possible, whereas, I think, the results of most science publications are assumed to be surpassed and obsolete within a relatively short amount of time. Because of that, it's not that common for humanities PhD students to publish more than two or three articles during their time as students. Some don't publish anything except for maybe one dissertation chapter along the way.

Interesting! In the sciences, there is certainly no expectation that a journal article "stands the test of time", but instead, just that the article is correct based on knowledge at the time of publication. Because of this, there are some cases where one may be rushed to publish something, for example, when the New Horizons mission to Pluto finally reached Pluto this July, it was going to get a lot of very conclusive and interesting data. Hence, a lot of people who had theories on what Pluto's atmosphere may be like was rushing to publish prior to July before the data showed one way or another. That way, if they were wrong, their theory was still published (it could be useful for other planets) and if they were right, then that's great. 

But I think this is not the norm and we don't really publish "work in progress". It has to be a complete idea before it can be published! And not all science fields publish super frequently. Some of my work require years of data collection. Other friends in other fields take 4-5 years to create the protocol through trial and error before they can get results. 

I didn't realise there was an active pressure to not publish though. I agree that sometimes in the first few years, you're not going to be able to get the work to the publishable state. But even so, in the sciences, the only reason to do any work is that eventually, although it may take many more years to refine, that it will become a publication. Outside of class projects and some Master theses, there is no reason to do any other research other than publication (why do research just for the learning experience when you can do a project that leads to a paper and also learn along the way).

[fuzzylogician]

FWIW, linguistics sounds basically like what TakeruK is describing. Students don't publish very often and the publication cycle itself takes much longer that in the sciences, from what I can tell, but the principle is the same. You don't publish "work in progress," but the goal is not a paper that "stands the test of time." My goal for a paper is not that it will "stand the test of time," maybe because I'm not even exactly sure what that means, but instead I all hope for is that (a) I think it's an interesting idea that should be out there, and (b) I don't know that it's wrong when it's accepted for publication. I fully expect some parts of my proposals to be incomplete or incorrect or for others to later improve upon them. But I hope that the data I contribute is interesting and important to the community, even if it's later used for another theory, and I hope that the ideas are useful, however they might later be used. If you write your paper well, and if your readers are savvy readers, it's possible to use parts of a proposal without necessarily buying the whole. You might agree that a phenomenon is as I describe it but not agree with why, or you might like my idea but not think my data is conclusive, or you might find my data interesting but disagree with how I characterize what's going on, that's all fine. All I hope for is that the paper contributes something. Once in a while it's nice to also have bigger contributions, that people adopt and use wholesale and think are insightful, but not every paper needs to be like that. Some just report some new data and a proposed analysis, and nothing more. 

The only time I would think it's good to advise someone not to publish is along the same lines as TakeruK laid out. Alternatively, if you have a big paper in the works, you might want to hold onto it longer and publish it in a high-impact journal, instead of writing several lower-impact papers, but that's a judgment call on a case by case basis.