Multiple PhD Advisors - good or bad idea?

[MrWizard454]

Hello all,

So I just recently finished my first semester in a PhD program and now find myself in the situation of having to choose a research group before the end of January and I have a couple different options open which I was hoping to get some input on, each with different positives attached.

My first lab rotation was in a synthesis group which was insanely fun making all sorts of diverse materials. The group members' dynamic is great, but the PI isn't readily available and can often be harsh on his students, sometimes going beyond criticizing just their work in comments. My second round was with a photonics group. The PI is often available, is very friendly, and a great all around advisor. When I mentioned my first lab group, he brought up the possibility of working with both groups as a joint appointment and I got the impression he had a project in mind for me to possibly work on which (from his comments) matched up really well with my work from my 1st rotation. Just for some context, I'm a huge fan of nanosynthesis and photonics and pretty much spent the 6 months leading up to the start of the program researching these fields as much as I could. I definitely love the work so when the possibility of a joint appointment was brought up, I couldn't imagine a better way to putting together two different fields, with different skill sets/resources/approaches to research which I see as beneficial. But I'm also unfamiliar with how joint appointments work- I've heard they require very clear, regular communication with both PI's to make sure everyone is on the same page.

My third option actually consists of several professors who are considered a part of a single "group" and they're a little more discrete as the research itself goes. I took a course with one of the professors and I know him to be an outstanding scientist/mentor/advisor (and have heard great things about the others in the group) and they have amazing collaborations, but the work itself is just not something I'm quite as enthusiastic about, at least relative to the above mentioned PI's.

I was just curious what others' experiences were with this sort of thing and what they would recommend in this type of situation.

Thanks in advance for the help and happy holidays.

Edited December 27, 2015 by MrWizard454

[metallocene2015]

Hi there, 

I am actually in a bit of a similar situation as you, except that a) I am in a MSc program (but applying for a PhD) and that at my current institution, we call this "co-advising". In my case, my school lists Prof.A as my advisor even though I don't actually work in his lab but rather in Prof.B's lab at another institution. This is because of regulations at Prof.B's institution that do not allow him to take on students from other institutions and because of credit-counting purposes (my seminar and research training classes list me as Prof.A's student). Usually, I would be assigned to work on something that is relevant to the research interests of both labs- in this case, since Prof.A works in chemical biology and Prof.B works in synthetic organic chem, Prof.B would have me working on say synthesizing molecules that Prof.A needs for his research and then do some further functionalization on them. In cases where Prof.A doesn't really have such needs, I would simply work on something that Prof.B is interested in. If I publish something, both professors get to put their names on the paper but only Prof.A would sign off on my master's thesis (since I am registered as a Prof.A's student).I'm not sure whether my story would be helpful since cases like mine are pretty rare (at least in my current school) and are thus treated on a case-by-case basis. But yes, you are right about these two professors needing to be in clear and regular communication with each other- luckily,this isn't usually a problem since people who would agree to this arrangement usually already know each other (as in my case where Prof.A and Prof.B did their postdocs in the same school and are already friends). If joint appointment isn't an option for you, it sounds to me like the second PI is a better choice. I did my undergraduate research and half a semester of graduate research with a PI (now ex-PI) that was not only unavailable, condescending and rude but that also refused to change a lot of the equipment in the lab that obviously needed to be changed (rotavaps with broken heat baths, nitrogen lines with nitrogen that isn't dry, completely nonfunctional dry solvent systems, missing or unusable chemicals, etc) and it made my life so miserable that I almost thought about giving up my degree. Trust me, you do not want someone who puts you down in front of the entire lab during group meetings or someone who tells you to "figure it out yourself" when you've been stuck on a problem for months. 

 

Good luck !

Edited December 28, 2015 by metallocene2015
typo

[St Andrews Lynx]

I've rarely seen a truly joint appointment: people I've seen usually end up with one advisor who has slightly more responsibility for you than the other. 

I would see if there is the possibility of a collaboration with the other group, rather than an official joint appointment. That way you'd be answerable to 1 PI, but still able to conduct "joint" research. 

 

[rising_star]

It's always easier to please one boss (or PI) than two. In that sense, I agree with the advice of @St Andrews Lynx, in that being answerable to only one PI is preferable if at all possible. I definitely know of people who have had co-advisors for their PhD or Master's, though none of those were in the lab sciences.

[aberrant]

I personally know a few friends with co-PIs.

• 1st friend's situation is similar to what @St Andrews Lynx said: he works for PI #1 all time (structural biology & biophysics), despite the fact that he has a PI #2 (physics) listed.
• 2nd friend has a co-PI where he spend 60-70% in the lab of PI #1 and the rest in the lab of PI #2, he works on a collaborative project.
• 3rd friend had a co-PI -- my PI and another PI for a collaborative project. Ultimately, however, that project is done before he completed his first year, so he simply joined my lab.

In other words, to have actual co-PI / co-advisors, the two PIs are very likely needed to be working as a pair of collaborative partners. I, at one point, was hoping to be co-advised by 2 different labs of interested so that I can learn things from two different disciplines. After talking to both POIs, however, they basically said that "because we haven't established anything before, so we basically have no experimental data for grants. Because there is no grant on this potential/possible collaborative project, it is unlikely that this collaboration will happen."

Often times, our research topic(s) are restricted by funding issues.

[MrWizard454]

Thank you everyone for the insightful responses. 

It definitely sounds like, while joint projects are possible, they tend to gravitate towards one single direction (or lab in this case). Depending on how things go, it looks like there may be some hard decisions in the next few weeks. 

As a hypothetical, does it help in any way if one of the PI's has already thought about a number of different projects where the two groups "overlap", or is this just a natural consequence of different components of research all having different paces? 

[aberrant]

3 hours ago, MrWizard454 said:

As a hypothetical, does it help in any way if one of the PI's has already thought about a number of different projects where the two groups "overlap", or is this just a natural consequence of different components of research all having different paces? 

It definitely helps. What I noticed, however, is that one PI (PI #1) would collaborate with another PI (PI #2) often because the PI #2 has the skills and knowledge to perform experiments that PI #1 cannot do (reasons can be funding, skills, etc.), but with the data/support from PI #2, the hypothesis (it's science after all) originated from PI #1 can be significantly strengthen through collaboration (leads to potential "bigger" paper, grant, etc.). As a result, PI #1 would proposed a collaboration with PI #2.

It seems to me that a single collaborative project are somewhat difficult to equally benefit both labs of PI #1 and PI #2. So if you ever noticed any labs / PIs are long-term collaborators, they must have more than 1 collaborative project that, in a long run, make research from both parties mutually beneficial. Example can be: Natural organic synthesis lab with a biochemistry lab; a cell biology/biochemistry lab with a bioinformatics lab or a structural biology lab; a computational chemistry group with a biochemistry/biophysics lab; etc.

That being said, goes back to your question in the very first post and your most recent post -- it helps if they already have something in mind. Go ahead and follow up with them! For the concerns that you may have, I would just say that as long as you keep yourself professional, you will be just fine despite all the possible obstacles (interpersonal'wise, research'wise, etc.)

Edited December 30, 2015 by aberrant