Is it wrong to want to be passionate about my research?

[walkmaster]

Do graduate students have to do whatever research is available, regardless of their interests? If you've had a harder time than you thought getting into grad school, do you suck it up and do whatever you have to do to get your degree at wherever you're accepted? Is it wrong for me to be picky about which lab I join when it's hard to find a lab of interest that has funding?

I'm a masters student and I just finished my first year of grad school. I have spent the last year in a lab doing research I'm not that interested in, and my advisor and I have just recently decided that I'm not a good fit. She says it's not due to my performance; we just don't communicate very well and our work styles are too different (i.e. I'm a perfectionist and can be too cautious, hence I work slowly). However, I'm actually not that upset that I don't have an advisor right now, because I didn't actually want to be in her lab. 

The question is, do I try to join another lab at my own institution, even if it means that once again I'm researching a topic I'm not interested, or do I try to transfer to another institution where I can actually have a passion for my research?

For years, well at the beginning of my, I knew that no matter what career direction, I wanted to go to graduate school and study a topic that I was really, truly interested. My dream was to be PASSIONATE about my research; not do lab work as a chore, but because I genuinely wanted to. 

However... my graduate life turned out to be nothing like I hoped it would be. Despite having a BS in Molecular Biology with a GPA of 3.45 and GRE scores of 156 (verbal), 160 (quantitative) and 4.5 (essay), I didn't get into school nearly as easily as I hoped I would. I applied to ten different schools, and only got into one (my safety school... and my last choice). Some schools I knew I wouldn't get into, but most I felt were right up my alley and suited my interests. I had already spent two years out of school getting research experience to strengthen my resume, but I really started to resent my job and didn't want to take any more time off, so I decided to enroll in my safety school.

Sadly, it turns out that my advisor of choice didn't actually have the funding I thought he did, so I had to settle for an advisor who, despite being incredibly nice, patient, and understanding, she was not doing the kind of research that I wanted to do. Also, she did not have enough funding for a full assistantship, so for this past year I've had to do work on the side in order to supplement my income, and there's no sign that that would ever change until I graduated. After a year study, she could tell that I was not a good fit for her lab. Still, she's offered to write a positive letter of recommendation should I want it, and I haven't actually been dismissed from her lab, so I'd like to think that that's a good sign.

The fact of the matter is, I'm just not satisfied with where I'm going to school. It's a nice school in a quaint little town, but I just can't find any professors whose work truly interests me.

I know that my credentials aren't THAT impressive, I know that there are literally THOUSANDS of applicants out there that have better grades and more research experience than me, and I know that applying to grad school isn't AT ALL easy, but I guess I still thought that there was room in the academic world for me to pursue my own interests.

So now I've got a dilemma. One choice is take a semester off (meanwhile doing some form of work to pay the bills) while waiting to see if I can get into a lab of interest at a different institution next spring, all at the risk of once again not getting into a school of interest.

The second choice is that I try to find a professor at my current school who already has funding, and do whatever research is available so I can finish my degree sooner than later.

Anyone have any experience with a situation like this?

I know that this is a long post, and I appreciate those of you who took the time to read it all the way through (pant, pant, cough, lol) but I'd really love some feedback, here. 

Thanks.

[Eigen]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that graduate school is about learning skills and developing abilities, rather than getting to pursue the research you've always dreamed of. 

I've had too many peers not end up with degrees, or end up taking years longer getting to the stage where they are independent researchers because they kept only wanting to work on projects that they "loved". 

Especially for a MS, where you'll only be there a couple of years, I'd buckle down, find a lab with funding, and graduate. You aren't tied to what you do as a grad student for the rest of your career, and getting a degree and moving on is the important part.

[fuzzylogician]

I'm with @Eigen. I think it's important to have some degree of satisfaction with what you do, and it's good to start out with a reasonable level of interest in your research project (but I think at some point in the development and writing of every large project, there will come a time when you hate it all, no matter how much you liked it initially). However, I think that this fantasy that you should only work on what you "love" or only what you are passionate about is a good way to set yourself up for disappointment. In every job you end up doing some things you like less, and research is no exception. I am not advocating for doing something you hate, but I am saying you need to have perspective. There are other factors that matter just as much as the topic, including your fit with your advisor, funding, where there is data, where there is interest in your field more broadly and what jobs are out there, and to some extent, luck. I've said more than once that I'd choose working with an advisor with a better fit but a less interesting topic over the other arrangement any time. This also holds now that I've graduated for picking topics that allow me to talk to those people who I enjoy having around me the most, even if it's a topic that I might not otherwise ever choose. 

You don't have to have your dream project right now -- certainly not for a Masters and I would argue also not necessarily for your PhD. I view my work in a much more pragmatic way; I have a broad set of interests, and what I pursue at a given time is influenced in large part by the people around me who I talk to and what their interests are, where the money is and what gets funded these days, what gets accepted at conferences, what job ads say they want (and who actually gets hired at the end of the day, a somewhat different metric), and what I actually have time and access to data for. I wouldn't do things I absolutely hate (for very long, if I can help it), but there are definitely things on my wish-list that I am not getting to right now because I think the time just isn't right. 

[TakeruK]

I am also of the opinion that graduate school and academia in general is actually work and you always have to do the work that has the funding. This is true in grad school (especially as Eigen said, this is about learning skills and developing experiences) but it will likely be at least partially true later on too. Unless you get a prize fellowship postdoc, you likely will be applying to specific postdoc positions where a PI has a research project in mind. Then, later, if you end up as a prof, you will be doing the research that you are able to win grants for. Of course, in these later stages, you have more control (in theory, if you are able to write a good grant, you will be able to do the work you want), but remember that everything is still driven by funding.

And I think this is an important thing to remember about academia and research. It is not about freely pursuing whatever thoughts and ideas you come up with. It is a job and your work costs money. If academia was about doing whatever you wanted, then we would be stuck in the old days where the only people who did science were rich, old guys who had time and money to do whatever thinking they'd like without worrying about paying bills etc. 

I'm saying this because of what you wrote in the middle of your post: 

"For years, well at the beginning of my, I knew that no matter what career direction, I wanted to go to graduate school and study a topic that I was really, truly interested. My dream was to be PASSIONATE about my research; not do lab work as a chore, but because I genuinely wanted to. 

However... my graduate life turned out to be nothing like I hoped it would be. "

So, my recommendation is to stop thinking about grad school (and academia) as a place where you are supposed to be following your passions and that the work you are doing is so amazing and lovely that it's not even work. Instead, the healthier mindset, in my opinion, is to first determine what exactly is it that you want to get out of graduate school. Is it a certain set of skills? Experience in a field/technique/model/experiment? 

Then, seek opportunities that meet these goals. The research topic should be secondary. I think the research topic only matters for two main factors: 1) don't work on something you absolutely hate and would be miserable doing (but you don't have to love it, just don't hate it), and 2) don't work on a topic that has no future in your field. Even if you really really love subtopic X, if the only people in the world doing subtopic X is a handful of people at a handful of schools, I'd say it's not a very good idea to make your career in that. Save your love for that topic as a hobby and pursue a career in the direction your field is moving.

Finally, maybe you do know this but could it be that your experience so far has been affected by the bad working style fit between you and your old advisor? Maybe working on a topic you don't like as much would not be so bad if you had a advisor you clicked really well with. In fact, I often advise students to pick the better advisor fit over the better research interest fit, because you can change your research interests but it's very unlikely that you will change how your advisor interacts with you. I feel that my "job satisfaction" is much more influenced by my relationship with my advisor than what I am researching.

[walkmaster]

Thank you guys! This is precisely what I needed to hear!

[biotechie]

As I've gotten further into my graduate career, I've realized that many students come into their PhD studies with the expectation that they'll work on their dream project. Very few do, and those that do choose the lab for the project rather than the PI or lab environment. You should definitely choose a lab in the field you're interested in, but save your dream project for the future, especially if you want to go into academia. Focus on learning the skills you will need to be successful: techniques, writing, presentations, teaching, etc.

I joined a lab by choosing the PI for their mentoring style and the lab environment (and ability to fund me) rather than by the project though a rotations program. Rotations are common in biomed, but I don't know if they work out that way in plant sciences. To be honest, this was a field I didn't even want to be in. However, now as a new fourth year, I'm in love with the field, have learned a ton of skills, and have completed all graduation requirements except my dissertation. I have an incredible PI to credit for pushing me and teaching me. I have become an interdisciplinary student, and will be able to take these skills with me into a post-doc, hopefully hitting the ground running and propelling me into my own funded research, and maybe a dream project. I'm about as happy as I think a graduate student working insane hours can be because I let myself be passionate about the science and all of the skills I'm learning and I have a great environment to do so. Is this my dream project? No. But I'm helping people and I'm adding knowledge to the database. And I have hope that one day, I'll have even more exciting things to be passionate about (and hopefully a better funding climate).

My peers that were not so careful in choosing a lab are struggling a little bit. Some have dropped out, some have changed labs, and others are just hanging in there. Dream project or no, not having a good environment to learn science in will break even those with the highest potential. Now I see how important it was that I came into my PhD knowing what I needed to look for in a lab, and I see that I am very lucky.

I'm telling you all of this because, as a masters student who claims they want to be passionate about their research, I can see you going for a PhD. When you do so, make sure you take what @Eigen, @fuzzylogician, and @TakeruK said to heart. Choose the lab that you think will provide the best learning environment for you. Make sure that you can have the guidance you need, learn many skills that will be useful, and do what it takes to turn yourself into the best scientist you can become. For now, find a way to finish your MS or start a PhD program if that is what you really feel you should do. Once you decide, be passionate about learning until you find your research niche. It is hard at first, but it pays off.

[St Andrews Lynx]

On 24 June 2016 at 0:27 AM, walkmaster said:

I'm a masters student and I just finished my first year of grad school. I have spent the last year in a lab doing research I'm not that interested in, and my advisor and I have just recently decided that I'm not a good fit. She says it's not due to my performance; we just don't communicate very well and our work styles are too different (i.e. I'm a perfectionist and can be too cautious, hence I work slowly). However, I'm actually not that upset that I don't have an advisor right now, because I didn't actually want to be in her lab. 

I can't really add more to what the other posters have said about passion/research fit, since I agree with them. I wanted to comment on this part of your post, though.

Grad school isn't the place to be a perfectionist. You need to have ~5 years' worth of data to show for it before your advisor will let you defend. You'll (probably) need to have several publications on your CV, or whatever is appropriate to your sub-field. Your research output (however it is defined by your advisor, sub-field, future recruiters) should at a minimum be comparable to your peers who you will be competing against for jobs/$$$/postdocs.

It's also the case that there's only so much perfection you can imbibe your work with. I have this project with an [insert important variable here] value of 95%. It could take me a year of exertion to raise that variable to 98%...maybe...but that won't necessarily make a difference between manuscript acceptance/rejection, or even allow me to submit to a higher-impact journal. And even if 95% vs. 98% does make a difference where the manuscript ends up...the odds are my time will be better spent accepting the loss and moving on to my next project. 

Your research will be much stronger if you pay attention to details and plan carefully...but that's only up to a point. And sometimes, a "reasonably-competent" result is all you need. I think that learning when to be careful and when to aim for rough competency is an important part of the PhD process. 

One of the themes of grad school life in general is that you will encounter failure and you will make mistakes. I think it's better to accept those facts and learn to bounce back quickly/improve on reiterations, rather than wasting all your energy on trying to avoid those outcomes. 

[Apogeee]

On 6/23/2016 at 7:27 PM, walkmaster said:

The second choice is that I try to find a professor at my current school who already has funding, and do whatever research is available so I can finish my degree sooner than later.

Anyone have any experience with a situation like this?

I agree with everything the posters above have said.

Your experience isn't unusual. It doesn't seem to matter the discipline. Just finding out that the research you do winds up being shaped by the work of your advisors can really be a difficult wake-up call. Somewhere along the line, undergraduate advisors neglect to explain what graduate school would really be like. But now you know. If I were you, I'd vote for that second choice, and finish your degree. 

If you have professors you trust whom you can really talk to, you may be able to ask them about their own experience in research. I think you will find that most of them were able to find value in their projects, even when those projects weren't their initial favorite. Passion is intrinsic: it comes from you, not the project you're working on. Bring your passion to what you are doing, rather than trying to extract it from the project. It's a different mindset.