PhD Thesis - "Novel" vs. "Short Stories"

[Roark]

My adviser and I have some disagreements about what my thesis should look like. I am a proponent of a single specific theme that encompasses the entire work. He believes in tying many different projects together with a much broader theme.

I have been involved in a variety of projects (In order of amount of work completed):
1. Surfactant Solvation (how do soap-like molecules interact with solvents?)
2. Contact Electrification (why do things charge when they touch?)
3. Vibrational Analysis (Which atomic vibrations make the observable frequencies in Raman/IR spectra?)

At my university, we give a written and oral report of our progress to a committee of three professors at the close of our 1st year. I wanted to write about topic 1. only, but at the suggestion of my adviser I wrote about all three. My theme had to be broadened from "Surfactant Solvation" to "Surface Science" because the three sciences do not overlap.

Few days ago, I gave my presentation and passed. But there were many concerns from the committee because many of them are a proponents of a "novel-like" thesis versus a "collection of short stories." They also had concerns about the quality of the written and the oral report. The main problem I faced was trying to write a summary of my work plus a comprehensive literature review on 3 topics in the page requirements with space usually for 1 topic.

I have no doubts about graduating; I am publishing in all 3 topics aforementioned. I am worried about (1) progressing with my main project 1 until it is a complete story and (2) writing a thesis that fully communicates the work I've done without being muddled by other projects.

I would like to hear your thoughts about the pros/cons of either approach.

 

[Vanadium 50]

My adviser and I have some disagreements about what my thesis should look like.

He's right. Even if he's wrong he's right.

 

[Roark]

He's right. Even if he's wrong he's right.

Of course he is right.

But is it worth trying to see if he can see things differently?

 

[Choppy]

This kind of thing - students taking on multiple smaller projects over a PhD - is not uncommon.

In my experience, what can happen (and I'm guessing this is one of your supervisor's concerns) is that if when it comes time to write the project up, you focus on one project, the others get forgotten about. Or if they are published, but not in your thesis, you won't get full credit for the work that you've done.

Another reason to push forward on multiple fronts is that it's a way of mitigating the uncertainty of research. Each project can have a certain risk of going bust - not producing the result that you might have hoped for, or simply not happening due to someone from the group moving on, lack of funding, etc. By pursuing multiple projects, if one or more of them dies, you still get to graduate. There are of course down sides to fighting the battle on multiple fronts too. So if this is only the end of your first year, at this point your supervisor may still want to keep the thesis open-ended to see where it goes. Often the thesis that you end up with and the one that you initially embark on are different beasts altogether.

Your supervisor could have other reasons for wanting to include the different projects too. As another example, sometimes putting results in a thesis is a way to publish larger data sets that wouldn't typically go into a paper, but still subject it to peer review. Or maybe he wants you to gain experience in the different areas because it will help you later on in your career.

I could go on speculating, but I'm sure you get the idea. The only real way to know your supervisor's thoughts is to talk with him. This isn't always easy, depending on your supervisor, but you have a right to have such a conversation. It's a part of the obligation that he took on when he accepted you as a student.

One way to bring it up might be to point out that the feedback from the committee seemed to be to focus on the "novel" but the direction you're getting from him is to stitch together the anthology of "short stories" and you want to make sure that you're channeling your efforts in the right direction.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

It's awfully hard to come out ahead by not following your adviser's directions.

 

[Roark]

Thank you for the input everyone.

I understand your worries. My adviser and I have a good working relationship and maintain a collaborative environment, and I won't do anything to risk that.

I will find some time to discuss this with him. Thanks!

 

[CrysPhys]

To OP: The schools I attended used the "novel" approach, but some of my colleagues went to schools that used the "collection of short stories" approach. Which one (or ones) is acceptable, however, should be dictated by departmental policy, not by the whims of individual professors. Therefore, the situation you are in is not healthy. Don't waste any time in philosophical debate over which approach is better. Be pragmatic. Your priorities should be (1) locking in the requirements to complete your degree and (2) fulfilling those requirements and getting the hell out of there. Your advisor holds primary sway over your future. Discuss with him the feedback from other committee members. It really should be his responsibility to achieve consensus among the committee. Be diplomatic: keep your advisor happy, while minimizing collateral damage with other committee members. If your advisor cannot achieve consensus, have a talk with your department chair. I would suggest that you put down in writing what the final agreed-upon requirements are and give copies to your advisor and committee members. If possible, have them sign off on them; or at least conclude with a statement along the lines of: "If I don't receive comments to the contrary by ___ <<date>>, I shall assume that you agree with these requirements for the completion of my program."

 

[Roark]

To OP: The schools I attended used the "novel" approach, but some of my colleagues went to schools that used the "collection of short stories" approach. Which one (or ones) is acceptable, however, should be dictated by departmental policy, not by the whims of individual professors. Therefore, the situation you are in is not healthy. Don't waste any time in philosophical debate over which approach is better. Be pragmatic. Your priorities should be (1) locking in the requirements to complete your degree and (2) fulfilling those requirements and getting the hell out of there. Your advisor holds primary sway over your future. Discuss with him the feedback from other committee members. It really should be his responsibility to achieve consensus among the committee. Be diplomatic: keep your advisor happy, while minimizing collateral damage with other committee members. If your advisor cannot achieve consensus, have a talk with your department chair. I would suggest that you put down in writing what the final agreed-upon requirements are and give copies to your advisor and committee members. If possible, have them sign off on them; or at least conclude with a statement along the lines of: "If I don't receive comments to the contrary by ___ <<date>>, I shall assume that you agree with these requirements for the completion of my program."

Thanks for the advice, although I don't think I have to create a contract with the professors... I feel that trying to work outside of the existing system may be offensive to some professors. Things are going well, and I just wanted it to be a little bit better.

 

[radium]

Just out of curiosity you a theorist or experimentalist? I'm not sure how it for works for experimentalists, but the theses I have seen for theorists have all followed the anthology approach, I think because a lot of them have worked on a wider range of topics.

 

[Roark]

Just out of curiosity you a theorist or experimentalist? I'm not sure how it for works for experimentalists, but the theses I have seen for theorists have all followed the anthology approach, I think because a lot of them have worked on a wider range of topics.

I do experiments when I need to get them done, but my work revolves around simulations. Mainly molecular simulations.