|
*******************************************************
An Insider's Guide to Choosing a Graduate Adviser
and Research Projects in Laboratory Sciences
Marshall Lev Dermer
Department of Psychology
University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee
Milwaukee, WI 53201
dermer@csd.uwm.edu
A slightly revised version of this manuscript appears in the
_Journal of Chemical Education_, 1993, _70_, 303-306. As the
author of this work I have the right to distribute it
provided "all such use is for . . . personal
noncommercial benefit." So, I offer it to interested
readers. I look forward to your comments but please don't
send money!
******************************************************
Copyright April 29, 1992 _Journal of Chemical Education_
An Insider's Guide to Choosing a Graduate Adviser
and Research Projects in Laboratory Sciences
Where can new and prospective graduate students
obtain candid advice to enhance success in graduate
school? Not from most college science teaching journals
which have almost exclusively published advice for
professors regarding teaching undergraduates. Not from
national organizations, graduate schools, and university
departments; for "official" advice is rarely frank
advice. And not from all faculty and senior graduate
students as laboratory lore, unless one is a select
"insider." Elsewhere (_1_), I have asserted that faculty
ought to provide new and prospective graduate students
frank advice about becoming scientists and doing science;
here I present such advice.
As a new graduate student you will be making the
transition from consuming knowledge to generating and
disseminating knowledge. Although you were selected for
your excellent performance in undergraduate courses, what
counts most in graduate school is conceiving, conducting,
and documenting research. This essay is concerned,
therefore, with two issues: (1) selecting an adviser who
can best train you, and (2) selecting a research project
that can be completed in a reasonable length of time.
If you are not yet in graduate school, it is easier
to appreciate the importance of timely progress than the
importance of a research adviser (_2, 3_). Consider,
however, that you will become a researcher as an
apprentice to your adviser who should provide timely,
constructive feedback regarding your attempts to
understand nature. Your adviser may also provide various
resources like space, equipment, supplies, an
assistantship, and summer employment. On earning your
degree, your adviser will also write vital letters of
recommendation. Your adviser may indirectly also
determine who will become your close friends and who will
become your spouse.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING POTENTIAL ADVISERS
I discuss below, some of the most important factors
for evaluating potential advisers.
_Whom to Avoid_
_Grant Swingers and Research Millers_. Do not equate
grant support or the size of an institute or research
laboratory with quality (_4, 5_). Even without grant
support, publishing may become more important than doing
science when faculty salaries are determined merely by
the number of publications. Avoid faculty who submit many
short reports in which replication of findings is absent.
_Those Not at the Bench_. Avoid faculty who structure
research so that there are multiple layers of authority
and who are rarely at the laboratory "bench" (_6, 7_). I
could not find any studies of the supervision of research
but often "the professional message to students and
colleagues is that intellectual responsibility and
seniority is tantamount to removal from the tedium of
data collection" (_8_). Inadequate research supervision is
so prevalent in cases of scientific fraud that the
American Association of Universities recommends that
"students must be directed by experienced scientists. The
director should supervise, teach, and encourage in-depth
scrutiny and interpretation of results, emphasizing
respect for primary data. Routine audit and review of all
primary data by the laboratory director is strongly
recommended. It is inadvisable for the director to
delegate these important functions" (_9_).
_The Perpetual Administrator_. Avoid faculty who
repeatedly choose to be officers of professional
societies, departmental chairs, or editors. These are
important activities that contribute to others doing
science (_10_) and that substantially reduce supervision
quality, unless you are only one of a few advisees.
_Whom to Look For_
_Someone with Similar Interests_. Seek someone with
whom you share research interests; otherwise, you may
undertake a project that you do not value and never
complete it. But you may not know your interests. A
senior doctoral student in chemistry wisely noted:
It is not possible for even the most motivated and
successful undergraduates to have a clear
understanding of their research interests. The
projects are way too complex for college seniors to
comprehend. The technology will almost always
involve equipment and approaches never seen or
imagined before. Students at best understand their
inclinations: "I like computers," or "I've always
enjoyed mathematics." More than that is probably
rare. The search for common ground is usually a
case of a research director convincing a willing
subject of the compatibility of their interests. It
is not the same thing as genuine mutual interests.
There is simply too great a disparity between their
respective scientific sophistication and their
degree of understanding of the entire graduate study
process. (_11_)
_Someone with Compatible Interests_. All organizations
offer people common means to diverse ends. Even if you
cannot work in a laboratory in which the research goals
are similar to your own, the laboratory procedures may be
relevant to your goals. It is quite possible, of course,
that as you work in this "second best" laboratory you may
become interested in the research problems there.
Consider the experiences that determined your current
research interests.
_Scholars: Renowned Researchers._ Seek people who
love science and are obsessive about research. They will
document their work in articles, published in respected
journals, that often describe a series of inter-locking
experiments concerned with a single problem. When
researchers value their work and others agree, others
will extend the work. _Invited_ articles and presentations
to professional societies suggest that a researcher's
work is well-received.
Grant support from major research foundations, for
example, the National Science Foundation, indicates that
other scientists judge this person to have made
significant contributions. Such grant support is
allocated competitively; more competitively than is space
in major journals. A history of grant support from major
foundations is, therefore, very impressive. Most
impressive is a researcher who holds a special position
where a university or a foundation has granted the person
a lifetime of research support.
There are potential problems working with renowned
researchers. In areas where research costs require grant
support, such advisers may be unable to offer help
because they are busy writing grant proposals, justifying
grants, administering grants, and supervising
post-doctoral students.^1^ Another problem is that others
will wonder whether you or your adviser conceived jointly
authored work and even your dissertation! Complicating
all this is the possibility that post-doctoral students
may be your actual mentors.
_Scholars: Less-Renowned Researchers_. These
researchers' records will have many of the attributes
discussed above; often a record of grant support will be
absent. Where research costs are small, such faculty can
also be excellent advisers. Seek an adviser who knows
quite a bit about your area, is enthusiastic about
research, and, of course, readily offers help.
It is possible to have the best of both research
types! If there are renowned researchers in your
department include them on your research committee (with
your adviser's consent), seek their advice and
eventually, if all goes well, seek their letters of
recommendation and "connections" without the potential
liabilities of having one serve as your adviser (_12_).
This option, of course, is only available to students in
large graduate programs.
_Someone You Can Respect_. If your adviser is honest,
ethical, loves doing science and is reasonably
successful, it would also be nice if you liked your
adviser (and vice versa)! But choosing or keeping an
adviser primarily because he or she is nice is a mistake.
A nice person may withhold frank evaluations of your
knowledge, skills, and progress. If you have an excellent
adviser, your feelings toward your adviser might best be
labeled as respect.
ACQUIRING INFORMATION ABOUT POTENTIAL ADVISERS
Having outlined criteria for evaluating potential
advisers, it is appropriate to discuss acquiring relevant
information.
_Getting Started_
It is best to decide on potential research areas and
three or four potential advisers by your last semester in
college (_13_). You can best make these decisions by
working as an assistant in a research laboratory where
you can consult with the faculty and post-doctoral staff.
Alternatively, discuss selecting potential research
advisers with your undergraduate adviser and the faculty
who teach courses in the areas that most interest you.
_Correspond with Potential Advisers_
Corresponding with a few potential advisers can be
very helpful, after you are familiar with their work. In
your initial letter be sure to describe your background,
training, grade point average, research experience, and
your interest in the researcher's work. Write carefully;
writing is public thinking. Ask for recent reprints and
copies of manuscripts in press. You might also casually
mention your interest in where this potential adviser
studied and a list of his or her publications. Potential
advisers may send you their vitas, saving you much
detective work!
_Talk with Graduate Students_
If you have exchanged letters with a potential
adviser, ask for the names and telephone numbers of
senior graduate students, so that you might learn more
about the laboratory and the graduate program. Call the
students at their homes where they are most likely to
have a private telephone. Items not covered above
include determining: what proportion of this professor's
advisees earn the Ph.D., how much time is typically
required to earn the Ph.D. in this laboratory, and do
graduates continue working in the area upon graduation?
For researchers who are assistant professors ask about
their chances of being granted tenure. It is unwise to
study with a person who will not be re-hired in a few
years and may leave you stranded!
_Discovering Publications
_and Grants Sans Vita_
The _Science Citation Index_ and the _Social Science
Citation Index_ can help you locate a researcher's
publications and the extent they have stimulated other
scientists. Grant support and whether an article was
"invited" are usually indicated in an article's first
footnote.
_Face-to-Face Interaction
_with Your Prospective Adviser_
Meeting potential advisers may be scary; but you
_must_ develop strong, positive, self-presentation skills
if you are to succeed. You can meet potential advisers
and their students at professional conferences. A
too-little exercised but most useful option is working on
a summer project in a laboratory. If you arrive at
graduate school without an adviser, then do interview all
potential advisers. You will learn quite a bit about the
work in your new department and, consequently, have a
good idea about whom to select for your research
committee.
_When the Search is Not Over_
The adviser-graduate student relationship is much
like a marriage. It is important, for example, to
consider carefully whether there is a good match between
your personalities, and the expected pace of work. Some
marriages, of course, sour. Accordingly, you always have
the right to change advisers. Once you have started a
research project, however, no other professor may feel
qualified to supervise your work.
Changing advisers is a delicate matter, particularly
if your adviser has invested much time in your education.
When considering changing advisers, it is best to have an
honest discussion (_14_). Perhaps working conditions or
your relationship can be changed. If you do change
advisers, it is courteous to give your adviser adequate
time, perhaps a month or two if research is in progress,
to plan for the change. Remember, just as some divorced
couples remarry there is always the possibility that you
might want to work with your original adviser, so follow
the "golden rule."
If you believe your adviser is unethical then you
should definitely find another one. If some serious
instance of your adviser behaving inappropriately is
discovered, for example, fraudulent treatment of data,
your reputation will suffer too.
By the way, if if you believe your adviser has
intentionally engaged in serious, inappropriate behavior
then it is most important that you immediately and
carefully document it. Have the date of documentation
certified by a notary public. The notary where you bank
will most likely do this gratis. The next step depends
on many factors. "Dealing with Sexual Harrassment" (15)
provides excellent advice appropriate to many kinds of
complaints. Other help can be found under the Library of
Congress subject heading "Grievance procedures--United
States."
SELECTING A RESEARCH PROJECT
I believe that the best scientists (and potential
advisers) replicate and extend their research. Below, I
outline the approach and describe the consequences of
your adopting it or other approaches when selecting
research projects.
_Replication and Extension
Pavlov's laboratory best illustrates the replication
and extension approach (_16_). As a new student, you would
have replicated the last dissertation conducted there.
This tested your ability to follow a write-up, and
motivated Pavlov's senior students to work most
carefully. Your dissertation would have been some
logical extension of this preliminary work. You neither
had to to survey the entire research literature nor
wonder if the equipment could be constructed. The work
had just been completed in your laboratory. Consequently,
the duration and other costs of new research could be
estimated well.
Unlike Pavlov, your adviser may not be very active
and you may be unable work with a better one. In this
case, you can search journals and attend conferences to
locate a procedure and problem that _currently_ is
important to you and other researchers. A portion of your
research can be a fairly literal replication of a
recently published work, whereas the remainder can be an
extension that contributes to the solution of the
problem. After consulting with your adviser, you may want
to outline your interests in a letter to the original
investigator and ask if you can visit his or her
laboratory. If the procedure is very valuable, the
investigator will still be using it. While visiting you
will be able to see the procedure in action and talk with
knowledgeable laboratory members.
If you replicate work in another laboratory, it is
likely that when you submit your report for publication
that the original researcher (or one or more
collaborators) will be a reviewer. This reviewer will,
of course, be quite happy to see his or her recent work
independently replicated and extended. If you picked an
important procedure and problem, then other reviewers
will be similarly impressed.
_Other Approaches for Selecting a Project_
Another conservative approach is to select a problem
for which _any_ answer is interesting; it is difficult,
however, to specify the defining features of such
problems. One possibility is that for some problems there
may only be a finite number of possible solutions. Even
if a study does not solve the problem, a well-done study
will rule-out one or more such possible solutions (_17_).
If you are ambitious, of course, you may want to
develop an entirely new procedure (_18_). You should
discuss the ensuing risks and benefits with your research
committee _before_ you begin the work. A six-question test
has been proposed for faculty to assess the quality of a
student's research idea (_19_); these questions may help
with your research.
FURTHER READING AND DISCUSSION
Essentially my conservative advice is to select an
adviser who successfully uses the replication and
extension approach to understand important problems and
do likewise for your dissertation and other research.
There is, of course, no magic formula that will
provide personal satisfaction, professional success, or
enhance the quality of science. Furthermore, there are
plenty of important issues I have avoided like "Should
you attend graduate school in the same department in
which you earned your undergraduate degree (_20-22_)?"^2^ It
is important, therefore, that you discuss the issues
raised here with students and faculty.
As first noted, advice is available from "official"
sources including professional associations, graduate
schools, and departments. Frank advice, of course, is
more likely found in "unofficial" sources including:
texts (_23-32_), biographies (_33_), and a few journal
articles (_34-36_). Library of Congress subject headings
for locating more recent texts are available (_37_). Frank
advice is also exchanged on the USENET conferences:
"soc.college.grad," "sci.edu," "sci.physics," etc.
Finally, you might propose that an upper-level,
undergraduate/graduate seminar be created to discuss
these important issues. A molecular biophysicist put the
matter this way: "Beginning graduate students must make
what may well be the most important choice of their
careers adviser and research topic at a time when
they are most lacking the knowledge to choose well" (_38_).
I, of course, consider providing frank advice a
professional obligation. I believe that other scientists
would agree and would enjoy discussing these issues in a
seminar (_39_).^3^
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Thanks are due: my colleagues Alan Baron, Robert S.
Baron, Frank Dane, Fred Helmstetter, Alex Hill, and Jay
Moore; the readers of the science conferences of USENET
including: Ann Miller Baker, Richard Batt, Scott Barvian,
Scott Buckley, Bart Frank, Jeff Frelinger, Josh Hayes,
Barbara Peterson, Walter Rolandi, and Susan Scheck; and
an anonymous journal reviewer. Finally, special thanks
are due Ellen S. Berscheid my graduate adviser.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Dermer, M. L. _J. Coll. Sci. Teach._, !1992!, _21_, 200-201.
2. But see, Jacks, P.; Chubin, D. E.; Porter, A. L.;
Connolly, T. _Improv. Coll. & Univ. Teach._, !1983!, _31_,
74-81.
3. But see, Mohrig, J. R. _J. of Chem. Educ_. !1988!, _65_,
588-590.
4. Ravetz, J. R. _Scientific Knowledge & Its Problems_;
Oxford: London, 1971; p. 46.
5. Smith, R. J. _Science_, !1985!, _228_, 1292-1293.
6. Fox, C. H. _Science_, !1991!, _253_, 1075.
7. Medawar, P. B. _Advice to a Young Scientist_; Harper: New
8. Cairns, R. B. In _The Individual Subject and Scientific
Psychology_; Valsiner, J., Ed.; Plenum: New York,
1986; pp. 97-111.
9. _Report of the Association of American Universities
Committee on the Integrity of Research_; Association
of American Universities: Washington, DC, 1983.
10. Ref. _7_, pp. 56-58.
11. Alston, R. University North Carolina, personal
communication, 1990.
12. Scheiner, S. Northern Illinois University, personal
communication, 1990.
13. Ref. _3_, p. 589.
14. Cohen, H. _You Can Negotiate Anything_; Bantam: New York,
1982.
15. Rowe, M. P. _Harv. Bus. Rev._, !1981!, _59_, 42-44, 46.
16. Babkin, B. P. _Pavlov: A Biography_; University of
Chicago: Chicago, 1949. See Ref. _1_ for other benefits
of this approach.
17. See e.g., Bliss, M. _The Discovery of Insulin_;
University of Chicago: Chicago, 1982.
18. Spriestersbach, D. C.; Henry, L. D., Jr. _Improv. Coll.
& Univ. Teach._, !1978!, _26_, 52-55, 60.
19. Zanna, M. P.; Darley, J. M. In _The Compleat Academic_,
Zanna, M. P.; Darley, J. M. Eds; Erlbaum: Hillsdale,
N.J., 1987; Chapter 6.
20. Campbell, D. T. In _Interdisciplinary Relationships in
the Social Sciences_; Sherif, M.; Sherif, C. W., Eds.;
Aldine: Chicago, 1969; Chapter 19.
21. Crick, F. _What Mad Pursuit_; Basic Books: New York,
1988, p. 150.
22. Feynman, R. P. _Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!_
Norton: New York, 1985; pp. 59-63.
23. Ref. _7_; Zanna & Darley Eds. _ibid_.
24. Balian, E. S. _How to Design, Analyze, and Write
Doctoral Research_; University Press of America:
Lanham, MD, 1982.
25. Dukelow, W. R. _Graduate Student Survival_; Thomas:
Springfield, IL: 1980.
26. Mahoney, M. J. _Scientist as Subject: The Psychological
Imperative_; Ballinger: Cambridge, MA, 1976.
27. Moore, R. W. _Winning the Ph.D. Game_; Dodd, Mead: New
York, 1985.
28. (a) Sindermann, C. J. _Winning the Games Scientists
Play_; Plenum: New York, 1982; (b)Sindermann, C. J.
_The Joy of Science: Excellence and Its Rewards_;
Plenum: New York, 1985; (c) Sindermann, C. J.
_Survival Strategies for New Scientists._ Plenum: New
York, 1987.
29. Stock, M. _A Practical Guide to Graduate Research_;
McGraw-Hill: New York, 1985.
30. Smith, R. V. _Graduate Research: A Guide for Students in
the Sciences_, 2nd ed.; Plenum: New York, 1990.
31. Vartuli, S. Ed. _The Ph.D. Experience: A Woman's Point
of View_. Praeger: New York, 1982.
32. Ref. _21_.
33. See e.g., Refs. _16_, _21_.
34. Stearns, S. C. _Ecol. Soc. Amer. Bull._ !1987!, _68_,
145-150.
35. Huey, R. B. _Ecol. Soc. Amer. Bull._, !1987!, _68_, 150-153.
36. Binkley, D. _Ecol. Soc. Amer. Bull._, !1988!, _69_, 10-13.
37. Ref. _1_.
38. Bashford, D. Research Institute of Scripps Clinic, La
Jolla, personal communication, 1990.
39. (a) Sawyer, D. J. _J. of Chem. Educ_. !1991!, _68_, 211-214;
(b) Ref. _1_.
Footnotes
^1^ Still, such advisers may offer the very best advice
and they certainly have the best "connections" to help
place you on earning your Ph.D.
^2^ I do not discuss selecting a graduate school because I
consider this far less important than finding a
first-rate adviser.
^3^ I would appreciate receiving advice from readers about
how this "open letter" could be further improved. My
INTERNET address is: dermer@convex.csd.uwm.edu.
|