Demystifying research fit and social dynamics in academia when choosing PhD labs
Hi everyone!
My life has gone through quite a few changes recently, and it has been extremely destabilising. There's so many things I wish someone had told me earlier, and saved me the massive headache I've had to go through in recent months.
Some background, I had extensive undergrad research experience and thought I was all set for a PhD. But problems occurred practically as soon as I started my PhD. I hated the lab's research and workflow. Especially because I had a mental point of comparison with my undergrad labs, which I suited much better. A few other things happened but that lab became very toxic as well, so it was a total disaster.
Currently looking at other PhD programs, and trying to shortlist labs that are better fit. Honestly speaking--it's quite a major pivot. I converted my current PhD to a terminal master's under a different PI (who's lab is MUCH closer to what I actually want). It sucks that I have to restart the PhD application process. But I thought it might be helpful for me to write out what I've learnt, in case it saves someone else from hassle I've had to go through.
My advice is mostly for highly interdisciplinary fields, where two different labs that appear similar can have WILDLY different approaches to the same problem--this was my source of confusion. I think my experience is less of an issue with more concentrated disciplines.
- Day-to-day work and work flow is significantly more important than topic
Exactly what I said. You can love the topic, but if the work flow doesn't match your preference, you're going to be miserable. That's what happened to me in my first PhD lab. If you already know a certain work flow suits you, please only look for labs that allow you to specialise in that work flow.
Despite what some people might tell you (hint hint my previous lab), avoiding certain types of work does not equate to 'looking down' on them, nor does it reflect on your potential as a scientist--as long as you have a clear research direction. I knew I liked computational/theory environments and I personally knew successful scientists who specialised in that environment, so I knew for sure that it was a valid research direction.
- Some labs treat certain work flows as an afterthought; Other labs are genuinely interdisciplinary and collaborative. PI profiles can deceptively look similar.
This was the big mistake I made when selecting my first PhD lab. I knew early what workflow suited me, but I messed up this part. My first PhD lab is empirical-first and theory/computational later, but the PI advertised herself as dabbling in both. I walked into the lab blindly and suffered for it. And it gets extra confusing because there's PIs (including my undergrad PI) who advertises themselves similarly and are genuinely interdisciplinary and collaborative.
Some of the things I got told in that lab "Why are you so focused on the methods instead of the science?" "You're not a true scientist if you avoid wet-lab work" "What if you need to generate your own data?" etc. etc. Unfortunately some PIs genuinely have this mindset, even though plenty of successful academics specialise in various methods.
The weird thing is that my first PhD PI has successfully mentored students who are computational-only. I'm not sure how that happened given her attitude? I speculate that she probably had Post-Docs/Senior PhDs within the lab who she could offload the training to/who can advocate for the student, which I didn't have when I was there (since current lab members don't align with my specialty). My advice is 1. Focus on labs that specifically focus on your style OR 2. Thoroughly interrogate the PI and lab and make sure current lab expertise/projects allow you to specifically focus on your style. If the PI gives vague promises without actual project prospects (aka my ex-PI), take it as a serious red flag.
- lf you truly think a certain direction might suit you, don't be afraid of difficulty
I've been interested in theory for a long time but was deathly afraid of math (I hated school math). But I've always known I liked problem-solving in computational work. I ended up gravitating to math during my terminal master's anyway because it was unavoidable for my direction. And surprisingly, once I realised the math was conceptually grounded in a topic I liked, I ended up liking the math too. You honestly never know. Don't let some difficulty barrier bar you from doing what you enjoy.
I'm probably going to spend the rest of my terminal master's making up for time lost that I could have spent building math competency :/
- Lab alignment is much more important than 'intelligence'
Also learnt this the hard way. Like many naive students, I came in thinking that I just need to 'prove' to the PI that I'm smart and capable. Let me tell you the blunt truth. The PI doesn't care about how intelligent you are. Sure, it helps, but they care most about how well you align with current lab directions, or what they're willing to supervise. If your interests broadly align with the PI but not in the same niche as them, many of them will deprioritise you simply because they're not interested.
Some PIs allow intellectual freedom, but it heavily depends on the PI. You need to ask the lab members how much freedom is allowed. If current members mostly work on PI's direction, and you aren't already strongly aligned with it, then good chance it's not a good fit. Regardless of what the PI tells you--vague promises are often non-committal and mean nothing. Also--important to make sure current lab members align with your expertise. If you're a computational person but everyone in the lab is wet-lab, red flag. As an incoming PhD student, you're very early career and training environment is often more important than the PI.
You should also negotiate co-advising if you really think the PI might be a good fit but the lab lacks current expertise. That way, you at least have an external 'anchor', and the lab cannot post-hoc 'force' you into their workflow despite initial promises.
- lf the current lab has no grad students (and the PI is established), or if the lab has mostly international students, run for the hills
To give me some credit, I'm an international student and did not know this until I came here. I thought mostly asian PIs did this but it turns out that american PIs can do this too. Sometimes, a lab that has many international students is genuinely inclusive. Other times, the PI knows they can exploit the student because the student is visa-dependent or doesn't know any better. My ex-lab members were very compliant, and there was a culture of working even on holidays. Even Christmas and New Year's. Like the PI will genuinely get upset if you don't have output after holidays. The international lab members didn't question it, and the only american also didn't question it for some strange reason. I got a sanity check from other americans within the department and only then realised how odd it was.
An established PI not having grad students sometimes mean that they already have a history of mistreating grad students, so the department put a temporary ban on their ability to take grad students. This was my ex-PI, and I knew she didn't have grad students but stupidly didn't know what it implied.
- Labs can be toxic even if current lab members like the PI
Another mistake I made was thinking that current lab members like the PI = the PI is not toxic. Sometimes, it just means that their personality aligns unusually well with the PI--this was the case in my ex lab. Unbeknownst to me, that lab has a very high turnover rate--that's a far more important indicator imo, but nobody told me this. Try to talk to current lab members 1-on-1 about PhD completion rates. Also ask about how disagreement is handled. What if the student has a very different direction from the PI? Some green flags would be 'PI brings in collaborators'/'PI allows student to suggest collaborators'.
If they give some vague answer about conflict management, but PI's direction dominates, this could be a red flag. In my ex-lab, the PI was controlling and only got along with compliant students. People with independent thinking often get pushed out of the lab (aka me).
That's all from me! I'll add stuff if I can think of anymore. I sincerely hope my experience will save some other soul out there from going through the same stuff I had to, or help someone going through similar situations