Hi Postgradforum! I am about to pick my supervisor, and I need your help.

I am a sociologist, but the subject of the phd project is interdisciplinary towards psychology. I will likely get a secondary supervisor from an external psychology dept who is a specialist in the field, so that part is largely covered. The research project will to a large degree be theoretical, but might include a smaller empirical study. I’m running out of time so I feel like I have to select my primary supervisor from the two following candidates:


Candidate A: Experienced theorist with important influence.
Pros:
Lots of experience supervising
Theory construction as main field of research
Advocating increased focus on theory construction in soc sci, an ambition we share.
Head of PhD studies (Can sign his own budget requests and research plans for my project)

Cons:
Not super enthusiastic about this specific project, but somewhat interested in general
No insight in psychology
Limited overlap in theoretical perspectives
Not very strategic/pragmatic in terms of career opportunities, more of an idealist
No experience with empirical research



Candidate B: Genuinely interested and very enthusiastic younger prof with high ambitions/drive.
Pros:
Displays a lot of interest in both me and the proposed project – seems to see a lot of potential in it and really wants to collaborate on it, gives me space in research group meetings etc.
Is highly ambitious/driven and also highly strategic/pragmatic when it comes to publication, format, approach etc.
Is excellent at identifying possibilities from ideas
Has some experience working at a psychology dept.
Has some overlapping ambitions in terms of advocating increased collaboration, interdisciplinary research etc.

Cons:
Limited experience supervising (a couple of previous PhDs)
Limited experience in general due to younger age (smaller network, less publications etc)
Has mostly done empirical/applied research
Might be stepping on A’s toes by choosing this guy?


My spontaneous feeling is that A is perhaps a safer bet but B has a lot more potential, which is why I am leaning towards B at the moment.

Hi Intj,

personal tip:

Go with the one you have or will have a better personal relationship with.
Problems will be resolved more quickly and most probably also in your favour.

In the end, the greatest research achievment cannot help you when your supervisor blocks or hinders you because of a bad relationship.

Good luck,

On paper I'd lean towards candidate B. However, the stepping on toes point is worth considering, particularly is candidate A is head of PhD studies.

Is there a way to get them both involved? For example, at my uni, we are supposed to (ha!) have two supervisors, plus an advisor. The advisor is supposed to give support more on the process than the particular topic. If that's the setup you have, I'd go for B as supervisor, A as advisor. But it does depend on internal politics.

If you really want B, perhaps you could explain your dilemma with him (being careful!) and see if he can advise on how to handle it.

I agree with HazyJane. And also Nochoice184 has a point too, the relationship with the supervisor is very important.

Get B as your primary supervisor. You need someone ambitious who pushes for publications, cares if you finish and when etc.

Get A as your secondary (or advisor). You need the old, experienced guy who knows when you 've done enough, can give advice on the structure and general research direction.


Good luck.

There are already many good advices...

Just add one more point: nice supervisor may not always be a good bet. This supervisor may not be able to defend you in certain situations.

Inexperienced supervisors may give you wrong advice and you may have *very major* revisions for your thesis later. In addition, your papers could be rejected for publications...

Hi INTJ,

You've done the admirable thing of writing lists for comparison to help you decide, but unless I'm misunderstanding what you've come up with, some of what you've written seems contradictory or not necessarily relevant. Most notably, you've listed "No experience with empirical research" as a con for candidate A (which is probably fair as a point), but "Has mostly done empirical/applied research" as a con for candidate B. As opposed to...? In addition, you've said "Might be stepping on A’s toes by choosing this guy" as a con for B. However, the converse could be true as a con for choosing A, especially as you said of B: "Displays a lot of interest in both me and the proposed project". Respectfully, some of your listing reads as if you'd already prefer A over B (despite what you say at the end) and you are using the list to rationalise it.

I think both HazyJane and DrJekyll's advice of going for B as your primary is sound, and with A as your second. Then you'd have A as a kind of second opinion who might (in a sense) be able to "overrule" B with authority, if it comes to it, and fill the role of second supervisor better than B. Same rationale as the co-pilot flying the aircraft, so the captain can overrule him/her if he f***s up. The reverse is more difficult.

I'd also consider that with his seniority and other commitments, you probably won't have too much access to A. And whilst experience of supervising PhDs is an advantage, every supervisor has to start somewhere... and the fact that you're only his 4th or 5th (?) charge would give him/her a greater interest in your success.

One final thought: have you actually spoken to other students who've been supervised by these candidates? That could be enormously helpful...

Good luck!