What is more important: research interest fit or personality fit with mentor/lab

[Snickelfritz]

For everyone who is currently in a graduate program or who has finished their Ph.D., what would you say is more important when choosing a lab:

-research interest fit: the lab is using the techniques you want, or at least they are available, and is working in the population(s) you are interested in

-personality/"feel" fit: you get along with the mentor, the other students in the lab, and feel generally positive about the lab even if the research may not be able to satisfy your interests, or is not using techniques you are interested in

Which would you all choose, and why?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Them problem with personality feel/fit, is that there are not a lot of valid methods for assessing it with limited data points. Other than some "all bets are off" indicators like overt sexist/racist comments, there may not be a lot of predictive validity to the information on interpersonal style that you get pre-acceptance. On the other hand, if the lab is doing things that are likely to help you meet your goals (and you are relatively sure of and inflexible with your goals), then you might want to be cautious about going to that lab.

 

[sacredrage]

I think both these things have to be balanced. Number 1 is super important, especially if you want to develop your own line of research to springboard into academia, but if you can't work with your mentor due to personality issues, you're still not going to get anywhere. Likewise, your mentor can be the nicest person in the world, but if the research fit isn't there, it can significantly limit your trajectory.

I agree with this assessment. It's a balanced approach where you're looking for the best combination of the two and the degree of variance for either data point (i.e. I don't like his taste in ties vs he made a racist remark about my mother).

 

[cara susanna]

I would say without a doubt research fit.

 

[Ollie123]

Depends on too many things to answer. Are you planning a career in academia? How "not a fit" are we talking (in both cases)?

I'd take a slightly awkward advisor who does exactly what I want to do, over the nicest person in the world doing research I don't give two craps about. On the other hand, if the person doing the research I like is a raging sociopath I'm afraid might assault me, someone who does research I "kinda" like starts to sound pretty good. 99% of cases will fall somewhere between those two extremes.

It depends on your goals and personality, but as someone planning to go into a very specialized part of academia (and one that requires a great deal of technical skills so "jumping in" after graduating wouldn't exactly be as easy), I'd err on the side of research fit unless you are talking extremes. Your labmates and advisor don't have to be your best friends, and probably won't be. Its easier to find other people to socialize with, its a lot more difficult to find someone else to teach you research skill x, y, and z. If you think you can work productively with them, great. If you think the personality fit would interfere with your productivity, then that is a different story.

 

[paramour]

I agree for the most part with previous posters' comments regarding a balance, although I'd tip it on the side of research. After working with one someone with a beyond excellent, phenomenal research fit (person A) and another someone with a more than acceptable research fit (person B)--and both with some major personality flaws/issues--I almost drove myself insane. Hell, I may still be there, but I'm doing a helluva lot better with someone else (person C). The research fit's not as great as person A but it's better than person B, and we don't get along as great as some of the other students b/c I don't kiss arse, but we get along well enough. So I can live with it. And this gives me warm fuzzies. And a little less insane for the time being.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

As others have said, this is a complex question.

My own experience, I went to a school for a fabulous research match. Turned out she was a raging borderline and (after much damage to my career and psyche) I left her lab. I eventually landed with an advisor who knew little about my dissertation research, but was a good human being.

My point is this: if there is not a basic level of personality, no amount of research fit can make up for it.

Dr. E

 

[rlw23]

Honestly, I think the answer to this question will really vary person to person.

I know for myself that I would choose the personality over the research fit (even as a future academic) because I know that I wouldn't be happy nor would I perform well if I didn't feel like I clicked with the professor. A good relationship can go a long way.

But of course if the research interests are so vastly different, I guess that would change my opinion.

 

[PsychResearch]

I would say both but incline on the side of personality. It is draining emotionally to see how X who doesn't care about research but clicked with the advisor on day 1 gets to meet with the advisor and publish before others who started the year before or even longer. I think fitting in and playing the politics can be huge in labs where the clique type mentality operates, which is the case in my lab.

I also think you can 'tell' from the beginning how you stand in terms of personality fit. It is up to you to make a decision early on. In my case, I stayed in the lab because the research conducted is what I like to do, but I think I would have progressed faster and felt supported in there was the personality fit. I would just go with your intuition.

 

[wigflip]

Perhaps someone has mentioned this already, but OP's temperament is also a variable. I know someone who changed his/her research direction entirely to work with Dr. Powerful. From what I've been able to glean, Dr. P has largely been valuable because of connections and publication opportunities, less so in terms of intellectual direction, professionalization, or support. I'm not a good personality match for Dr. P, but my friend has a higher tolerance for shenanigans of all sorts and is reaping the benefits. If I'd ended up with Dr. P, I'm not certain the results would have been the same. As an older grad student, I have a harder time buying into the BS that comes along with academia, so I need a good personal match, but my friend probably would have thrived with anyone as a mentor because it's "Academia or Bust!."

My hunch is that if OP is even posing this question, personal fit is important enough to warrant serious consideration.

 

[EmotRegulation]

I think both aspects are important, but there will be some variance by person (both mentor and student). When I went into grad school, it was more based on fit and less based on research interests. That said, the methodology and underlying processes studied by the lab were interesting to me, just not the population, so I ended up branching off and doing my own thing for my thesis and dissertation, and I got involved in a bunch of side projects. I was able to stay intellectually engaged and reaped the benefits of a really supportive and fun lab environment.

Getting some idea of the mentor's style might be important when trying to figure out the balance, as has been suggested by others. If the mentor is like mine was, then the lack of true research match didn't really matter because I had the latitude to initiate projects and do my own thing. If the mentor keeps a tighter ship, runs you ragged doing his/her work and leaves no time for independence, then you want to make sure you're on board with what you're doing.

"Fit" is about workability, not likability, and that goes for both research and personality. As wigflip pointed out, both are a two-way street. The mentor has to get someone he or she can work with, just as you have to get someone you can work with/for. Niceness just doesn't matter to some people, but it's essential to avoid self-doubt others.

 

[PsychPhDone]

I'd lean in the personality direction -- for me, it's necessary but not sufficient for my happiness and productivity as a researcher. As long as their research is reasonably within my area of interest, I'd rather have someone I can personally work with well and figure out the research stuff on my own and with their help. This has to be taken with a grain of salt, as I'm assuming that any research method will have enough of a stats/research-conceptualization background to be pragmatically helpful. But...if our relationship sucks, I'm not going to be able to collaborate with them meaningfully. What I love most about my current advisor/lab/cohort/program is the personality match. Maybe I take the research side of things for granted, but for me, I can't produce if I'm in a bad personality-match situation.