Questions about the doctoral thesis in a PHD/PsyD program?

[Psycho Bunny]

I have a few questions regarding the doctoral thesis and the associated research that takes place in a PHD/Psy.D program:

1. How much choice do you have over what your specific research and/or thesis is about? I know that a big contributor to being accepted to a program is aligned research interests with a faculty member, right? Do they dictate what you do or don't do?

2. To what extent should/is the topic narrowed down to?

3. I noticed there are research topics that are not particularly rare in doctoral programs but are virtually nonexistent in undergraduate research....so my question is, what if you have a specific research interest that a faculty member of a program is working on but opportunities in undergrad are out of reach?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

1. You have significant choice, although ultimately, your advisor (who's also typically your dissertation chair) essentially has to approve the idea. Part of this relates to being limited by logistical realities, such as access to study populations and measures. I imagine some advisors exert more influence on the decisions and others less. In my case, for example, my advisor essentially let me do whatever I wanted (within reason); once I had my main idea, I talked with them about it to have a clearer idea of what I wanted to do.

2. This is essentially impossible to answer. The best response I can come up with--narrow enough that the project can be realistically completed, but broad enough that the dissertation chair/committee feel it's appropriate for a dissertation. Usually that results in a relatively narrow scope, but dissertations also can often be wider-reaching that many other published studies because the grad student has a lot of time to focus/work on it.

3. I'm not sure if I know of anyone whose dissertation was an extension of anything they'd done in undergrad, other than maybe broadly relating to the topic area (e.g., substance abuse). That said, dissertation projects very, very commonly have undergraduate research assistants working on them.

 

[PsyDr]

To build upon @AcronymAllergy 's opinion:

1) You have "choice", but that choice occurs in a power dynamic. Ultimately, you just want your chair to approve the damn thing. It's like when your passive/aggressive friend asks, "what do you want for dinner?", and you know she wants Indian food. You can say whatever you want, and probably get it. But if you suggest Indian food, things might go smoother.

2) Realistically, the topic is narrowed down by the variable, "What available information can I use to get this thing done?"

3) Undergrad research is influenced by:

a. The faculty's diversity of psychological subfields (i.e., psych departments typically have faculty members that are: social psychologists, cognitive psychologists, experimental psychologists, etc). Clinical program faculties are populated by clinical psychologists, for the most part. That will limit research diversity.
b. Complications in seeing human subjects. In grant-world, there are specific requirements to see human subjects. It is a long and extremely boring process that has to go through an IRB. Clinical psych focuses on pathology, not general human behavior. There are ethical limitations to this. Tricking a healthy undergrad into eating candy= limited ethical issues. Tricking someone with schizophrenia, whose medications may already raise blood glucose, into eating candy= more ethical issues.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

To build upon @AcronymAllergy 's opinion:

1) You have "choice", but that choice occurs in a power dynamic. Ultimately, you just want your chair to approve the damn thing. It's like when your passive/aggressive friend asks, "what do you want for dinner?", and you know she wants Indian food. You can say whatever you want, and probably get it. But if you suggest Indian food, things might go smoother.

2) Realistically, the topic is narrowed down by the variable, "What available information can I use to get this thing done?"

3) Undergrad research is influenced by:

a. The faculty's diversity of psychological subfields (i.e., psych departments typically have faculty members that are: social psychologists, cognitive psychologists, experimental psychologists, etc). Clinical program faculties are populated by clinical psychologists, for the most part. That will limit research diversity.
b. Complications in seeing human subjects. In grant-world, there are specific requirements to see human subjects. It is a long and extremely boring process that has to go through an IRB. Clinical psych focuses on pathology, not general human behavior. There are ethical limitations to this. Tricking a healthy undergrad into eating candy= limited ethical issues. Tricking someone with schizophrenia, whose medications may already raise blood glucose, into eating candy= more ethical issues.

Also all true. Your degree of choice can vary substantially based on your advisor/dissertation chair.

Ultimately, the best dissertation is a finished dissertation. Students can get themselves into a bad situation when they make their dissertation too far reaching and/or complex, like wanting to work with an exceedingly difficult to find/recruit study population, incorporating numerous analyses you don't really know anything about, etc.

 

[PsychPsychBaby]

Happy to help shed some additional insight on these questions as best I can, as a recent doctoral graduate!

1) I think this depends on programs, and even based on advisors within programs. Some advisors are very hands off and allow you to take the lead in deciding on your topic, whereas I've heard of/know people that were essentially told or strongly encouraged on what their dissertation topic should be (not the most ethical thing to do in my personal opinion, but it sometimes happens - probably for a variety of reasons). Based on what I know/have experienced, I think most people get at least a say in what they want their dissertation topic to be.

2) I agree with the what others have said. The best advice you can get on a dissertation topic is to find something that will add to literature/fill a gap in the literature, but be advanced enough (either theory wise, analysis wise, etc, or a mix) to be a doctoral dissertation. It shouldn't be something that could pass as an undergraduate independent study final paper. For example, a dissertation topic could use advanced statistical models that surpass what is learned in an undergraduate course and on a niche topic that has not been previously studied, as opposed to only running correlations for your analysis + revamping previously completed research. Hopefully that makes sense!

3) I think the answer to this question is twofold. Research at the undergraduate level has less autonomy because many undergrads have less research experience/are assisting research projects to gain experience with research as opposed to spearheading research. So with that, they are oftentimes engaging in research projects that they might not have chosen themselves. I know several undergrads, myself included when I was still one, who reached out to faculty that I was interested in working with to see what projects they had that I could be part of. Sometimes they had projects where they were looking for undergraduate research assistants, and sometimes they didn't, but they always had ideas on where to go/what to do next to get the experience. It might be helpful to look into faculty at your institution/institutions near by, see who has done/is completing research that piques your interest, and then reach out to them about opportunities. If they don't have any directly, they might know of someone who does.

 

[Psycho Bunny]

To build upon @AcronymAllergy 's opinion:

1) You have "choice", but that choice occurs in a power dynamic. Ultimately, you just want your chair to approve the damn thing. It's like when your passive/aggressive friend asks, "what do you want for dinner?", and you know she wants Indian food. You can say whatever you want, and probably get it. But if you suggest Indian food, things might go smoother.

2) Realistically, the topic is narrowed down by the variable, "What available information can I use to get this thing done?"

3) Undergrad research is influenced by:

a. The faculty's diversity of psychological subfields (i.e., psych departments typically have faculty members that are: social psychologists, cognitive psychologists, experimental psychologists, etc). Clinical program faculties are populated by clinical psychologists, for the most part. That will limit research diversity.
b. Complications in seeing human subjects. In grant-world, there are specific requirements to see human subjects. It is a long and extremely boring process that has to go through an IRB. Clinical psych focuses on pathology, not general human behavior. There are ethical limitations to this. Tricking a healthy undergrad into eating candy= limited ethical issues. Tricking someone with schizophrenia, whose medications may already raise blood glucose, into eating candy= more ethical issues.

1. I suppose this is why everyone says goodness of fit is so important. Seems like a balancing act between practicality and doing something interesting enough to be able to push through the entirety of the program.


2. Yeah I guess I'm a bit lost on what resources/opprotunities for research would be available on a doctoral level but not on an undergraduate level.


3. This is extremely frustrating for me. I have many interests including depression (MDD), bipolar disorder, schizophrenia/psychosis, suicidality, research on psychotherapy (especially psychodynamic), psychopharmacology, and personality disorders. Obviously I can and would narrow it WAY down when the time comes, but my issue is that the research faculty at my college has virtually no one researching anything along those lines. The topics are very much neuro/cognitive based, like researching depth perception, memory, pattern recognition, etc. There was 1 exception, but her labs are full.

I wouldn't have a problem powering through to gain experience but my major concern is when applying to PHD/PsyD programs they look at what my research experiences were and it had nothing to do with THEIR own research (which I like) and they'd say I'm not a good fit as a result. Do you get what I mean?

 

[Psycho Bunny]

1. You have significant choice, although ultimately, your advisor (who's also typically your dissertation chair) essentially has to approve the idea. Part of this relates to being limited by logistical realities, such as access to study populations and measures. I imagine some advisors exert more influence on the decisions and others less. In my case, for example, my advisor essentially let me do whatever I wanted (within reason); once I had my main idea, I talked with them about it to have a clearer idea of what I wanted to do.

2. This is essentially impossible to answer. The best response I can come up with--narrow enough that the project can be realistically completed, but broad enough that the dissertation chair/committee feel it's appropriate for a dissertation. Usually that results in a relatively narrow scope, but dissertations also can often be wider-reaching that many other published studies because the grad student has a lot of time to focus/work on it.

3. I'm not sure if I know of anyone whose dissertation was an extension of anything they'd done in undergrad, other than maybe broadly relating to the topic area (e.g., substance abuse). That said, dissertation projects very, very commonly have undergraduate research assistants working on them.

1. As far as logistical realities go, is this widely dependent on the program or is it relatively similar across accredited programs?

2. Does the topic/research have to discover something new?

3. Many people say goodness of fit is crucial on if a program accepts you, wouldn't it be an issue if your undergraduate research isn't aligned with one of their faculty members when the topic they researched wasn't available to you as an undergraduate?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

1. As far as logistical realities go, is this widely dependent on the program or is it relatively similar across accredited programs?

2. Does the topic/research have to discover something new?

3. Many people say goodness of fit is crucial on if a program accepts you, wouldn't it be an issue if your undergraduate research isn't aligned with one of their faculty members when the topic they researched wasn't available to you as an undergraduate?

1. Yes and no, in that what's readily available at one program may not be readily available at another. For example, one program may have a relationship with a medical center that gets you easy access to an MRI or other expensive equipment. Another program may have a relationship with a residential eating disorders program and ready access to that research population. But in terms of general scope, there are probably some aspects of logistics that are universal (e.g., more expansive projects requiring larger study samples are going to take longer and be more expensive).

2. Yes, in that it must contribute meaningfully to the field. That does NOT mean the project has to "work" or that your hypotheses need to be correct/result in significant findings. Mine did not, for example. Overall, it's more about process than results. However, if it doesn't find significant results, that could make it harder to publish later.

3. Yes, it can be, and sometimes that's unfortunately related to luck. That said, I also know folks whose undergrad research experience had little or nothing to do with what they did in grad school. I imagine a lot depends on how you spin/explain it in your essays and during interviews. I suspect faculty will be at least somewhat understanding if you're interested in XYZ, but there isn't a single lab at your university researching anything even tangentially related.

 

[SchoolPsycho]

1. As far as logistical realities go, is this widely dependent on the program or is it relatively similar across accredited programs?

2. Does the topic/research have to discover something new?

3. Many people say goodness of fit is crucial on if a program accepts you, wouldn't it be an issue if your undergraduate research isn't aligned with one of their faculty members when the topic they researched wasn't available to you as an undergraduate?

For #3 - by way of example I did my undergraduate research in a social/personality psychology department. When I applied to research heavy school psychology departments, there was essentially no alignment between my undergraduate work and my research interests in graduate school.

I made the case that in undergrad, I learned how to think about research, analyze data, the process of research, how to go through IRB, etc., and was now ready to apply those skills to my true research interests, which were in close alignment with the faculty's interests in my target programs. This was very successful. One major purpose of getting research experience before graduate school is to show that you CAN do, WANT to do, and WILL do the research necessary to be a successful graduate student. They can and will teach you everything about their niche anyway.

 

[PsyDr]

1. I suppose this is why everyone says goodness of fit is so important. Seems like a balancing act between practicality and doing something interesting enough to be able to push through the entirety of the program.


2. Yeah I guess I'm a bit lost on what resources/opprotunities for research would be available on a doctoral level but not on an undergraduate level.


3. This is extremely frustrating for me. I have many interests including depression (MDD), bipolar disorder, schizophrenia/psychosis, suicidality, research on psychotherapy (especially psychodynamic), psychopharmacology, and personality disorders. Obviously I can and would narrow it WAY down when the time comes, but my issue is that the research faculty at my college has virtually no one researching anything along those lines. The topics are very much neuro/cognitive based, like researching depth perception, memory, pattern recognition, etc. There was 1 exception, but her labs are full.

I wouldn't have a problem powering through to gain experience but my major concern is when applying to PHD/PsyD programs they look at what my research experiences were and it had nothing to do with THEIR own research (which I like) and they'd say I'm not a good fit as a result. Do you get what I mean?

1) It isn't about "Goodness of fit". If you go to a reputable program, your dissertation chair will have their own research interests. His/her ability to publish that research literally determines their job security. No publish, no job. If they have to decide between:

a. getting along with a student who will be gone in a few years OR
b. getting a student to publish something that will progress the chair's job security

the choice is a no brainer, and it isn't you.

3) Protip: When you can't focus on content, you focus on process. Let's say I have published in a few different areas that you've mentioned, and am applying for a grant. The proposal requires that I explain why I am qualified to research X. The best approach is to find a common thread in all of that. Maybe I point out that my research uses XYZ statistical approach to large/small scale samples. Maybe I'm an expert in Monte Carlo simulations in evaluation of psychopathology and interventions.

In 2007, a New Mexico psychologist published research on the correlation between the earning potential of strippers and their menstrual cycle. You can justify anything in research.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

1) It isn't about "Goodness of fit". If you go to a reputable program, your dissertation chair will have their own research interests. His/her ability to publish that research literally determines their job security. No publish, no job. If they have to decide between:
a. getting along with a student who will be gone in a few years OR
b. getting a student to publish something that will progress the chair's job security

it's a no brainer.

3) Protip: When you can't focus on content, you focus on process. Let's say I have published in a few different areas that you've mentioned, and am applying for a grant. The proposal requires that I explain why I am qualified to research X. The best approach is to find a common thread in all of that. Maybe I point out that my research uses XYZ statistical approach to large/small scale samples. Maybe I'm an expert in Monte Carlo simulations in evaluation of psychopathology and interventions.

In 2007, a New Mexico psychologist published research on the correlation between the earning potential of strippers and their menstrual cycle. You can justify anything in research.

And to add to point 1--some of this can vary based on whether your advisor has tenure. That's obviously not something you control, but if they're very early career and needing to crank out publications, or are in the throes of their tenure prep/review process, this may influence their decisions regarding your research.

My advisor was later career and had tenure. They, for the most part, couldn't have cared less what I did for my dissertation so long as it sounded interesting and feasible. There were pros and cons associated with this. They were less involved, and provided less feedback, about nuts-and-bolts issues and other specifics. But they afforded me a whooooole lot of freedom, which forced me to learn a lot on my own that I might not have otherwise.

 

[Psycho Bunny]

1) It isn't about "Goodness of fit". If you go to a reputable program, your dissertation chair will have their own research interests. His/her ability to publish that research literally determines their job security. No publish, no job. If they have to decide between:

a. getting along with a student who will be gone in a few years OR
b. getting a student to publish something that will progress the chair's job security

the choice is a no brainer, and it isn't you.

3) Protip: When you can't focus on content, you focus on process. Let's say I have published in a few different areas that you've mentioned, and am applying for a grant. The proposal requires that I explain why I am qualified to research X. The best approach is to find a common thread in all of that. Maybe I point out that my research uses XYZ statistical approach to large/small scale samples. Maybe I'm an expert in Monte Carlo simulations in evaluation of psychopathology and interventions.

In 2007, a New Mexico psychologist published research on the correlation between the earning potential of strippers and their menstrual cycle. You can justify anything in research.

Question then- suppose I start research in 1 lab and then switch to another lab after a period of time that is at least somewhat more aligned with my interests....would that be an issue in some way?

Also, I want to ask, suppose there is a particular faculty member in a PHD program who's research is EXACTLY what id want to research. Would it be advisable, as an undergrad, to directly email that faculty member to ask them how I could make myself more competitive and/or in tune for that niche?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Question then- suppose I start research in 1 lab and then switch to another lab after a period of time that is at least somewhat more aligned with my interests....would that be an issue in some way?

If you're referring to grad school, then it's unusual to change labs/advisors. Students can definitely work with other labs for research projects, but it's uncommon to change advisors entirely. It very occasionally happens, but usually requires agreement from the program and all parties involved. In grad programs, the lab is tied to the advisor leading it (and their funding). If you change labs, you change advisors, and you may then also be changing funding sources. It's not a small undertaking.

Edit: the above is for a "typical" Ph.D. program. I'm not sure if things differ for Psy.D. programs.

 

[Psycho Bunny]

If you're referring to grad school, then it's unusual to change labs/advisors. Students can definitely work with other labs for research projects, but it's uncommon to change advisors entirely. It very occasionally happens, but usually requires agreement from the program and all parties involved. In grad programs, the lab is tied to the advisor leading it (and their funding). If you change labs, you change advisors, and you may then also be changing funding sources. It's not a small undertaking.

Edit: the above is for a "typical" Ph.D. program. I'm not sure if things differ for Psy.D. programs.

I meant as an undergrad. Say I work with a research faculty member now in undergrad on a topic I have not real interest in, for a semester or so, just to get my "foot in the door" so to speak, them switch to another faculty members who's research interests are more palatable to me. Is that seen as a bad thing or are they indifferent to those things in grad school as long as I have research experience to show for?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I meant as an undergrad. Say I work with a research faculty member now in undergrad on a topic I have not real interest in, for a semester or so, just to get my "foot in the door" so to speak, them switch to another faculty members who's research interests are more palatable to me. Is that seen as a bad thing or are they indifferent to those things in grad school as long as I have research experience to show for?

I'll defer to folks who've been more recently and directly involved in graduate admissions decision-making, but my knee-jerk response is that it wouldn't look bad so long as you had a reason for the change (and weren't, for example, kicked out of the lab). Although for you, it generally helps to build long-term relationships with the lab supervisor(s).

 

[Psychai]

I don't think it would typically be an issue to change labs in undergrad. But assuming you can balance the commitment, it would be even better to continue with the original lab and also start working with the new lab that aligns more closely with your interests. That way you are more likely to have opportunities reserved for senior lab members such as poster presentations, and opportunities for a stronger letter of recommendation. And then you can craft a narrative for applications that you got broad research experience in the first lab, and then learned more about your interests as you worked in a lab with experiences closer to the area you would like to focus on in grad school. The feedback that I've received is that although it can help a bit, it doesn't matter that much if the subject of your undergraduate research aligns with your grad school interests. There is a lot you can discuss in applications relating to the research process and how it led to generating questions in your area of interest (ex. X research experience in a memory lab made me interested in memory biases in SMI, which became the focus of my senior thesis, etc). Even if you're mostly doing data entry at first, there is still a lot you can discuss in applications about patterns you noticed and research questions you started to generate, and how the experience gave you an appreciation for how much goes into a research project from start to finish.

Personally, I chose to work with two different labs in undergrad, for a similar reason to what you're discussing since only one was recruiting initially, but the other aligned well with my interests. I'm very glad I had both experiences and they led to two letters of recommendation and exposure to different types of research that were helpful to discuss in interviews.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I don't think it would typically be an issue to change labs in undergrad. But assuming you can balance the commitment, it would be even better to continue with the original lab and also start working with the new lab that aligns more closely with your interests. That way you are more likely to have opportunities reserved for senior lab members such as poster presentations, and opportunities for a stronger letter of recommendation. And then you can craft a narrative for applications that you got broad research experience in the first lab, and then learned more about your interests as you worked in a lab with experiences closer to the area you would like to focus on in grad school. The feedback that I've received is that although it can help a bit, it doesn't matter that much if the subject of your undergraduate research aligns with your grad school interests. There is a lot you can discuss in applications relating to the research process and how it led to generating questions in your area of interest (ex. X research experience in a memory lab made me interested in memory biases in SMI, which became the focus of my senior thesis, etc). Even if you're mostly doing data entry at first, there is still a lot you can discuss in applications about patterns you noticed and research questions you started to generate, and how the experience gave you an appreciation for how much goes into a research project from start to finish.

Personally, I chose to work with two different labs in undergrad, for a similar reason to what you're discussing since only one was recruiting initially, but the other aligned well with my interests. I'm very glad I had both experiences and they led to two letters of recommendation and exposure to different types of research that were helpful to discuss in interviews.

100% agree.

 

[PsyDr]

Question then- suppose I start research in 1 lab and then switch to another lab after a period of time that is at least somewhat more aligned with my interests....would that be an issue in some way?

Also, I want to ask, suppose there is a particular faculty member in a PHD program who's research is EXACTLY what id want to research. Would it be advisable, as an undergrad, to directly email that faculty member to ask them how I could make myself more competitive and/or in tune for that niche?

1) It's a "dissertation" not a "thesis". It might be important to use the correct terms, if you're communicating with faculty.

2) I would highly encourage you to ask other people. I am a decent source of information for a few subjects, but that doesn't include "getting along with people" and "playing the game".

3) Maybe. If I wrote them, I would be extremely careful in how I worded the email. You'd want to come across as humbled/interested, but not presumptuous that you'd get in, or crazy, or someone who doesn't understand how the process works.

IIRC, you have already had a career. If someone emailed you, "If I came to work for you, could I do these tasks?", you'd probably think, "Uhhh, I wasn't positive we are hiring" and "Who said you had the job in the first place?" and "The job is to bring in money and make my life easier, this email doesn't scream that" and "If you get the job, I'll be the one telling you what to do" and "This is a bad way to start off a relationship". Also, the online school undergrads seem to like to send emails. It is off-putting.

4) Your research subject is like eating Mac & Cheese. You like it. It's good. You might look forward to eating it. If you got really into it, you could probably consider all the recipe variations, the history, and the minutiae of the components. But if you ate Mac & Cheese for every meal for 3 years, you'd probably hate it by the end. Then, if you ate it for another 2 years, you'd get over your hate, and become absolutely numb to Mac & Cheese. That's sorta what a research subject is like. Plan accordingly.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

1) It's a "dissertation" not a "thesis". It might be important to use the correct terms, if you're communicating with faculty.

2) I would highly encourage you to ask other people. I am a decent source of information for a few subjects, but that doesn't include "getting along with people" and "playing the game".

3) Maybe. If I wrote them, I would be extremely careful in how I worded the email. You'd want to come across as humbled/interested, but not presumptuous that you'd get in, or crazy, or someone who doesn't understand how the process works.

IIRC, you have already had a career. If someone emailed you, "If I came to work for you, could I do these tasks?", you'd probably think, "Uhhh, I wasn't positive we are hiring" and "Who said you had the job in the first place?" and "The job is to bring in money and make my life easier, this email doesn't scream that" and "If you get the job, I'll be the one telling you what to do" and "This is a bad way to start off a relationship". Also, the online school undergrads seem to like to send emails. It is off-putting.

4) Your research subject is like eating Mac & Cheese. You like it. It's good. You might look forward to eating it. If you got really into it, you could probably consider all the recipe variations, the history, and the minutiae of the components. But if you ate Mac & Cheese for every meal for 3 years, you'd probably hate it by the end. Then, if you ate it for another 2 years, you'd get over your hate, and become absolutely numb to Mac & Cheese. That's sorta what a research subject is like. Plan accordingly.

Lol, #4 is a spot on description!