A recently published paper seriously impairs the novelty of my dissertation. Which should be the purpose of the next meeting with my supervisor?

Question

I am a second-year PhD student in management, and I've recently started working on my dissertation.

The topic I got assigned is a fast-growing one. Nonetheless, I initially managed to ensure the novelty of my work by highlighting the fact that the extant literature has largely overlooked a class of specific predictors.

However, while I was collecting the literature to produce a systematic literature review on this specific topic (i.e., using these class of predictors in empirical models forecasting the occurrence of a given phenomenon), I found a well-written recently published paper thoroughly covering the same topic.

At the moment, the novelty of my dissertation, which was primarily related to highlighting this inadequacy of previous literature, has been seriously impaired.

Now, the supervisor I got assigned is not an expert in this research field.

When asking for suggestions, he can almost randomly point me in five different directions in every conversation.

Having double-checked his suggestions, I realized that he merely gives me random advice (e.g., he considers "novel" predictors that have been around for decades).

Considering that I only have a year and nine months left, I plan to schedule a meeting to discuss the issue. However, I was wondering which should be the purpose of the meeting.

Should I convince him to assign me another topic or incorporate his (random) suggestions into my research?

Considering the first option, should I approach the meeting with a potential research interest/topic already at hand?

Thank you for your time.

Answer 1

Given the additional information in the comments, I'd suggest that you have a broad discussion with your advisor, but be prepared to switch topics.

However, it might not be required to switch much. Some closely related questions might remain. You have certainly gained some insight into the general area of the original question, so you are in a good place to be flexible. You might even find that the published paper is an opportunity to extend it.

But, as you have discovered, working in a hot area is inherently risky as you can be assured there is parallel research going on as you work. I was "lucky" enough to work in an ice-cold area, actually, and only a few people in the world were much interested or could really judge it (math analysis).

But your discussion with your advisor might be broad enough that you wind up with several option (several irons in the fire) so that you don't get caught again.

And, depending on where you are in the research, the paper might not affect your graduation. Your advisor will know the rules. I know of one case where essentially the same thesis by two students resulted properly in two degrees with the knowledge and assent of all advisors, the universities, and the research community in general. It did, however, delay their graduation while an investigation was made. Both went on to good careers. They independently answered an important question in computer language design.

Answer 2

I think you have to think about what you want before deciding how to approach your advisor. Here are two extreme possibilities.

You are intent on an academic career in this area. Your thesis will be your first piece of new work. You want it to be well received as a significant contribution.

In this case you might well want a new topic.

Alternatively

Your PhD is just a ticket to a job in industry. What you really need is an adequate thesis. Finishing the one you've started will suffice, even though some of your ideas have been scooped.

In this case simply put in the not quite two years and move on.

I suggest that you think about where your goal is on the continuum between these alternatives. Then prepare to convince your advisor that with his help (which seems to be somewhat casual) you have a way to reach that goal.