My advisor stopped formalizing my work, what should I do now?

Question

Here is my situation: I am a Ph.D. student in theoretical CS. Since the start of my Ph.D. I have been sending my advisor the descriptions of my results verbally, he would usually ask me a bunch of clarification questions and I would answer back. Usually after some repetition of the questions-answers process (which usually lasts for about a month), he would declare that my result is correct. At that point, I would always ask him if he could write it up and he would agree.

Lately, it seems he is producing more papers so he stopped collaborating with me. He said that the time it takes him to formalize my results is almost equal to the time it takes him to write up his own papers.

My results are usually about the same level (they're shown usually in A-rated conferences) as my advisor's own.

What can I do about it?

Answer 1

As a PhD student, you are training to be a researcher in your field.

A very important (but difficult) part of being a researcher is communicating your results.

It sounds like, so far, you've done conceptual work in your field, but your advisor has helped with the communication part. Perhaps your advisor has helped "too much", but whatever the reasons, it seems like you have a false idea that this is how things work indefinitely: you describe your results, and your advisor writes the paper.

It's not reasonable for this to continue indefinitely. At some point, you need to learn to do the entire process. It seems like your advisor thinks it is past time for you to learn that step.

I think this is a very reasonable move by your advisor, and you should try to do these steps on your own. If you have trouble with specific parts, it's okay to ask for advice, but you should not expect your advisor to continue doing half of your work for you.

Answer 2

A PhD is a bit like an apprenticeship. An apprentice cabinet maker starts out by sweeping the floor, making cups of tea, rough cutting timber to approximate size etc. While this happens, the master craftsperson shows the apprentice how to use tools properly, and about the properties of wood, and aspects of practical aesthetic design. After a while, the apprentice starts making furniture with the assistance and supervision of the master. A while later, it is more or less just supervision. At the end of the apprenticeship, the apprentice makes pieces that demonstrate they have gained the required skills to work independently and become journeypersons.

In academia it is much the same. We start working with the supervisor with their research (or a training task where the supervisor already knows what the likely problems and solutions are) so they can pass on their skills. Then we progress to having a problem of our own to work on with their help and supervision. Then towards the end of the project we should be more or less working independently, showing we have developed the skills required to do so, with the supervisor only providing minimal guidance. The thesis is basically your apprentice piece and you are ready for a post-doc, research assistant or even independent faculty post.

So if it is a skill that you need to be able to research independently, it is a skill that your supervisor should not be doing for you at the end of the project. A good supervisor will taper the amount of help they give you in order for you to develop as a researcher (and not drop you in at the deep end). It sounds like you have a good supervisor!

Answer 3

It's extremely, extremely important to be able to communicate your ideas and write them up in a clear fashion. Once you have worked something out, you have to be able to explain it to other people (that includes verbally and in written language).

I think your supervisor is saying that he already has helped you a lot with writing up your ideas and clarifying them to the point where he was basically doing it for you. I'm not blaming you for this as it can be quite confusing when you are a PhD student as there are no standardization amongst what PhD supervisors do for their students to the point where you might think that something that they are doing is normal practice when it really isn't.

But think about it: imagine a nightmare viva scenario where you have results which you present at your PhD viva but then are unable to answer any basic questions about any of it. It becomes clear that the supervisor did it for you and the examiners have to fail you (I know of one time when this has happened).

Your supervisor is saying that you need to do this yourself although he might be able to offer some comments here and there.

Answer 4

Another thing to consider -- not necessarily happening in your case, but it is quite a common complaint by junior researchers -- is the idea that you are opening yourself up to not getting enough credit for your contributions to your discipline.

In the more benign cases, the question is should a supervisor be added to the list of authors of a paper, even if the contribution is small? In other cases, the question is should the supervisor be listed first as the primary author? This issue has been discussed many times and there's no point in going over it all here.

In more extreme cases, the supervisors takes all the credit and the researcher (the ideas person) does not even any authorship. It doesn't seem like that is happeneing to you but it is something to be wary of...