For more ambitious research projects, one often needs to be soaked in ideas or concepts for longer, in an unstructured, low-pressure situation—often when one is simply attending to some intellectual unease, not formally “doing research.” Ambitious endeavors may also emerge serendipitously. The following applies to more humble research projects: the kinds one sets out with the goal of “let’s get some research done and publish something useful.”
For such projects, it's useful to start by cutting to the core: Is there a real, meaningful problem to be solved? Within the first few weeks of diving into a research area, either discover a genuine problem independently or obtain a clearly defined one from your advisor or collaborator. Validate early on that it hasn’t already been resolved in the literature.
Don’t force relevance. If it feels like you're spinning wheels or propping up a dead end, trust that instinct. Don’t be afraid to question—even challenge—your collaborator or advisor’s direction if it lacks substance. Intellectual honesty must come before authority.
Gauging how important a work is is often subjective, especially for incremental work, but it is essential to share a similar opinion of importance for the collaborative project at hand. If you don’t think it’s important, leave—you’re wasting time.
If you independently find an interesting, viable problem but your advisor isn’t on board, don't linger in hope. Advisors rarely pivot dramatically once they’ve set their course. It’s far better to carve out independence—or move on to someone who shares your vision—than to wait for validation that may never come. Sticking around a misaligned project out of loyalty or fear is a fast track to burnout and disillusionment.
Beware of advisors who combine two dangerous traits: passivity and control. I call them the clueless control freaks. These are the types who don’t respond to substantive ideas or research questions, yet quickly step in when you attempt to move forward independently—often to obstruct, not enable.
They are frequently absent from your intellectual development but present when it’s time to say “no.” This combination is especially toxic because it creates a feedback vacuum while preventing autonomy. In effect, they halt your progress both through neglect and interference.
They often at first appear as perfectionists, so it's easy to get swayed.
For such projects, it's useful to start by cutting to the core: Is there a real, meaningful problem to be solved? Within the first few weeks of diving into a research area, either discover a genuine problem independently or obtain a clearly defined one from your advisor or collaborator. Validate early on that it hasn’t already been resolved in the literature.
Don’t force relevance. If it feels like you're spinning wheels or propping up a dead end, trust that instinct. Don’t be afraid to question—even challenge—your collaborator or advisor’s direction if it lacks substance. Intellectual honesty must come before authority.
Gauging how important a work is is often subjective, especially for incremental work, but it is essential to share a similar opinion of importance for the collaborative project at hand. If you don’t think it’s important, leave—you’re wasting time.
If you independently find an interesting, viable problem but your advisor isn’t on board, don't linger in hope. Advisors rarely pivot dramatically once they’ve set their course. It’s far better to carve out independence—or move on to someone who shares your vision—than to wait for validation that may never come. Sticking around a misaligned project out of loyalty or fear is a fast track to burnout and disillusionment.
Beware of advisors who combine two dangerous traits: passivity and control. I call them the clueless control freaks. These are the types who don’t respond to substantive ideas or research questions, yet quickly step in when you attempt to move forward independently—often to obstruct, not enable.
They are frequently absent from your intellectual development but present when it’s time to say “no.” This combination is especially toxic because it creates a feedback vacuum while preventing autonomy. In effect, they halt your progress both through neglect and interference.
They often at first appear as perfectionists, so it's easy to get swayed.