Obviously there is no right answer here, but any helpful advice or things to consider would be much appreciated. I am early in my PhD and am considering switching research groups. I'll try to highlight the pros and cons of each research group. My field is physics, and I would like to ultimately stay in academia and pursue the tenure-track after graduation. I should note that the people (including PIs) in both groups are great people who stress work-life balance and students are generally happy in both groups -- I am considering switching as a matter of personal styles. I don't think switching would generate any hostility, since many students do this in our program early on. Let's call these two groups Group A and Group B.
Group A: I currently work in this group. It is a larger group and is headed by a very well known PI who has won a very big award. Because it is so large, things can be a bit disorganized and progress can move somewhat slowly. As a result, students tend to have fewer first-author publications upon graduation and many n-th author collaboration papers. The publications are quite impactful, but I do feel like postdoc and fellowship committees value quantity over quality to some extent. Collaborations are becoming increasingly valued by the field, but it still seems like an uphill battle. I have been getting frustrated with the slow-moving pace of the group, but my research interests align precisely with what the group studies. Graduates of this group are typically successful in academia, but do not win big prize fellowships. It seems that the group's name and connections help the students succeed more so than the students' ability to distinguish themselves as researchers.
Group B: I am considering switching into this group. It is smaller, and the PI is very respected, but is not as well known as Group A's. Since it is smaller, there is less bureaucratic hold-up, and students publish many first-author publications. I would be interested in this group's work, but it is slightly less interesting to me than Group A's. With that said, there is more freedom to pursue one's interests in this group and strike up outside collaborations, since you are less constrained by the needs and bureaucracy of the group like in Group A. Graduates of this group consistently win big fellowships right out of graduate school. It seems like individuals have an ability to distinguish themselves as researchers in this group.
Group A has the name and aligned research interests, but the structure of the group worries me. I have been getting very frustrated with the pace of research in the group, as I'm often held up by bureaucracy and constrained by the research limitations of the group. Group B is less well-known and I would be venturing into unfamiliar territory research-wise, but I believe I would be able to distinguish myself as an individual researcher more. I'm happy contributing to a large group, but I fear that various committees still prize many individual accomplishments over fewer made in a larger group. Any advice would be much appreciated!
Submitted August 01, 2022 at 02:03AM by Dapper_Resource_3743
via reddit https://ift.tt/6fq9MVj