[Kichererbsen]

I worked at a chair for 12 years - in that time I've seen a lot of PhD students go through this.

If it helps anything at all: It's normal. At this point, you've already proven you're smart and knowledgeable. Now, the universe wants to see if you can also finish what you've started. That's the main thing a PhD proves: That you can take an incredibly interesting topic and then do all the boring stuff that they need you to do to be formally compliant with arbitrary rules.

Focus on finishing. Reduce the scope as much as possible again. Down to your core message (or 3-4 core messages, I guess, for paper-based dissertations).

Listen to the feedback you get from your advisor.

You got this!

[wjnc]

This is spot on. My dad was a professor and had dozens of PhDs. The only thing differentiating them (as I remember him telling me) was the resolve to keep work as /tiny/ as possible. Who is remember for his/her PhD? Only the smallest cream of the crop. He even made good fun of worthless thesis by (then) well known professors. It’s not about your PhD.

When I did my MSc thesis he told me it was a pretty good PhD. (Before giving me a months work in corrections.) I didn’t understand back then, but I understand now. It was small, replicatable and novel (still is)! Just replicate three times and be done with it. You’ve proven your mastery. Now start something serious.

[collabs]

> This is spot on. My dad was a professor and had dozens of PhDs. The only thing differentiating them (as I remember him telling me) was the resolve to keep work as /tiny/ as possible. Who is remember for his/her PhD? Only the smallest cream of the crop. He even made good fun of worthless thesis by (then) well known professors. It’s not about your PhD.

My professor once told me he presented at a small conference, the whole audience everybody had PhD in mathematics and maybe 2 of the 50 or so people in the audience could follow along. The point he was trying to make is at some point the people in the audience were not really interested in what was being presented because it is difficult to just follow along some really niche topic.

[brandall10]

There was a book I read a couple years back called "Mathematica: A Secret World of Intuition and Curiosity", by David Bessis.

He discussed this topic and how generally it's left to those who are more notable in a field to ask the 'dumb' questions everyone else is afraid to ask. And such questions often need to be asked to get the audience on board and open the floodgates with areas of niche research - the speaker themself is often too far into the rabbit hole to discern the difference between opaque and obvious.

So it stands to reason, at smaller conferences this would be a big problem, with fewer thought leaders in attendance whose reputations are intact enough that they wouldn't mind looking foolish.

[stathibus]

> Focus on finishing. Reduce the scope as much as possible again.

in my field this would be terrible advice. instead you need to be doing something that your audience actually will give a shit about.

[lazyasciiart]

If you’ve spent a significant amount of time widening the scope as far as possible to include everything interesting about your original question, and there is nothing in that whole widened scope that the audience will give a shit about, your topic is unsaveable and your advisor is a failure.

If there is something interesting enough to qualify, then reduce the scope as much as possible. It should go without saying that you shouldn’t throw out the interesting bit.

[stathibus]

The problem that occurs in practice is “focus on finishing” leads people to finish without actually doing anything meaningful. Advisors may or may not encourage this depending on where they are in their career.

When you get on the industry job market nobody cares if it took you 3 years or 7 years to do the work, they only care if it’s meaningful.

[arethuza]

It's been a long long time since I was the academic research world - but isn't 3 published papers pretty much the expectation for a PhD quantity of research?

[noelwelsh]

Really depends on the field. Computer science research usually has pretty short cycle times. If you're working on, say, biology or anthropology, collecting data can take substantially longer.

[wanderingmind]

Technical feedback yes, but always reject any career feedback from your advisor since the data shows it's unlikely a good model for future career success