mjhjmtu

I am a theoretical computer science student working on algorithms. I am doubting myself a bit, as I have spent the last 6-7 months working on one problem. Although I am not able to solve the desired problem, I have been able to solve some specific cases. I am currently writing a paper as my research supervisor advised, but when I look at the work of other researchers in my field, my own research works seems insignificant. To me it appears that my (one- or two-page-long) algorithm may seem trivial to an established researcher.

Question: Is it okay if the work of PhD student seems insignificant as compared to other researchers in the field?

It is entirely normal that beginning students would achieve incremental results that compare poorly to the best papers from the best researchers in the field. Sometimes researchers need time to mature, and sometimes research directions just don't pan out even for the best of us. Not every worthwhile paper is revolutionary.

That said, it's impossible for us to tell whether you should be concerned or not. It's possible you did everything exactly right and this is where the science led you; it's also possible that you did not. The person best suited to judge this is your advisor. Since your advisor wants you to publish, it would seem that they are not too concerned. Still, asking them for feedback is likely a good idea.

It is actually very difficult to judge how significant your work is before you publish it and others try to use it or build something upon it. There are many examples of great scientists misjudging their work.

My favorite is John Nash's paper on equilibrium in games. Nash thought it wasn't a big deal so he allegedly didn't even bother wasting time to publish it. The story goes his adviser published it on his behalf. Now it is considered the most important paper in economics, if not all social sciences. He got a Nobel prize for it. Nobel committee usually features him on top of their economics website. 11 or now 12 more Nobel prizes were given for work directly based on this paper.

Just publish it and see how it works out.

In response to comments, this is just a story about Nash's initial attitude towards his discovery of equilibrium that I heard many times. Even if it is exaggerated, it is clear Nash couldn't have know the greatness of his discovery until much later. This documentary has some pieces of this story.

I wouldn't be concerned at all. In fact, I ask "seems insignificant to who?" As you say, you doubt yourself, but your advisor (and others) may have no doubts at all.

In CS, as in mathematics, some problems are just harder (much harder) than others, so small results may actually be significant in search of a larger goal. I've worked on problems (in math) for which no progress could be made at all.

It is almost always good advice to follow your advisors direction in such things.

For many people, your own research will often seem insignificant compared to others for the simple reason that you've thought enough about the topic for things to feel obvious. This is especially the case in math and computer science. If you really do have such doubts, talk to your advisor. They should have more of an idea of how good your work is.

Researchers always need some time to mature. In a few exceptional cases, that maturation may happen before officially starting the PhD. Don't compare yourself against those exceptions. From my experience, the typical researcher only starts producing good papers in the second half of their PhD, or only after becoming a postdoc.

To suggest an answer, based on personal experience and experience of my friends: I propose an illustration on how the 3 key variables in student's cognition, usually evolve during PhD studies (including completion of the thesis and peer-reviewed article publication), below. On the graph we have t axis for time period, orthogonal axis for relative value of the variables over time and: the psychological milestone of the PhD research.

So, in your cognition there are variables:

• Cr - confidence in your research, i.e. that you'll successfully complete the research, defend the thesis and get the PhD. diploma




• Rs - your impression on significance of your research in the relevant field and relative to the significance of the related works.




• |Rw| - aggregated knowledge about fundamental and recent research approaches / works / proposals, i.e. number of related works you reviewed and really understood, in all relevant aspects

The interpretation of the graph:

• After you formulate the research directions and initial draft, there is typical illusion that your work would have huge impact in the field i.e. that your contribution will become regular reference in future review articles in the field. Of course, such high value of Cr is just product of enthusiasmic-peak & ignorance on relevant works.
  
  
  • As you review and practically re-evaluate more and more of related research, Rs will continue to drop, however, you'll get better understating what is big and what tiny contribution in the field. i.e. the precision of your impression on Rs will rise.
  
  

The ultimate outcome of the whole game is function of criterion:

• Would you reach the psychological milestone of your PhD research, before Cr breaks you down, causing you to leave the studies?

So, if you are still worried if your research is / will be / significant enough - you are on the left part of the t axis. Therefore, what you have to do: continue to dig and study related research -- as it would, beside discussed above, provide you with ideas how to adjust and/or re-frame your research to fit what seems to be ok significance.

Or, to provide simple answer: yes, it is ok (compared to research articles, published in journals with IF > 1.0).
But, if the law on postgraduate studies / the statute of your university / PhD. studies / is anything similar to my case (or in general to European standards) - you should think on how to produce a research article (focused on a chapter from PhD. thesis), that should be "in the league" with related research article -- maybe not in the top, but in the same general cluster.

Hope this helps :)

Question: Is it okay if the work of PhD student seems insignificant as
compared to other researchers in the field?

It is clear that the answer to your question is a unanimous yes, based on all the answers.

You are experiencing a (mild, hopefully) form of the impostor syndrome, a well known disease in academia which is especially virulent among PhD students.

As a scientist, you are probably aware that you can't objectively evaluate your own work (by definition). In academia, the evaluation of a researcher' work is done by anonymous reviewers when you submit a paper. So don't worry, your work will be duly evaluated, and the reviewers will give you some more objective feedback about your work (as objective as peer review can be, there is always a fair amount of chance in the process). Reviewers are unlikely to hold their punches so it might be unpleasant, but at least you will have a clearer idea of where your current work stands with respect to the expectations in your field. Whether the reviews turn out positive or not, they should give you indications about what is good and what should be improved in your approach.

In the meantime, try to avoid evaluating your own work, but more importantly avoid judging your own value based on a few months of early work. For many people, the PhD is a time of self doubt because for the first time one faces their own limitations in a very concrete way. In my opinion, the way to move forward is to consider it as an opportunity to not only explore one's own limitations, but also their skills and especially the unique ones: try to find out what you are particularly good at (it's generally the same as what motivates you), and direct your work in this direction as much as possible. But in case this kind of thoughts causes you too much anxiety, don't hesitate to seek psychological advice, there is nothing wrong with that.