Supervision and the question of research expertise
When I was working on my doctoral thesis, I was greatly concerned that my supervisor’s area of academic expertise did not adequately extend to my own research topic (her work was focused migration studies, the Italian diaspora and transnational care-giving, whilst my thesis dealt specifically with regional development and religious change in Turkey). This feeling was generated by the fact that, during my PhD, I was increasingly being plagued by unfocused, directionless periods - at which time a little fog of confusion would settle over my head, blocking any hope of clear understanding as to the ‘purpose’ of my research. To some extent, I felt as though I was piloting an aircraft for which I had no navigator. I felt I needed someone to reach over, wrest the controls from my hand and pilot the plane on a course that would ultimately lead to my final destination. I readily assumed that the uncertainty I felt in proceeding, in pretty much all stages of my thesis, was a symptom of my supervisor’s lack of knowledge about my precise topic.
Yet my supervisor was - and still is – a vibrant, enthusiastic individual who asked intelligent questions, was able to identify potential difficulties, always thoroughly assessed my written work and gave sensible guidance.
Not so long ago I came across an interesting article which was written by a Professor in History at an Australian University who made me think that I was perhaps not so disadvantaged in this situation after all. This historian (and very experienced supervisor) argued that it is, in fact, best not to have PhD students working on subjects closely related to the supervisor’s own. To have a student working on frontiers unknown to the supervisor is actually important because it builds the candidate’s capacity for independent thought, produces self-confidence, motivates them to network with scholars (perhaps overseas) whose work more closely aligns with theirs, and ensures that the supervisor doesn’t have a too proprietorial concern about the direction and results of the research.
Reflecting on my own experience, I can now see that there is certainly some truth in these claims. My opinion is that, regardless of the overlap of area specialisation, every PhD student will inevitably struggle with research direction and focus at some time. If your supervisor is (as mine was) inquisitive, well-informed, understands what is required in a doctoral dissertation and gives timely feedback on your work, then I think you will have a solid basis from which to grow as a researcher. I am of the opinion now that good supervisors assume the role of sounding-board to which we can direct our ideas and receive critical advice and comment.