0

I am a second-year PhD student in management, and I’ve recently started working on my dissertation. The topic I got assigned is a fast-growing one. Nonetheless, I initially managed to ensure the novelty of my work by highlighting the fact that the extant literature has largely overlooked a class of specific predictors. However, while I was collecting the literature to produce a systematic literature review on this specific topic (i.e., using these class of predictors in empirical models forecasting the occurrence of a given phenomenon), I found a well-written recently published paper thoroughly covering the same topic. At the moment, the novelty of my dissertation, which was primarily related to highlighting this inadequacy of previous literature, has been seriously impaired. Now, the supervisor I got assigned is not an expert in this research field. When asking for suggestions, he can almost randomly point me in five different directions in every conversation. Having double-checked his suggestions, I realized that he barely gives me random advice (e.g., he considers "novel" predictors that have been around for decades). Considering that I only have a year and nine months left, should I convince him to assign me another topic or incorporate his (random) suggestions into my research? Thank you for your time.