Change the PhD: PhD by Publication

The other day I was writing about changing the PhD and Jenny wrote an informative reply to my post informing me that in the UK there are actually three types of PhD programs, the ones that I had experience with (though my researching of PhD programs): the "enter with a dissertation topic;" those that have required course components and a dissertation (what I would term "North American style"); and finally a type of PhD program called PhD by Publication.

Being curious, I spent some time looking into what is meant by this type of PhD program and it added to my readitlater reading list (along with the Change11 posts that I wanted to read that day).  I have to say that  I was sufficiently intrigued by this method of getting a PhD. As Jenny alluded it, it is hard to get into this type of program since it seems like it's either reserved for staff members of the university (so perhaps as a way of getting required credentials for career advancement having already proved your knowledge, know-how and capabilities by working at that institution and having already published.  The other way of getting in (if the institution has this type of program for non-staffers) seems to be to come in with a portfolio of publications already and provide justification as to why these collected works are worthy of a PhD.

It seems to me, that if you haven't already published in peer-reviewed journals, a traditional PhD may be the route to go (since that would be shorter), but if you have already published in peer-reviewed journals that body of work can speak to your skills. It seems like there isn't much standardization in PhD by Publication programs, but it seems like your publications (which are peer reviewed, defended in writing by the candidate, and reviewed by the faculty of the institutions) are a substitute for the dissertation. Perhaps there is additional coursework required for some more observation by faculty and other SMEs who are tasked with certifying your competency.

Personally I have no problem with this, I actually think it is an interesting idea.  Some of the comments I saw online however, from traditional PhD holders seems negative, talking about people who get PhDs this way as people who couldn't compete and couldn't hack a "real" PhD. From an educational perspective I think that people are too wedded to the Dissertation without thinking about what a dissertation is meant to show - and that is your capability, as a PhD candidate, to conduct some original research.  If 5-7-10-15 research articles accomplish the same goal, who care if you did a dissertation or published original research?  After all, not all PhD dissertations are publishable, but all of your published research is....well, peer-reviewed and published!

I don't know how old this concept of PhD by Publication is, but it seems like an way to think out of the box and change PhD education :-)

Comments

Apostolos K. ("AK") said…
I only know a little about PhD by publication - and what I have found out is in line with what you have discovered. I think there are a couple of extra things to consider. First is whether your pre-PhD publications are collaboratively written or not and if they are whether you are the lead author. Different universities will have different rules about this.

And then - from what I have found out - your published papers need to lead to a coherent original piece of writing. So it's not enough to just submit your published papers - these need to lead to a new piece of writing that incorporates the ideas from the papers.

And finally - I think there are probably some rules about the timescale over which the papers are written - i.e. they would need to be written within the normal timeframe of a PhD.

And of course - the fees are still just the same without the benefit of the same amount of supervision and supporting seminars - or at least that's my understanding :-)
November 10, 2011 at 3:36 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Latour: Third Source of Uncertainty - Objects have agency too!

Image
Continuing on my exploration of ANT, and asynchronous and indirect dialogue with Latour - this blog post will cover the third source of uncertainty, which according to Latour, is that Objects have agency too! As with the previous blog posts, I've pulled out quotes from the book that seemed interesting, or that I reacted to in some way, and I am responding to them here. no tie can be said to be durable and made of social stuff (p. 66) This quote seems to continue Latour's assertion that there is no such thing as "social" or "social stuff" and that "social", or the meaning of needs to be negotiated and better understood.  It also continues the thought that social can only be seen from the actions of its actors, the traces they leave behind, and that these bonds are not durable because they need continuous reinforcement. I guess Social is a perishable item. Left to its own devices, a power relationship that mobilizes nothing but social skil...
Read more

MOOC participation - open door policy and analytics

The other day I was reading ZML Didaktik on the topic of MOOC participants. In MOOCs, one of the big questions is why are people lurking and not participating? If more than 500 people join a MOOC, why are only 10% contributing with any amount of regularity?  On the same blog, in a previous blog post, I had commented (it was an open stream of thought really) that perhaps there should be an open enrollment period, and then if the system sees that certain participants are bellow a threshold of activity, the system may give them the option to self-identify as a lurker, or un-register from the class. This line of thought went along a view that compared to the traditional classroom; in a traditional classroom students register for the course, they can attend classes for a week and then decide whether or not they want to stay with the course or not. If they do stay with the course they know that there is a certain amount of "lurking" that they can get away with, but they do have ...
Read more

You've been punk'd! However, that was an educational experience

Image
It's now the end of Teaching Goes Massive: New Skills Required (aka #massiveteaching) on coursera. Well, almost, we still have a couple of days left. I guess that the lesson here is that we were (the "learners") were punk'd† by Paul-Olivier Dehaye of the Univerisity of Zurich. After that last blog post (and subsequent pickup of the post by George Siemens and others) Inside Higher Education and the Chronicle wanted to chat with me about this MOOC experience. I only had time for one of the two before things went to press, so my 15 minutes of fame went to IHE.  Both IHE and the C hronicle have written about the topic, and have received some information from Coursera on the incident.  Others have also written about it (see here , here and here ) It's surprising to me that the University, and Coursera, waited until after this thing was a big issue in order to respond in the class, and clue people into what was happening. On Wednesday (day 3 of Week 3/3 of the ...
Read more