In my discipline, animal physiology, as well as for most all PhD theses in natural sciences at Swedish universities, these are made up of several publications (usually 3-6) that have been published in established, peer-reviewed international journals, or a mix of 2-3 published papers and 1-2 manuscripts ready for submission. These papers are referred to in the thesis summary text a Paper I, Paper II etc. The summary text has the purpose of giving the background for the research project (often, this can make a basis for a review paper in the field), and then bringing to all the major results of the research into a coherent discussion.

I think the comment by John Nemeth on "cookiecutterism" is extremely naive and very much out of synch with modern research. We have a societal responsibility to publish our scientific findings in a prompt and correct manner, and research which is carried out over several years is therefore logically published in several papers. In this context, I cannot but wonder how many British monographic PhD-theses with interesting results are gathering dust in university offices without their research findings ever been made public?

In response to Theodora Issa, I can just say that all Swedish PhD theses are defended orally, in public. The thesis is made public 3 weeks before the defense. A copy of the thesis is actually nailed to the wall of the main university building in a true Lutheran spirit ;-), but nowadays it's also "nailed" electronically on the university website. This allows anyone, academics and laymen alike to have time to examine the thesis and ask questions at the thesis defense.

Cheers, Thrandur

Well... for me, I believe this should be in addition to the thesis - furthermore, and with the level of those graduating with PhDs we need to bring back the verbal defence of the PhD... thus, what I feel should be done:

(1) The full thesis of 100,000 words

(2) Publications throughout the work for the PhD - which might be in the region of 5-10 publications (Conferences and journal articles)

(3) The verbal defence of the thesis

Regards

Theodora Issa

I will have to agree with Theodora to some extent. I'm currently doing my doctoral by publications, and I feel that one engages even more with the literature during a full thesis. However one too needs to consider the aim of conducting research is to generate knowledge and this is done via publication. So I personally feel that both methods has it's pro's and con's. However full thesis allows for a better / deeper understanding of the subject matter being investigated.

In the hard sciences (physics, math. etc.) it is indeed pretty common that a thesis is essentially a collection of (published) papers, sometimes with a joint introduction. So in these fields it is already adopted de facto.

I agree with the fact that PhD students should publish before they graduate. They should do it in a peer reviewed journal. It is a good challenge both for the student and for the advisor.

Man! What a fool's errand this discussion is. Cookiecutterism at its best. A dissertation should be one story whose parts might make for separate publications as did mine. If it isn't one piece of research, then award multiple degrees or none if the results don't warrant it.

Hey John... I do not think it was meant to be SEPARATE issues - but deriving from that whole body of the PhD!

Regards

Theodora Issa

Hi Rami,

I think it is appropriate to publish from a thesis as it is being written - and many supervisors will encourage this, irrespective of whether it is mandated or not. Sometimes mandating things is actually detrimental to quality as it becomes a hoop to jump through.

The thesis obviously needs to stand as an independent artefact and need not be 'mined' for articles in future.

Kevin.

In my discipline, animal physiology, as well as for most all PhD theses in natural sciences at Swedish universities, these are made up of several publications (usually 3-6) that have been published in established, peer-reviewed international journals, or a mix of 2-3 published papers and 1-2 manuscripts ready for submission. These papers are referred to in the thesis summary text a Paper I, Paper II etc. The summary text has the purpose of giving the background for the research project (often, this can make a basis for a review paper in the field), and then bringing to all the major results of the research into a coherent discussion.

I think the comment by John Nemeth on "cookiecutterism" is extremely naive and very much out of synch with modern research. We have a societal responsibility to publish our scientific findings in a prompt and correct manner, and research which is carried out over several years is therefore logically published in several papers. In this context, I cannot but wonder how many British monographic PhD-theses with interesting results are gathering dust in university offices without their research findings ever been made public?

In response to Theodora Issa, I can just say that all Swedish PhD theses are defended orally, in public. The thesis is made public 3 weeks before the defense. A copy of the thesis is actually nailed to the wall of the main university building in a true Lutheran spirit ;-), but nowadays it's also "nailed" electronically on the university website. This allows anyone, academics and laymen alike to have time to examine the thesis and ask questions at the thesis defense.

Cheers, Thrandur

Well, Bjorn, perhaps I am naive, but let me go a bit beyond the inferences and directness of my first comment.

I have absoultely no problem with publishing useful research results as they emerge. In fact, I published during my MS tenure, and was preparing other papers during my PHD process. But, I was in a doctoral program designed to extend my education to the point of being able to produce, through research, a singleminded, decipherable piece of work, in that case a dissertation. In other words, I was in another phase of my education, that of learning how to do research and communicate the results. The dissertation was one part, along with courses, seminars, etc. of an educational process that led to a doctorate. That process would perhaps enable me to one day to take a lot of information in a particular area and maybe write a book, edit or direct the work of others, make important decisions, and so on. A dissertation is a consistently directional effort to elucidate a particular subject not so elucidated before, i.e. original, and learn how to do original research...Got IT?

Maybe, I can express this another way. I also directed a large research laboratory at a well-known institution of higher learning in the USA. We did research and published the results. This research for the most part grew out of work started by someone in some dissertation, and we had all learned how to do research somewhere. That somewhere was almost always through a thesis or dissertation process...we learned how, then we continued to do the research and communicated the results.

Now, other cultures may have a differing view of what constitutes the content and even the amount of paper in a dissertation. That's fine. If a collection of essays is research to you. So be it. Why three essays? Why not four or two. Sorry about the cookiecutterism comment, but... There are those that don't need to be taught how to be researchers or educators, but most are not Thomas Jefferson. We those knckledraggers that need the full educational process. And, I suppose we need the doctorate to prove our worthiness.

However, (there's always one of those and a but, as well), neither I nor legions of scientists and enginneers would ever confuse a portfolio of research publications for our own dissertation-based advanced educations. You see I have created such a portfolio subsequent to the PHD. Such a collection of articles would not get my signature on the front page of a faux dissertation.

Now, if you run a laboratory full of slav..uh...students cranking out work for you or your organization until they get fed up and you finally give them a degree, then you might have a different motivation. I suppose that ethical behavior is another discussion, but is it?

My guess about the gathering of dust on theses is that they generally weren't worth much, certainly not a doctorate, or the people involved were lazy. Those dissertations of high quality are published in one piece or several.

God bless, I thought I heard thousands of sneezes.

Hi all - seems a little tense here - so let me try my best to bring the discussion back to 'an even keel'. Agreed - many a 'traditional' single primary, empirical-based PhD study has never made it to 'press'. However, I would argue that the better ones have done - especially if they have gone on to form the career basis of many an established academic scholar.

On the other hand, perhaps it's the 'traditional' PhD that is part of the problem. There are many ways of 'skinning the same rabbit'. The Scandanavian system of acquiring a PhD through a 'short' publication portfolio is well established. I agree - how many is enough; although, to me, the question should more be ' what is the quality of the publications and publishers etc'? Then there are 'taught' doctorates - especially say in educational studies. In my profession, there is also the 'clinical or professional doctorate'. My Phd is a 'PhD by publication'. I did things 'the wrong way around'. I moved from one university to another and my Phd topic was not very portable - so it took time and, during that time, i was publishing a lot. In the end, my portfolio included around 40 international peer-reviewed articles that i had published and a preceding detailed synopsis.

We might be getting onto another question here - but it's not, to me, should a university adopt a particular singular method i.e a three-essay portfolio - but more so that all universities should consider a 'range' of different options for different disciplines and student's needs.

Keel going now, Dean, I'm confident. Thanks for elucidating the various kinds of doctorates available, there might be even more.

I agree, universities should acknowledge different traditions and working methods for the disciplines. PhD candidates in computer science, for example, have to publish fast (and effective) to claim original ideas and results in this highly innovative discipline. In other fields publishing your results might be more unhurried - but not less effective, of course.

Good to hear Michael - it looks a steadier ship now. You and I are often 'on the same page'. Yes - a university that adopts a 'one size fits all' type of PhD format, to me, is really limiting itself - and it's ability to attract a wider student body.

Yes, I do agree... and it always depends on the student's capabilities! not only the good supervision, but the GOOD student who would make a difference in his/her thesis! and the value - and if this thesis would collect dust or not!

I Estonia it is allowed to defend a thesis based on 3 or more articles (3 have to be published or accepted for publication in good international journals or books by good international publishers; others can be also e.g. working papers etc.). The articles can be also written with co-authors (even with the supervisor, but it is not good to write all papers with the supervisor). The student also has to write a long introduction and also a concluding chapter (those parts cannot be co-authored).

The defence is public, the thesis will have at least 2 opponents (1 has to be from abroad, the other can be also from Estonia but not from the same university) and everybody can read the thesis 1 month before the defence.

@Tiia, what do You mean by " good international journals or books by good international publishers; ..." ? In Serbia, as well in former Yugoslavia, it was a similar case. If You did not have Magister degree, then You had to publish a few papers with no criteria (IF) and also an oral Doctoral exam! After such procedure, You were qualified to get the PhD thesis title and its contents! Such academic practice does not exist any more!

I mean journals that are indexed in Thomson ISI or in Scopus.

I continue to argue that the thesis should be a full work - rather than collection of articles - however, it will not hurt to have a list of those published articles mentioned at the beginning of the thesis - which have been derived from the early literature, or the pilot study or even the final results - but the major work is the thesis itself.

If you are going to become academic after the PhD you need to be starting your publications while still working on your thesis - otherwise it will be too late.

In Australia it used to be the case a first class honours would be sufficient - but, now they are calling for understanding of research methods etc... before going into your PhD.

Theodora - I think that your answer is a little naive. I'm not sure that you read my post earlier on? There are a number of ways to gain a PhD - none, necessarily, more valid than the next. My PhD is 'by publication' and I can assure you, from my examiners, peers, etc that it is part of an 'international profile'. My major work in the thesis was my publications - not the other way around.

Dean - Yes, I know there are ways other than writing a full thesis to award a PhD ... well, I am sure you have done a great work Dean... but, what worries me now that misunderstanding that it will be easier to go that way and it would be only a matter of a three publications and that is it!!! I am sure that you went through heaps to come up with three publications - and you would understand that - however, those new to the matter might think it differently!

My worry is the abuse of such a system or the underestimation of the whole PhD issue!

Jane,

It isn't that anyone thinks it's easy to do the work and write the articles. Most of "us" do that. The PhD is an educational degree, a part of a prrocess of courses and etc. So, the dissertation is one part of getting the degree. The piece is to be "worthy" in the eyes of your institition. I just don't see three articles. If they are a part of an integrated research effort, why not just make it a single lucid story...a dissertation.

In any case, it is all in the eyes of the grantors.

All valid points recently. Theodora - my PhD was close to 40 related international peer-reviewed publications - not three. It was preceded by a 20,000 word Derridean discourse analysis - which philosophically and methodologically overarches the publications into a single research theme. Any type of PhD by publication portfolio has to do similar. If you were to 'tot up' the word count (not that word count denotes quality or anything) - then it would be around 300,000 words. Far more than a conventional PhD.

I think that three is a minimum from my experience of Scandanavian PhDs that use the model. It is usually more. If it is the minimum - then I believe that is dependent on the quality (IF) of the journal. Each article is supposed to be directly related to an aspect of a 'rigorous' research study. It can't, for instance, be three conceptual papers. Most of the articles will be directly reporting the study findings and how they impact. Examiners are still judging the quality of theconducted research itself - not just the publications. Whereas some of you migth be concerned about the 'essay dissertation' format and it being an easier option that dilutes the 'traditional' format - I agree with Jane. It's a 'different' pathway - and no less rigorous. If anything, it may be more diffciult - and that is perhaps why it is not universally adopted outside countries where it is the 'commmon' format. With a traditional doctorate - you can 'plod along' just making amendments as your supervisors suggest and hope that the examiners pass it. With the 'publication ' route - you have to get published.No publications, or not enough - no PhD. Supervisors don't really assist that much in that process. The examination process is, in effect at least doubled. There is the journal peer-review 'examination' - and then examination of the final submitted portfolio.

The 'beauty' of the publication portfolio route is that the study has to end up in quality journals - the research doesn't end up lost on a library shelf!! Added to that, the studnet is already well on the way to establishing a post-doc academic profile. Personally, with the right skills, I would actively encourage students, where available, to choose such a route.

Dean

Thanks for the further explanation - that is very impressive... Well done.

Indeed, word count does not mean quality - and the fact that students need to publish before they finish their PhD thesis would be assisted with this format... However, not all students wish to publish - and they might have been doing their PhD sponsored by their governments in order to come back to their positions with fresh ideas for the benefit of all...

So, once again 'nothing is perfect under the sun'... And thanks again Dean for the explanation.

Regards

Theodora Issa

Dean, you had me for awhile, but the plodding comment is a bit too much. You have fallen into the cookie cuter trap. I did the traditional dissertation, as have thousands, and published it almost in toto in a very internationally prestigious journal. It's a very individualistic business. Word count? Good heavens! My doctoral advisor set fewer words on my dissertation per my master's thesis as a criterion.

The question is are we talking about learning how to be scientists...get a PhD...or just jumping in and doing the whole science thing without the punched card=PhDs. A man, the world class geotechnical engineer, I respect more than almost anyone answered my question...why didn't you get a PhD? I didn't need it, he said. Some of us need the process, some don't. Worth of our toil is what counts.

Hi John - both eloquent responses. I agree; hook, line, and sinker - I fell into the trap. Most don't 'plod' with their hard-earnt PhDs - my comment was perhaps an 'over-defense' of my oft-criticised route. Several times I enrolled on the traditional route. I first enrolled in 1998 in a university's social and economic history department - but changed to other universities several times. My topic was not very portable - so I was forced to change it a few times. By the time I came to New Zealand from the UK, the prospect of starting again was too much - hence seeking alternatives.

The word count is a bit of a 'red herring' - as most of the words are published and repeated across the publications I submitted.

I fully agree - a PhD does 'not maketh a man'. It's often a hoop-jumping exercise that the institution demands - but, in my case, added little to my existing skill-base. Funnily enough though, once I got it, I was mysteriously 'welcomed into the club' - all a bit too surreal for my liking!! The guy that you respect the most - may well have got it right.

Hello Dean and John,

Interesting conversation - well Dean - I thought I was the only one who felt this... but, I noted with interest your comment "I was mysteriously 'welcomed into the club"

Regards

Theodora, it is a club. Forget your membership and move on with your career. If that is an accomplishment of pride to you, the rest of the club can go ... Themselves. People who value the valuable will recognize your contribution.

Correct Theodora and John,

It is an ethereal club that is best soon left behind. Not sure, Theodora, maybe it's also more an Australasian phenomenon? I don't recall noticing it so much in the UK. Of course, those that achieve should expect an accolade - but it's best short-lived I think.