Alana, for starters I'd love to know where the "Ph" went to in recent years! Most PhD programs these days are classified as a Higher Degree by Research (HDR). I know that many universities in Australia now insist on compulsory coursework on research methods - clearly with the intention of improving the quality & output of work.

But to directly answer your question, here's a recent visual example:

http://www.openculture.com/2012/09/the_illustrated_guide_to_a_phd-redux.html

Also, a great quote about the impact of social media on research at:

http://www.vitae.ac.uk/CMS/files/upload/Vitae_Innovate_Open_University_Social_Media_Handbook_2012.pdf

“The real value of social media for scientists (aside from teaching us to

communicate concisely) may be that we are forced to think about how to

share ideas with a broader audience, one that ultimately pays for most of

our research: taxpayers. Public conversations about our research make

scientists accountable for delivering something of value to those taxpayers.

In an era of budget cutting, early-career scientists will have to be effective

ambassadors for the profession. This might manifest in conversations with

family members or with strangers sitting next to us on a plane, or it might

mean posting videos on YouTube or blogging about our ongoing research.

The days of scientists communicating only with each other, in the

languages of our individual disciplines, and relying on science journalists to

translate for the public, are rapidly coming to an end.”

Thanks for answering. I had seen Mights diagrams before, I guess they don't strike me as much as they do others, (LOL). I also enjoyed the idea that social media might help us to be more concise! My hope is that somewhere in here is an entrepreneurial spirit that moves and provokes more researchers to be less conservative, or to be less inclined to be content within very conservative walls of universities. Like the publishing world, academia's walls are crumbling and I wonder what will be left -it seems we are beholden to our duty to have these discussions with candidates somewhere in their journey. They will inherit a different world, or perhaps we all are building one.

One of the interesting changes that has been happening in the background over the last few decades has been how PhD students actually go about writing. It's not so long ago that a document was prepared via handwriting or a typewriter & revising it was far more arduous than what happens these days when word-processing is just taken for granted. Things have already changed. But while I tend to agree with the idea of "academia's walls crumbling" I have also found them surprisingly resilient -- partly because organisational structures need to endure. Why? because human societies have not yet created better organisations &, despite their failings, universities do afford a certain degree of "academic freedom"

And for something that's a bit further out: -- moving in sync with a growing "open agenda" in education, see the activity going on at P2PU regarding moves toward an "Open & Networked PhD"

https://p2pu.org/en/groups/onphd-candidacy/discussions/

This is linked to a fairly useful page on Wikipedia at:

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy

Great links - one thing I love about social is that I get to see things I would not otherwise come across.

One of the interesting truths here is that no paradigm shift completely crumbles the old paradigm, people still write with fountain pens for instance but only the best remain in circulation - The UK certified something like 125 new universities out of their colleges recently - I wonder how they will do - if built with the new paradigm in mind they may become the new best. On the flip side of the coin, I graduated from Columbia - the systems issues they face are appalling - great minds go there but its much more difficult to retrofit ancient buildings etc.

May we live in interesting times!

No my question - do you know anyone who has taken up the ONPHD challenge or worked with them? I would love an insiders story.

1. As the world changes the lucky ones are those with a foot in both the old and the new as they get to learn both

2. Alas universities might be seen by the progressive as perpetucally in the "old" paradigm

3. Which might be the reason innovation travels more easily in business than in the sciences - who often beat up the innovative prior to giving them accolades

Back to my question - how are we preparing our PhD students for this reality? Do we disabuse them of their ideals before or after their degree?

Brilliant answer - how many PhDs are lucky enough to have had the gift of the feedback you require them to generate/hear? LOL am so glad I won't come up in an interview situation against them - as you say really well prepared, and at the end of the day for any shift in paradigm they may encounter.

This is a nice question, what is the output and the quality of PhD. This can be answered according to the area or region of the student and type of project involved by the Ph students. In some regions (countries), PhD holders are needed to work as a teacher at unversities and if possible to carry partially basic research (20% of the time). So, the quality and even the output is not so studied in some countries by time we will have huge number of Hed than other professionals.

I think it's a very important question, on the one hand, the pay is much better than in past decades. However, benefits such as social security, vacation, bonuses and other compensation are disappearing, because there is no longer a complete commitment to the employer. We must prepare our students to know that when they graduate face a future in which everything is eincierto, since the work is awarded to the best qualified.