Dear Claus:

I don't think there is a need for a concrete definition of the PhD thesis within any given thematic area, since the result of such a definition may turn out to be a "straightjacket," limiting the creative possibilities of individual projects. At least in my context, here in a Mexican university in the public sector, in Master's and Doctoral programs in arts, once a student is admitted, the thesis director and student have ample freedom to define and develop a project. The readers who will have the final say can be brought into the project from an early stage to insure that everybody is on the same wavelength and understands the scope and the objectives of the project.

I don't think that the arts are so very different from other academic disciplines; much can be gained from adopting a transdisciplinary perspective, so that research in the arts may participate in wider discussions involving any other field that may be relevant to a given topic. To do this, it is sufficient to lay out some basic ground rules, like avoiding logical and rhetorical fallacies, employing evidence-based reasoning, and applying critical thinking to what we are reading and, especially, to what we are writing.

Hi , I agree with David, we need some basic rules but mostly to support the research with real references and practice to proof the thesis, since there are a lot of weak studies or just excuses to gain the title. In my opinion arts are not different from other scientific field, it has some specific issues as in any field but mostly it should be a useful study for society and why not, present it in an appealing way to engage an audience out and inside the field. The two magic rules of a good design: useful and beautiful. Let's put them in practice.

Great question Claus, (and - a great, and thought-provoking article, thank you.)

My current thoughts:

While a DCA (Doctorate of Creative Arts) allows for a practical (`creative') component (eg, say a screenplay, and/or, a film, etc) to be produced by a Research by Higher Degree student, combined with an examinable Exegesis (rather than a `thesis') on the accompanying creative work, I personally still think the PhD is a very useful method for solving problems... I would also certainly like to see many of these (real-world) problems in film/media tackled by film/media studies PhD students:

`40 x Domain Problems in Screenwriting'

https://storyality.wordpress.com/2014/07/15/storyality-117-velikovskys-40-domain-problems-in-screenwriting-or-consilient-phds-id-like-to-see/

Also, the `Newcastle School' (of Creativity/Communication) is doing some interesting work in the grey area between theory and practice... eg see for e.g. the article: Fulton, J., & McIntyre, P. (2013). `Futures of Communication: Communication Studies ~ Creativity'. Review of Communication, 13(4), 269-289.

DOI: 10.1080/15358593.2013.872805

Warmly,

JTV

Thanks for your answers. As interesting as John Ellis's article is, I do not agree with everything he writes. Besides the british specifics, he is right in his analysis of most PhD thesis in film studies. On the other hand, a PhD is the start to research, not to teaching. I do believe in research informed and research led teaching and I guess that Ellis is mixing these things up. We need more team work, more feedback and more discussion in our discipline, but in the end I still believe that one should be able to present one's findings and arguments in a book-lenght thesis.

I do not think that we need to redefine PhD thesis within film and media studies. On the contrary, we have more research interests with emerging technologies, which change the methods of collecting and diffusing media over the Internet. 

For example: The capability of rapid transmission of news media over the Internet poses challenge to editors of a newspaper. Time is the essence to dispatch the breaking news as fast as possible and editors may not have the time to verify the accuracy and the ethical consideration of the contents.

Finally, I agree that researchers are not meant to be teaching their topics, they are meant to contribute a body of knowledge to their research topics. 

This is really an important question and a complex one that needs more discussion and, if possible, assertive considerations. Nevertheless, the wide field of film studies should be able to comprehend different research praxis concerned with a wide range of     possible studies objects, from film creative pratical processes to more theoretical and reflexive film literacy results, implying different outcomes in form of thesis or artfacts. But, no matter which approach is chosen, what film studies research really needs is to go back to rigorous, comprehensive and accurate SLOW science.

I think the main purpose of the PhD pursuit is to evidence an ability in generating thought-provoking research. Now, that might turn to be difficult in different contexts (here in Colombia most PhD candidates are already teaching at other institutions, and it has become more of a requirement for promotion, than a true dedication to research advancement).

Nonetheless, I guess the main thing is that PhD holders are supposed to be critical, able to generate knowledge and provide readable material (many on the fields of humanities only write incomprehensible material to pretend to sound smart).