A lot has been written recently about the University of Wollongong somewhat puzzling decision to award a Ph.D. to Judy Wilyman for one of the poorest theses ever written. (See @uow , @uowoowoo and here)
I've read ths thesis and i think it is very poor. I have seen better work from first year undergraduates. It's lack of scholarship alone is a red flag. But I leave it to others to address this specifically. It is after all in social science, a sphere with notoriously poor standards and which I personally do not view as science at all.
What I want to talk about here is Ph.D's themselves, how they are examined, and the common abuses of the system.
Firstly I am talking here about research degrees. The traditional DD type doctorate is getting rarer. Also note that at least in the UK most doctors are not Doctors. When I insist on my title in medical settings it is common for secretaries to tell me I am not a "real" doctor. Of course the truth is that the nedic is only a doctor by custom, holding only a Bachelors degree in medicine... Anyhoo the research doctorate is only about a century old.
The standards for reaching this level are summarised quite well in the idea that the candidate must gave a good knowledge if their field, be able to plan and conduct major research, be able to debate and defend their work and have made a significant contribution to the body of knowledge in the field. This last generally involves peer reviewed papers though it is possible without.
Examination of Ph.D's depends on country but generally involves a thesis or portfolio (6 or 7 papers presented as evidence) and a defence where the candidate defends the thesis in scientific debate. The defence can either be public or private (viva) or both. The issue is that both of these can be, and often are, gamed.
A public defence is where tge candidate presents their work and then is grilled for a couple of hours by the audience. Although the audience is open it is generally made up of academics ftom the uni and fellow Ph. D. Students. Potentially this is the more rigorous aporoach but what goes wrong is social pressure. The candidate will iften stuff the auduence with friendly questions to yse up all the available time. Academics will be inhibited from asking questions by peer pressure. Ive seen this happen so often and to such a degree that I have lost faith with this system completely. It needs an external moderator who is hostile.
Private defence is also gamable. The idea is you have an external examiner (sometimes 2) and ine or more internals (supervisor not alliwed in the room) and they can ask anything they like. The externals job comes down to establishing ownership and scholarship. The internals job is to ensure the external is being fair. Both must sign off on the deal. The viva can last for as long as it takes.
The issue is choice of externals. Often suggested by the supervisor these can be quietly nobbled to go easy on a candidate. Ideally there should be little contact between examiner and supervisor but sometimes it is for everyones benefit. I have contacted a supervisor before to say tgat if the thesis i had been sent "in error" was the final version the candidate would automatically fail and could I have the "final draft". The candidate withdrew it and did 6 months more work and produced a much better document. I have also been contacted by a supervisor and asked to haul the candidate over the coals a bit as they did not know as much as they thought they did and needed to find that out.
But if the external goes easy the internals rarely take up the slack. And externals and supervisors owe each other favours...
So when done well and honestly both systems COULD work. But it assumes disinterested behaviour from academics. Ha!
How could we make it better at a stroke?
It us a tough one but I have a thought here. Make it mandatory for the doctorate to be examined at a different university to that granting the award...
Just a thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment