What Most People Have Never Realised About a PhD-including those doing one, supervising and examining them!
And why this should matter to everyone in society!
When I ask Google “What is a PhD?”, my first result likely chimes with the understanding of most people who hold a view on the question:
“PhD stands for Doctor of Philosophy. This is one of the highest level academic degrees that can be awarded. PhD is an abbreviation of the Latin term (Ph)ilosophiae (D)octor. Traditionally the term ‘philosophy’ does not refer to the subject but its original Greek meaning which roughly translates to ‘lover of wisdom’” (Find a PhD 2023).
In an attempt to explain further, the article continues that:
“The full title, ‘Doctor of Philosophy’, has a somewhat mysterious ring to it. Do you become a doctor? Yes, but not that kind of doctor. Do you have to study Philosophy? No (not unless you want to)”.
For me, this last sentence cuts to the heart of what the vast majority of people misconceive about the academic award of a PhD. Indeed, from my personal experience, this oversight includes most of people who actually hold a PhD; certainly, and often especially — as it happens — those in mathematical, technical, natural science, and quantitative social science subjects like economics.
The deficit of reflection on what a PhD. experience should involve is also — in my experience — widely prevalent among those training and assessing doctoral candidates. Certainly those running the publicly funded Doctoral Training Centres in the UK’s universities seem to have little considered the nomenclature of postdoctoral awards: focused as they currently are, on a technocratic delivery of a student experience, rather than genuine academic apprenticeship.
By contrast to this current status quo, I contest that to achieve the true value of Doctoral training, the formal engagement with Philosophy is actually a non-negotiable, primary and indeed, a defining component of a PhD award. Importantly, I believe this is the case entirely irrespective of the disciplinary or subject focus.
Without concretising the Philosophy in a PhD I do not believe there is a meaningful difference between the foundational mastery of a subject area (as might be recognised at the M level: MSc, MA) and the supposedly, intellectually higher understanding recognised by a Doctoral award.
Moreover, I believe the failing of most academics — and by extension the university and quality assurance institutions which they populate — to have a detailed understanding of this issue, hugely undervalues the contemporary processes of training and awarding PhDs in public-private universities.
Overall, I contend that decision-makers inside and outside of universities should push for cultural, intellectual and regulatory change on this matter. Moreover, I recommend that those participating and paying for such learning experience, should rightly insist on being provided with the true and core development value so fundamental to a Doctoral award.
Beyond Superficial Etymology: Philosophy and Knowledge
Ph.D. stands for Doctorate of Philosophy. So even at the very superficial level, any description or program of doctoral learning that does not include philosophy seems lacking. To take the example of the UK’s Quality Assurance Association’s (QAA 2020) descriptor for PhD study, there is no mention of the “P” word apart from in the award name; moreover, there is no substantive discussion of any philosophical or philosophically derived concepts, such as “methodology”.
Digging deeper, the word “Philosophy” is widely taken to signify a “lover of wisdom”. This is not to say that everything the Greeks “said” should be the last word on the matter. But, having “wisdom” is not commensurate with knowing a lot about something. Therefore, further and deeper reflection is valuable to understand what the identifier might tell us about the actual experience.
Study and learning at the level of a PhD should provide deepening wisdom, being a period of philosophically reflective, deep learning and original knowledge creation about a subject of great interest.
By “philosophically reflective”, I mean that the subject knowledge generated from a period of research and reflection should be consciously and explicitly presented as emerging from the consideration of relevant fields of philosophy.
There are numerous, of course, competing and contested taxonomies of what Philosophy might include. However, the mainstream five branches interpretation is valuable here to elaborate my argument. Indeed, I contend that any Ph.D., irrespective of the subject matter — be it philosophy itself, a social science, humanity or natural science such as chemistry — should contain explicit consideration of each of these areas. If it does not, I do not believe it should be accepted as sufficiently intellectually deep to justify a doctoral award.
Ethics and a Ph.D.
It’s hopefully fairly uncontroversial that a PhD candidate should consider the ethical issues of their research project.
In almost any case this likely already starts with a consideration of the value of investing time and other resources in any proposed endeavour — it’s more traditionally understood as the ‘“why” do you want to do a PhD’? and ‘“why” do you want to create knowledge in this particular area’?.
Beyond the self-interest that is normally the focus of personal motivation, PhD experiences provided by the University often and should also consider the wider value to society, and to the “stock” of human knowledge, especially where collective funding is concerned.
This is not to say that all learning at this level needs to have an instrumental justification of its value. Consciously perusing the creation of knowledge solely because you personally find value in the exercise is an entirely acceptable justification. However, it should be required that those involved have undertaken a conscious examination, as simply stating a desire that “I want to” is not the same as codifying an effective argument, acceptable to wider stakeholders.
Ethical reflection on the value of a research process should not however stop at the commencement of the project, as it usually does. Instead it should continue throughout the experience. The candidate and supervising academics should continually ask if the project is valuable, to whom and how? Where this is done effectively, it might result in a significant change to the proposed plan, and this should be entirely accommodated within the process. Indeed, this should be viewed very positively where there is appropiate philosophical justification for such redirections, as this shows learning and intellectual development that should be the objective of such an experinece.
Researchers, must of course remain aware of ethical implications regarding participants and other stakeholders. While this might be covered in research ethics training and approval, these are often engaged with in a lazy and superficial manner, being bureaucratic, risk management exercises doing nothing to require philosophical thought and learning.
By contrast, institutionalised processes should be embedded within authentic consideration throughout the program of work, and should be an explicit element of the presentation of work to examiners or and the wider public (during viva for example). Candidates should be expected to proffer a relevant formal ethical framework and make an argument within it (say electing to use the principles of utilitarian evaluation); moreover, they should be expected to understand a defined pathway to any expected social or economic impact. Without this level of depth I believe any claim to “love wisdom” falls well short of the mark, as candidates and supervisors prioritise the instrumental gains over the intellectual depth.
A further aspect of ethics is a reflection on other philosophical components, discussed below. For example, concerning methodological content: what are the ethical implications of the ontological, epistemological and logical positions embedded within the knowledge creation process of the project? How do the aesthetical considerations of such work engage with the ethical terrain?
Methodological Reflection: Ontology of PhD Scholarship
This is perhaps the area of Philosophical reflection currently the least effectively addressed in Ph.D. experiences, especially beyond social sciences and some humanities. Ontology refers to the consideration of “what is the world?”, or more specifically for the learner, what is the metaphysical nature of the PhD subject matter, and how is that signified and categorised in existing thought?
Without this foundational thinking about the substance of the topic, it is not intellectually rigorous to consider epistemological concerns of how we make knowledge about it. Yet, almost no technical, natural or quantitative social science thesis contains any such discussion — and this is despite the considerable and highly effective critique of resulting myopic practices regularly returned by literatures such as those focused on sociology of knowledge.
A significant trend towards philosophically reflective and embedded research can be seen in transdisciplinary work of organisations like the Santa Fe Institute in California, USA, and CATLAN in the French Pyrenees-Oriental. In both these cases, the communities have taken care to think extensively about the ontological nature of their subject matter. Following the discourse of “complexity science” they differentiate between 1) structured and complicated systems (e.g. a chemical reaction between a known number of reactants in a beaker), versus 2) unstructured, open and emergent, complex systems (e.g. how viruses spread and financial systems collapse).
Taking this more philosophically embedded approach immediately impacts the questions that are raised and the intellectual tools that are applied to respond. If you are not convinced by my written summary, watch the Santa Fe Institute’s video below, and compare their approach to say, how mainstream university economics promises to understand the world: I guarantee its captivating to the intellectually inclined and open.
A lack of ontological reflection can also undermine intellectual quality at the very micro scale. As part of my work at CATLAN I provide additional supervisory support to PhD students from a wide variety of disciplines: I offer a range of input, including proof reading, but I specialise in providing substantive transdisciplinary intellectual contributions. During a recent conversation I was reminded of the widespread but deeply intellectually impoverished discourse that invites Ph.D. candidates to complete “corrections” before their thesis is passed by examiners.
In some situations, the concept of “corrections” to a thesis is ontologically (and epistemologically) coherent. Structured and closed systems or subjects of study do often present the opportunity for correct and incorrect representation. It is incorrect to have an empirical numerical representation that claims 2+2=5. Where a PhD candidate claims this, they should rightly be invited to correct it, as it is counter to the “laws” of mathematics (a law being a pattern that applies in every single instance of a phenomenon, *where knowledge is accurate).
However, the applicability of “corrections” to a wider account is often suspect. Requiring these of a social science or humanities PhD candidate — as in the case of my recent conversation — implies there are correct and incorrect interpretations and representations of the subject or versions of the thesis. This is entirely philosophically unjustifiable. What should be expressed instead, is that the account provided is not considered to be sufficiently defensible or complete, as evaluated in reference to the relevant methodologies and existing knowledge in the field. Asking for “revisions” or “amendments” is ontologically valid and reinforces a more appropiate intellectual depth of knowledge creation processes; moreover, this likely emerges where all those involved have taken the issue of ontology as the foundation of all knowledge as seriously as a Ph.D. experience might expect.
Methodological Reflections: Epistemology and Ph.D. Awards
PhD candidates should build on ontological reflections to think about their ability to create a signified and understood “truth” about their subject matter; but more importantly, to exhibit outstanding awareness of the limitations inherent within their chosen knowledge creation processes. For example, creating truth about the causes of an event (which are ontologically objective, the truth of which is fixed) requires very different methods to those used in understanding of a person’s pain experience (which is fundamentally ontologically subjective as it exists only within human consciousness; despite the causal pathways and processes of those having fixed, objective metaphysics).
A further and more common part of epistemological reflection requires thought about ways in which knowledge of any subject is composed of both epistemologically objective truth claims, and epistemologically subjective, or value laden components. These are more commonly signified in their shorthand of objective and subjective aspects of knowledge and its communication, but which are shown by discourse studies to be closely and deeply intertwined in thought and expression.
In reality, no serious thinkers — or human beings in their everyday lives — adopt a purely “positivist” or “relativist” perspective on what defines acceptable truth: where the former assumes their ability to create knowledge entirely free from value judgements and assumptions, and the latter believes all accounts are equally subject to value judgements and therefore equally valid irrespective of method (see Kuhn et al. 2000). (If you do hold one of these extreme or naïve positions, and you have a PhD, please hand it back in at your earliest convenience; the system has made a huge mistake for which it should be most sorry).
In place of naïve and stereotyped perspectives, it is much more likely that thinkers working at the level of PhD candidacy, are able to see the different and subtle existence of ontologically objective and subjective aspects of lived reality, as well as the intensive role of normative knowledge in the creation of understanding of this.
For example, Critical Realism offers a way into this messy terrain as it accepts the existence of objective subject matter, and creates the possibility of objective knowledge, required by much of the subject matter in the natural and social sciences, and humanities. Yet, this position also accepts the fundamentally, deeply value laden nature of the language needed to both constitute large parts of reality, and create knowledge about this. Therefore, Critical Realism intrinsically promotes the reflection that objectivity in any knowledge creation is seriously constrained given the significant role played by intersubjective, normativity (that’s the process by why more than one person, with their individual subjective perspectives, agree a value judgement about how something should be).
Even the simplest measurement requires a value motived choice of subject matter; the selection of culturally embedded equipment and historically contingent units; and how this is represented through analytical interconnection to other chosen concepts and frames of reference or evaluation. As such, the power to shape and influence any eventual knowledge that is created is everywhere, and any claim to have created objective knowledge is entirely naïve. Although, this is certainly not to say that some knowledge of a given subject matter is not more credible than other contributions to the “discourse” (written, visual and aural “texts” that create information on which individuals come to knowledge about a subject).
Methodological Reflections: Logic of knowledge construction
The construction of all discourse embeds certain logics that the author uses to create valid and rigorously logical statements about the subject. Traditionally, this is considered through the development and evaluation of “presentational quality”: i.e. is the thesis well written or the original knowledge understandably presented, based on an expected grammar of written and visual communication.
However, there are many more profound opportunities. To some extent, an explicit reflection and examination of logic within a Ph.D. project should emerge from explicit consideration of ontology and epistemology. For example, this might be rendered transparent through discussion of the role of language in knowledge creation, even in the case of a technical or natural science project (the choice to use the term “climate change”, vs, “global warming” vs “global heating” vs “global boiling” should be deliberate and philosophically reasoned).
Here, a PhD candidate taking seriously the importance of a philosophically reflective approach might consider the degree to which their thesis relies on Aristotelian, Western “scientific” binaries, versus “fuzzy” conceptual taxonomies of broader cultural, and particularly non-western, interpretive frameworks (see Reiter 2019).
Such reflection does not have to be iconoclastic, but demonstrating the understanding that contributing to “Western scientific” discourse is one of a multitude of options, adds considerable intellectual quality to such a project. Not to mention, it offers a way to connect even technical Ph.D. work with important normative, social projects such as the decolonisation agenda.
Aesthetics and PhD Knowledge Creation
Aesthetics originally focused on the domain of human sensation rather than intellect. For Emmanuel Kant: “The senses cannot think. The understanding cannot see”, but it was by unifying both the senses and understanding that knowledge was created.
Later scholarship deepened the posited relationship between knowledge, truth and beauty. Plato, Augustine, and Aristotle came to believe that the transcendentals properties of all existing things were “truth”, “unity”, “being”, and “goodness”, and that these represented a set of foundational concepts to which everything in existence could be dissolved. Later, Christian thinkers added the quality of “beauty” and from then many have tussled with the proposition that there might exist a universal law that dictates the relationship between what is truth and the qualities of beauty. There’s a great discussion of ugliness by Alejandro Orradre who mentions this.
In some areas of PhD research — such as architecture, fine art and history — such considerations might be easily embedded. In other fields of knowledge, the more technical sciences, these connections might not be so readily drawn: reflections on aesthetics can be relegated to the pragmatic position that research can only deliver on any ambition to have impact where it is well communicated.
While many may feel the need to stop here with any reintegration of aesthetic concerns, the scope for opportunity remains. Indeed, even in the discipline of economics, a short note from a prominent journal (1998) reminds us there are more profound and creative interpretations to be followed where academics are so inclined.
The issue of presentation also interconnects with the theme of ontology and epistemology as embedded in language and discourse. To return to the example of corrections, it is often expected that a thesis is expressed in “correct English”. However, as may might know English is an organic language with no formal body that claims the power to define propriety — as contrasted to the case with French or Spanish. Therefore, to evaluate a sentence as grammatically incorrect is not intellectually robust. By contrast, a sentence might be grammatically unconventional, and at some point a lack of convention might dissolve communicative capacity. However, again, the award of a PhD should, in my view, require the discussion of these issues at an appropiate intellectual depth, otherwise, how is a viva examination different from a kindergarten class test? Where is the “Ph” in this supposedly Doctoral learning experience?
A Philosophical Recentring: The Practical Importance of real PhDs
Despite the alleged continual development of our collective education systems, and the constant claims that quality of university research and training are improving, society remains trapped in one of the most knotty intellectual questions:
How do we distinguish between truth and aesthetics, or effective rhetoric, when receiving and interpreting knowledge claims about the nature of our world?
The question was raised as long ago as the Ancient Greek civilisation, when Socrates (born c. 470 bce) expressed concern about decision making in the city state. However, it has remained relevant to every single human being, on a daily basis: not least now, when the growth in access and exposure to information has developed exponentially, particularly following the expansion of the World Wide Web and now rise of AI that can synthesis discourse from across this.
Superficially, educated society dismisses distasteful claims made by prominent, power hungry individuals: headlines expose the lies told by former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the laughable “alternative facts” created by the spin of Donald Trump’s empire building entourage. However, despite the obviousness of these hollow self aggrandising discourses, many are absorbed in the power of their rhetoric and if democracy is to function effectively, the concerns of Socrates remain. George Orwell well outlines the implications of a society in which a nuanced understanding of “truth” is lost to a sea of incoherent information, and given so much concern, it seem essential that the supposed bastions of truth double down on their vocational role in protecting the world from a rise in rhetoric over rigor.
Bringing Philosophy back in — Because it really, really, matters!
In conclusion, if universities are failing to ensure that our PhDs have a mastery of holistically philosophically reflective subject knowledge, they weaken our collective defence against those who challenge effective methodology, informed action and accountability. Where few reconstruct and apply foundational philosophical understanding, a veil of ignorance descends; the whole basis for harmonious understanding and welfare is eroded, and individualistic, self-interested rhetoric, steals the future away from us all. If you are involved in Ph.D. learning, in a quality control function, strategy, supervision; as a candidate yourself; or a learning who aspires to such a level: take seriously the “Ph.” component of the Doctoral experience: demand the most profound intellectual experience possible. If you see no higher moral purpose then at least focus on the provision of best value for money; as outside of studentship, you will find little time to involve yourself in rescuing the world for superficial knowing and ethically abstracted understanding.
If you have appreciated my article contributing one or even many more “claps” increases the likelihood it will be recommended to others. “Following me” means you receive updates about other articles and educational courses I create.
Other contributions that you might enjoy now, or could Bookmark for later include:
