The Need to Relook at the Quality of PhD
The Doctor of Philosophy, or in short PhD, is the highest qualification in the academic world. Each year, we witnessed the birth of new PhD holders from various backgrounds and expertise. One of the proxy indices for the economic growth and wealth in most countries is the achievement in higher education. Therefore, the number of PhD holders produced is one of key national targets to be achieved in the years to come and this is documented clearly in the national blueprint of higher education. Let us ask ourselves, are we ready to fulfill and satisfy this criteria? Do we choose quantity over quality?
We should be more cautious on the rapid emergence of this supposedly elite population of academics. The Malaysia Research Assessment (MYRA) instrument utilised to assess and rank our research universities, uses the number of PhD students being produced as one of the indicators for the prestigious status. This idea is not totally wrong but it will definitely encourage people to take shortcuts. It has now become a popular trend and practice to have what is called as the ‘conversion’ of an MSc to a PhD program, usually in the 3rd semester, by adding less than 2 years of additional work. It is sad to see that this is happening a lot locally via this fast-track formula of just adding a few objectives. I believe that we are actually risking the quality of our PhD graduates and will end up with many half-baked PhD holders who are still immature in their scientific thinking. The lack of depth and experience in the subject matter could leave us with a group of PhD holders who are not capable to think and work independently and cannot live up to the expectations. The quick path of conversion is actually meant for those (mind you, this is an exception rather than the norm) with exceptional and outstanding progress in their work (with really hard evidence to show). It should be only for those who can work independently and are able to express and expand their ideas.
The measure of a high quality PhD is not mainly on the number of publications. It is more on the ‘well-thought’ science that goes within it and its contribution in terms of new knowledge to the academic fraternity and community. In order to attain this, it requires a great understanding of knowledge either by reading and discussing with people with good science background. Learning science has no boundary. It is obvious that the PhD program itself relates with the ability to utilise certain amount of intellectual ability. A friend of mine shared a thesis (in confidence and without revealing the name of the student or the university) with a resubmission status. The thesis has been examined before and deemed to lack the depth of a PhD level. The candidate had been asked to add a few parameters to make it a ‘better’ and ‘passable’ PhD thesis. How many of examiners would dare to give such an honest critique and assessment, let alone fail a PhD candidate? For sure, there are not many who are willing to be the ‘bad guy’. Most examiners would give very critical comments but will fall short of asking for additional laboratory work or a total rejection. Most would play safe, be nice, cushion their comments and allow corrections even when there are major flaws in the PhD and without realizing that they are jeopardising the quality of the PhD. The condition will get worse and becomes a vicious cycle when the young researcher with the lack of experience and depth, becomes the supervisor to a PhD candidate to fulfill some of the criteria for the promotion. Problems will also become apparent when the PhD holder struggles to start his/her career as a researcher. Don’t be surprised that some can’t even do a proper systematic literature review. Training as a graduate student should come in a comprehensive package and with the end in mind. In the current situation, with limited amount of funding and with research to have to be completed within a limited time, we have to be resourceful and really choose and train the best candidates. Half-cooked and half-baked PhD holders will give a bad name to the academia. You cannot hide behind that sacred PhD scroll and just hibernate. You cannot depend on others to write papers for you and just be a passive passenger as what we see is already happening. People expect more of you when you carry the title. Time will eventually tell if someone with a PhD to his/her name has been well-trained and has acquired the skills to learn and do research on a specific topic with deep understanding. Or else, are we willing to risk producing more pseudo-PhDs?
Associate Professor Dr. Norfilza Mokhtar