your Sunday read 24th November, 2024

A well-researched original piece to get you thinking.

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up to get it in your inbox every week.
Know someone who will enjoy The Scholarly Letter? Forward it to them.

Hey Scholar👋

“Is it possible to produce ground-breaking research during your PhD?”

The short answer is, no. And yet, there is a constant, nagging voice in possibly every doctoral student's mind "What if I'm supposed to?". Truth be told, such a desire to produce something revolutionary during our PhDs, as irrational as it might seem, is not completely unfounded. 

Our story this week explores how this idealized expectation of producing groundbreaking research, and therewith the counter-expectation that comforts us, 'No, a PhD is to show my transformation into an independent researcher!', may both be traced back to the deep roots of our doctoral education system.

So grab a beverage and your reading glasses, let's get thinking.

P.S. If you want to impress your friends, you could tell them that the Journal des sçavans (Journal of The Learned), widely considered to be the world's first academic journal, was first published exactly 360 years ago on January 5th 1665. What a coincidence you're reading what's unofficially considered the world's best scholarly newsletter on the same day. Life really does go in circles.

Groundbreaking Research Optional, Personal Growth Mandatory (for your PhD)

Written by The Critic

What if I told you that earning a doctorate once had nothing to do with writing a thesis or producing groundbreaking research?

Back in 9th-12th century Italy and France (yes, the PhD dates back to the Middle Ages!), becoming a doctor wasn't about publishing papers or finding research gaps. It was about transforming your very being—emerging from the process sanctified, refined, and enlightened. Personal growth wasn't just a side effect; it was the whole point. To prove scholarly mastery and moral refinement and therein, to earn a doctorate, you would instead have had to present yourself to a select jury of 'masters' and publicly argue your acquired (NOT CREATED) knowledge about a chosen field. PS. if this sounds all too familiar, it's because that's essentially the viva voce as we know today.

However, a whole 10 centuries or so later, the rise of the Humboldtian model of higher education in the 19th century radically transformed doctoral education. Suddenly, the focus shifted from personal growth through research to doing research for contributing to humanity’s collective knowledge. It was during this time that a romantic ideal for the doctorate took shape:

This is also when the writing up of a doctoral dissertation, in addition to an oral defense, was imposed to demonstrate one's capacity for producing new knowledge. Idealized as the work of a lifetime, the thesis was to represent decades of effort and embody the gradual progression required to advance within academia. Perhaps now you can see why the pressure to produce something extraordinary still lingers in the minds of modern PhD students.

The key word in this Humboldtian vision of higher education—on which today's doctoral system is built—is 'ideal.' 

In practice, the theses that were awarded doctoral degrees, even back then, often fell far short of this lofty standard. Take, for example, a 45-page thesis (A5, large print) on 'closed aromatic chains' awarded in 1881, which didn't report any empirical data—just reflections like, “I did these experiments and noted xyz.” Another doctorate was awarded for a 4-page paper published in the Philosophical Magazine.

While brevity doesn’t necessarily mean poor quality—I’m certainly not one to argue that a longer thesis equals better work—it’s hard to imagine these modest contributions living up to the romanticized Humboldtian ideal of groundbreaking, paradigm-shifting research. Were they original? Perhaps. Groundbreaking? That’s a different question altogether.

Sounds like the Humboldtian vision of the doctoral degree was a romantic ideal from the very beginning. But this is also not to say these ideals were never realized. Take Michel Foucault’s doctoral thesis, Madness and Civilization. It is widely considered one of the most groundbreaking works of its time, not only paradigm-shifting in its field but also emblematic of personal development and intellectual sanctification. Foucault’s thesis exemplifies what the Humboldtian model aspired to achieve: a work of a lifetime, combining rigorous scholarship with transformative insight.

But here’s the thing—Foucault’s achievement wasn’t the norm; it was the extraordinary exception. 

Why might that be the case? For one, it took Foucault nearly a decade to produce his thesis, and that timeline included switching universities to find the right environment to support his intellectual pursuits. There was no rigid time limit on his doctoral work, no looming deadlines or metrics tied to institutional rankings. The modern doctoral system, with its focus on completion rates and efficiency, simply doesn’t allow for such freedom*. Today, the emphasis is often on finishing a PhD within a predefined timeframe, not necessarily producing groundbreaking research.

In this way, the Humboldtian vision of doctoral education as a path to groundbreaking discoveries has gradually given way to a more pragmatic reality.

A reality which requires our doctoral candidates to pursue time-sensitive utilitarian research that meets 'current' society's demands rather than completely disrupting it.

And so, instead of pushing for paradigm-shifting contributions, the modern system leans back into the older tradition of encouraging personal transformation in our doctoral candidates. A PhD, for most, has become less about producing extraordinary work and more about becoming an independent thinker capable of navigating the academic and professional world. In a way it's a folding back to earlier ideals, but with the constraints of a more structured and standardized system.

So, what do we make of this? 

There's plenty wrong with the institution of academia—a topic The Scholarly Letter rarely shies away from addressing. Yet perhaps the modern emphasis on personal transformation through intellectual growth is one thing academia is unwittingly getting right; especially given the demands of the world we live in today. The fact that academia doesn't punish us for failing to produce groundbreaking research but instead fosters our development as independent thinkers capable of navigating complex academic and professional landscapes during our doctoral education is a (small) win worth celebrating.

 Post-script:

There are plenty of ways to critique the current doctoral system, even with its emphasis on personal transformation—whether it's the reasons behind this focus, *globalization* capitalization, or the scientific consequences of such an approach, such as 'producing more of the same research.' But as we start a new year within this very system, I felt it was worth focusing on something positive. After all, sometimes it's better to hold onto what's working and work on building those things than to get bogged down in everything that's not. Happy New Year, Scholar! 

If you have any questions, feedback or comments on The Scholarly Letter, drop a comment, we'd love to hear from you!