Comments on: Dr Sprint http://www.chindu.net/reports-on-research/dr-sprint/ Chindu Sreedharan reports on life, etc Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:44:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Barry http://www.chindu.net/reports-on-research/dr-sprint/comment-page-1/#comment-32 Barry Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:26:44 +0000 http://www.chindu.net/?p=416#comment-32 A series of publications over a period of time, even a long one, can involve the same kind of sustained attention to a problem that a conventional PhD involves, a 'marathon'. A key issue at present is whether the publication route can be prospectively chosen. Hitherto it has been retrospective only, for those few who have been doing doctoral-level work but for some reason never got around to registering for a PhD. I am with those who want to keep it that way, on the grounds that if you haven't done much of the work yet but know you want a PhD then there is no reason not to do it in the usual way. A series of publications over a period of time, even a long one, can involve the same kind of sustained attention to a problem that a conventional PhD involves, a ‘marathon’. A key issue at present is whether the publication route can be prospectively chosen. Hitherto it has been retrospective only, for those few who have been doing doctoral-level work but for some reason never got around to registering for a PhD. I am with those who want to keep it that way, on the grounds that if you haven’t done much of the work yet but know you want a PhD then there is no reason not to do it in the usual way.

]]> By: Chindu Sreedharan http://www.chindu.net/reports-on-research/dr-sprint/comment-page-1/#comment-20 Chindu Sreedharan Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:30:19 +0000 http://www.chindu.net/?p=416#comment-20 Phil: Yes, certainly, PhD by publication can be interdisciplinary. But the chances of revolutionary science in research aimed at getting x number of papers might be lower. Not that a traditional PhD would mean good and solid research always, of course -- but by and large it encourages that opportunity more, I think. Dan: Absolutely agree. PhD on its own is not much good -- unless the 'knowledge' can be disseminated... Talking about books, I guess the question is what kind of books would qualify for a PhD, with what kind of supporting documentation. An issue: is the PhD only about being research active yourself? Or does it involve a training in supervising research activity as well -- and if so, a 'non-academic' book, will that provide for it? Phil: Yes, certainly, PhD by publication can be interdisciplinary. But the chances of revolutionary science in research aimed at getting x number of papers might be lower. Not that a traditional PhD would mean good and solid research always, of course — but by and large it encourages that opportunity more, I think.

Dan: Absolutely agree. PhD on its own is not much good — unless the ‘knowledge’ can be disseminated… Talking about books, I guess the question is what kind of books would qualify for a PhD, with what kind of supporting documentation. An issue: is the PhD only about being research active yourself? Or does it involve a training in supervising research activity as well — and if so, a ‘non-academic’ book, will that provide for it?

]]> By: dan hogan http://www.chindu.net/reports-on-research/dr-sprint/comment-page-1/#comment-19 dan hogan Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:47:09 +0000 http://www.chindu.net/?p=416#comment-19 Sreedharan manages to make the PhD through publication sound more terrifying than doing the traditional route. I like the idea of someone hammering out loads of books and articles and this being able to count for something. it doesn't have to be a fast process - it can be slower than a glacier. I think it is great that a PhD is about detail and drilling down deep. But maybe it doesn't reflect a different kind of intelligence - an omnivore who consumes loads of different stuff and writes lots of different things. The problem with the publication model is loads of people might be able to go for a PhD and it will make the club less exclusive. I guess their real reward is it is better to have books on the shelf - rather than having a PhD that no one, apart from the marker, will ever read. Sreedharan manages to make the PhD through publication sound more terrifying than doing the traditional route. I like the idea of someone hammering out loads of books and articles and this being able to count for something. it doesn’t have to be a fast process – it can be slower than a glacier. I think it is great that a PhD is about detail and drilling down deep. But maybe it doesn’t reflect a different kind of intelligence – an omnivore who consumes loads of different stuff and writes lots of different things. The problem with the publication model is loads of people might be able to go for a PhD and it will make the club less exclusive. I guess their real reward is it is better to have books on the shelf – rather than having a PhD that no one, apart from the marker, will ever read.

]]> By: phil macgregor http://www.chindu.net/reports-on-research/dr-sprint/comment-page-1/#comment-18 phil macgregor Sat, 25 Jul 2009 14:24:58 +0000 http://www.chindu.net/?p=416#comment-18 I don't see the reason to believe it has to be 'normal science' Especially given the range of acceptable styles in journals - nobody said PhD by pub. had to be achieved within a social science discipline. In fact one interest could be the demonstration of a range of approaches, methods and disciplines chosen. I don’t see the reason to believe it has to be ‘normal science’ Especially given the range of acceptable styles in journals – nobody said PhD by pub. had to be achieved within a social science discipline. In fact one interest could be the demonstration of a range of approaches, methods and disciplines chosen.

]]>