Revamping the PhD

There have been many discussions within the research community on how to best ‘rescue’ the research enterprise from itself; from dissatisfied students, to limited academic positions, to endless post-doc appointments, to abysmal financial prospects for academics (both grants and pay). The problem is that PhD training hasn’t changed all that much.  At its essence, a PhD is like a medieval apprenticeship where you are the trainee of your mentor. It can be compared with a craftsman or artisan, as eloquently explained by Catherine Guthrie, a hospitality PhD journeywoman: “Artisans pursue the creative blending of materials, tools, techniques, design, form, and function, often to enable them to realise the vision which inspired them. Likewise, the academic researcher starts with a question, which can only be satisfactorily answered by blending appropriate data, concepts, research design, research methods, analytical techniques, and so forth. That question may not be fully formed at the start of the journey, but is clarified as the project develops; the researcher learns more about how the concepts and the data respond to the techniques being used. Whether it is a completely original outcome or a new representation of something familiar, the finished work of both the artisan and the researcher should resonate with their intended audience, as capturing and explaining some aspect of their subject. Although the finished research product must be rigorously informed, the unique fusion of method, data, and the researcher means that it is, in many ways, as much art as science.”¹ However, should this change?  Should the PhD be revamped to be more in line with current trends in academia and industry?  Some would argue that it is already changing.  The BEST program is one response to this change.  The enterprise understands that it needs to train PhD students with additional skills besides those acquired through the ‘traditional’ apprenticeship with a principal investigator.  Julie Gould, an editor at Nature Jobs, has identified key ways in which the PhD can be revamped to stay aligned with the scientific enterprise without violating what it means to be a researcher².

1. Modernize the PhD to include soft skill training: Leadership opportunities, engaging in committee work, coursework in communication, managerial duties in the lab.  Part of this career development responsibility lies with the student, but part of it should be the responsibility of the PI.  Individual Development Plans are one such way where both student and PI can keep track of career development through a student’s graduate career.
2. Splitting the PhD: Gould makes the argument that there should be two tracks within the PhD, an academic and vocational career track.  An academic career track would be geared towards research endeavors that aim to push the limit of scientific knowledge.  Conversely, a vocational PhD would be geared towards technical and vocational skills, such as radiography, machine learning or mouse-model development.  This would allow training of workforce that is specialized and relevant to industry while fulfilling the needs of academic labs.
3. Skip the PhD: this is a personal decision for each individual to make.  Is the PhD worthwhile for career advancement, skill development, and overall satisfaction? In my opinion, a PhD helps in all three of these.  Time and again, we see through iJOBs career panels, that PhD is a valuable degree and can take you many places, from academia, to consulting, to scientific communication, to venture capital firms.
4. Cut the PhDs: Funding agencies and universities together should have a say in how many PhDs an institution can support.  However, there is overwhelming reluctance to this idea because PhDs are (if you don’t already know!) very cheap labor.  Professors need them to power their labs.  Economists, on the other hand, argue that there are just too many being produced every year.

My personal suggestion is that there should be a set a time limit to the PhD.  This is a controversial topic for most academics as scientific innovation shouldn’t have a time limit.  However, for the enterprise to move along, it would be worthwhile to create certain time restrictions to completion.  This is already a common practice in many MD/PhD programs, were the PhD portion of the curriculum is suggested to be three to four years³. Ultimately, each student has to know exactly why they want to pursue a PhD, what it will take, what they will get out of it, and what they plan to do afterwards.  However, some actions can be taken by universities (administration and PIs) and funding agencies to strengthen the support of PhDs and their future.  Universities are beginning to realize that they need to provide training to their PhD students in soft skills, such as project management, communication, and leadership.  Funding agencies can strengthen the PhD experience by working with each university to identify how many PhDs it can sustain and how funding can be best used to train students.  In my opinion, gone are the days where you pursue a PhD for only the intellectual curiosity.  There are other factors that must be taken into account, such as career development, job prospects, job security, when deciding. Thankfully, the iJOBs program gets students thinking about these topics early in their PhD journey!   You can learn more about this topic here: [1] Guthrie, C. (2007). On Learning the Research Craft: Memoirs of a Journeyman Researcher. Journal of Research Practice, 3(1). Retrieved July 24, 2016, from http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/47/80 [2] Gould, J.  (2015) How to Build a Better PhD.  Nature Jobs, (528)7580, pp. 22-25, doi:10.1038/528022a, from http://www.nature.com/news/how-to-build-a-better-phd-1.18905 [3] http://rwjms.umdnj.edu/gsbs/md_phd_program/overview.html