Talk:Doctor of Philosophy

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Participants[edit source]

  1. Leighblackall 22:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Peterrawsthorne 16:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steelemaley 18:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Back in November 2010 I posted a message about my project on open PhD and now I see a group of people networking together to get this done. My congratulations for starting this group and I would like to join you in this endevour. I look forward to hearing from you. User:Opriter/PhD August 14 2011 -- Good to hear from you Opriter, I hope you found your way into the email forum... over time, I think our group will slowly grow. Leighblackall (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Your name

Communications[edit source]

Peer assessment, badges, institution assessment[edit source]

  • On 18 April 2012, #### introduced himself by email to Peter Rawsthorne and Leigh Blackall, explaining that he was interested in making an effort toward an #onPhD
  • Leigh encouraged #### to join the email forum and mentioned that Charles Darwin University has a PhD-by-publication program that assesses work created prior to enrolling. Peter explained his intension to looking into Badges, as a possible way of furthering his interests in empowering peer to peer assessment.
  • On 11 July 2012 #### made contact with Leigh and Peter again, citing a Google+ link Leigh had posted that contained a link to the CDU PhD-by-publication process. #### Was following up the suggestion of finding a CDU based supervisor if the CDU process was to be possible, and asking Leigh to find out how much assessment of a PhD thesis would cost.
  • Leigh replied asking #### to provide a link to a web page of publications or works in progress that he would like to present for consideration. Peter challenged Leigh and #### to instead focus on peer review and badging before going to the institutions. Leigh and #### agreed.
  • On 13 July 2012 (UTC+10) Leigh contacted Thomas Steele-Maley on Twitter to check if he also had work ready to present. This conversation went to email, including Peter, so that Thomas could catch up on the conversation that had lead to an agreement to focus on peer to peer badging. Thomas posted to Twitter an endorsement of the peer to peer badging concept, using the #onPhD tag. Peter suggested that Wikiversity become an open badge issuer, and asked what the criteria for onPhD badge might be. Leigh suggested "original, formatted, situated, open data(?), reviewed, reviews actioned, iterative, all process documented" and that the group work up the criteria on the WIkiversity page for PhD. Peter updated the Wikiversity page with info about open badges. Thomas brought Mary Anne Reilly and Robert Greco into the Twitter exchange, suggesting to Mary Anne that she would make a good mentor. Mary Anne seemed to like the peer to peer badging concept, and Robert suggested contact with Matt Hern and The Institute for Social Ecology. Leigh suggested a get together on email or Google Hangout. American time zones went into night.
  • Leigh posted to the onPhD email forum, an update on the conversation, and a link to these notes

--Leighblackall (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folksonomy[edit source]

  • tag = onphd Use it in delicious, youtube, blog posts, etc, and we can each subscribe to the RSS feeds for that tag and track each other's work at a distance. - Leigh, why didn't you suggest openphd as the tag? -- Peterrawsthorne 16:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pete, because I stupidly polluted that tag field with bookmarks to do with my PhD, rather than openphd generally, and after monitoring it for nearly a year, it seems no one is using it. I thought we may as well start a fresh, with onphd standing for open and networked - where the networked part is VERY important IMO Leighblackall 04:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the open and networked makes complete sense. Actually, I see the networked part more important than the open part... but then it would become nophd. Then of course, isn't that what we are working on, a nophd. Peterrawsthorne 08:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my mind! I think I'm going to start using nophd as my hashtag for a Networked and Open PhD. It makes more sense, from 1. a lifelong learning perspective and 2. how the PhD is a brand "owned" by academia. I know this now more than ever, what I am perusing has nothing to do with the academic credential of a PhD. And I have no desire to have the PhD for reputation or employment. I do not want to be an academic or a researcher. I want to follow my bliss and life-long learn (this base attachment is essential for completion). I want to share this with those who care to follow, I want to empower people with skills and knowledge in how to be a life-long learner for themselves within this connected world. I want to work on "NO PhD". Sorry for the rant, just emotionally connecting to the idea - Peter Rawsthorne 20:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you Pete. Its also a bit like the unconference trend in internet circles. Instead of unphd, we're saying no phd. I especially react negatively towards the credential inflation (not to mention, conflict of interest) that some Universities partake in by requiring their staff to all have PhDs.. which is what has compelled me into this space. I see that sort of policy as only diminishing the value of a PhD, as people scramble to get one not because that truly want or respect the process, but because they want to preserve their income. Completely understandable - its the policy at fault, not the individuals. So, my own decision to attempt nophd, is in many ways to reject that, and preserve the integrity of the PhD. Doing it not for job security, but for genuine interest and desire to learn the skills of a researcher. Leighblackall 00:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can here the chorus and possible rancor around the point I am going to make but I really do not like the tag nophd as it seems to be an oxymoron that I still do not understand--and am open to deliberate fully. My biggest issues revolve around positives and negatives and the power of symbols: onphd or Open and Networked PhD tells the story aptly...What does Open mean to all here and why is it an issue?....I do not seek the official knowledge of institutions and their social schooling and hierarchical colonial....but if we are to use the PhD at all I would rather associate this with the tag onphd which captures the spirit of my work and helps to redesign the terminology....Leigh mentions an interest in preserving the PhD, I agree wholeheartedly and I see this group providing space for the new and next in PhD....folksonomy is important and for this we have acronyms and thus this conversation is of import. Looking forward to the deliberation, I offer that onphd is better for this community...Steelemaley 18:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Steelemaley, I think I went away and thought about your points, and forgot to post back. Over time I've come to agree with you, and #onPhD has similar cheeky meaning to #noPhD.. we're switching 'on'. I see it has caught on in Twitter a little, so I'm happy to keep using that tag. Leighblackall (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Steelemaley & Leigh, I've grown... I've let go of my disruptive tendencies. I'm going with the #onphd, I'm turning 'on' and tuning in ;) The Open and Networked PhD is a powerful acronym and doesn't have the negative slant of the nophd. So we continue with #onphd, and when we want to plant our tongue deeply in our cheek we have the #nophd as the anti-tag (Peter Rawsthorne (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Leigh and Thomas Skype conversation 31 May 2011[edit source]

  • General Discussion: Appropriation of terms and praxis, ethics and the critique of learning with internet based tools.
  • How is technology critiqued and what impact does this have on research in the field? Thomas suggested Mander, J.In absence of the sacred and Four Arguments for Elimination of Television as sources. and Leigh suggested Bowers: False Promises of Constructivism http://leighblackall.blogspot.com/2011/05/summary-of-chet-bowers-false-promises.html
  • the discussion turned to Anarchism and Thomas brought up Colin Wardand the ideas/praxis of "mutual aid" see Kropotkin
  • On Design Based Research (Thomas will generate book list), Leigh suggested Teemu Leinonen (Helsinki) practices design based research
  • On polity v local knowledge and sharing much discussion about the role of the UN in education and culture Thomas suggested UESCO and specifically that One Man Biosphere Projectrepresents a culturally relative UN project. Leigh spoke of Free University of San Francisco and the discussion of learning and culture in this movement and suggested more examples in Ubiquitous Learning paper... Thomas brought up the salience of human self determination and suggested the work of Taiaiake Alfred Leigh underscore the import that any polity "can be reigned in at any moment" if interfering with human self-determination, research for human collective future. Thomas suggested reading Boulding 1998 Culture
  • On developing ethical frameworks/design for NO/ONPhD Leigh wanted to explore permaculture principles for ethical research and praxis in on/nophd. Thomas brought up walking Historians/sociologists/anthropologists which Leigh likened to Participatory Action Researchers. Leigh suggested we approach on/nophd as autoenthographic researchers, asking NO/ON PhD participants to write position statements focused on ethics and and/as an introduction
  • Leigh is going to create a page on WV PhD - as relates Wikipedia, is to make sure that the range of approaches to PhD are documented, Thomas is LOOKING FORWARD to reading this or having a tag to research.

So good to meet.

Steelemaley 18:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Badging ONPhD[edit source]

I think we need to work out how to set up a Hangout as an open invite, and first in gets a seat at the table.

Peter Rawsthorne I met and agreed that, with regard to Badging an Open and Networked PhD, we need a process for people to demonstrate eligibility as a candidate (Joelle, I think we need your help here). A PhD Candidate is someone who has been accepted by a university. Many people put this acceptance on their CVs and the like, that they are a PhD Candidate (meaning a PhD project is in progress). We think ONPhDs need an equivalent to this, a process that can enable them to declare they are prepared to undertake an ONPhD project. We thing P2PU is a good venue for this. Peter and I are going to start a P2PU "course", based on a range of application forms and processes we have studied in formal universities, and hopefully Joelle's close guidance. The aim is to develop a P2PU "course" that serves as a guide for getting people prepared and articulate for setting themselves up for an ON PhD. The course would include things like:

  • Identifying and listing past research projects and publications - or equivalent
  • An expression of intent to undergo an ON PhD that demonstrates an understanding for the criteria for an ON PhD (documented online, openly, iteratively, etc (needs development)
  • An outline of the intended project for the ON PhD, and evidence that the candidate knows the present situation and context for their project (acknowledges prior work, has the seeds of a question and its justification - such as understanding the projects epistemological and ontological bases)
  • Evidence of ready offers of supervision from qualified researchers. Letters supporting their plan, evidence of reviews given on prior work, etc
  • Evidence of a preparedness to follow ethical boundaries in research work, with a process that obtains formal clearance deemed ideal

Peter is going to start the P2PU course, I'll follow him in when it's set up. Leighblackall (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NoPhD[edit source]

Perhaps by analogy to w:en:NoSQL? Anyway I think that presentation is more clear. Also, note that it has "worked" quite well in the past, for people like Dr Richard Stallman (who now has almost as many honorary doctorates as cats have lives)! I'm quite close to the end of a "real" Ph. D. so I don't want to get too distracted helping with this project, but I do have a lot of resources I could share, including this book and this paper. I did something vaguely similar for a "NoMA", which worked out OK, but I do think it would have benefitted from a bit more of a networked aspect. Arided (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imitation of a real system[edit source]

It seems to me, that openPh.D. is proposed as a copy of a real Ph.D. and my question here is, if we need it? I am wondering why a doctorate consists of entrance exams, passing different subjects, writing a dissertation thesis, ending exams, visiting another institution, and publishing an article or presentation at the conference. I guess the goal is to learn and demonstrate proficiency in a certain field and learn and demonstrate skills in doing research. But the question is to what degree? What should know about the Ph.D. and how does it differ from the knowledge of a docent (with academic title Doc.) or a professor (Prof.)? I am thinking about it, because the current system, at least in the Czech Republic, seems rigid, dysfunctional, and unclear, discouraging several promising scientists. Just comprehension, only 30% of Ph.D. of students complete their doctorate in the Czech Republic within the stipulated time (3 years), and I suspect that about 60 % do not complete it at all. So, to shed light on the reason why I would look for a new and better model of a doctorate with the use of modern technologies, I will present my negative experiences with the system in the Czech Republic:

#The biggest problem is, you don't have a supervisor. For my master's degree, I wanted to do ethnobotany or simply sociological research, but the supervisor who dealt with this repeatedly rejected me, so I ended up with another one and did laboratory research in a completely different field. Just after completing my master's degree, I didn't continue to Ph.D. because of the lack of money. I had to take care of my apartment and the money provided by the University, where not enough. During my studies, I wanted to study second Master's in research of Agriculture education, but I was not able to find a supervisor. Years after I still had of finding a supervisor, but I got one unfortunately without a knowledge of the topic. So I have changed University, but I cannot enroll in Ph.D. because I haven't found a supervisor for the topic I wanted to study (information science - information behavior, or artwork documentation). So I am doing research in the field, but without being backed by the university and someone asks me, why I am not doing Ph.D. - This would take me to a question, why Ph.D. candidate needs a supervisor? Probably to help with methodology, explain how to do a pier review, provide tools or finances and help to publish the first article. But I had an experience, that you may find yourself in a position, where a supervisor is providing nothing of this. So then the question is, what are the other ways, you can get these skills and opportunities?

#And secondly, concerning professional knowledge, I would say that it is possible to recharge it with a suitable offer of courses. Why would a person have to take subject exams at university and not be able to choose anywhere else? The problem is, for example, the low quality of teaching that I am experiencing during my current studies, the obsolescence of information in the given field, or the low professionalism and experience of teachers and researchers. So why not solve it with some open courses, or just an exam that verifies the student's knowledge and how he learns it is up to him? Because today you already de facto have to learn the subject yourself in your way and the school is not able to save you time and provide quality teaching.

#Third problem was finances. On the first attempt, I cannot enroll at all. On the second attempt, the supervisor was calling the research to be extended if the doctorate has been prolonged officially from 3 to 4 years, which increased the budget of the project, but the department was not providing a grant.

So, if I had to sum it up, I think that the requirements for doctors should be defined and then simple ways to meet those requirements should be suggested. It will solve. In the European Union, a semester-long stay at a research workplace in another country is now required, but it might be possible to negotiate here, because, for example, in terms of financial support, the Union also offers support for people who are not students at any school. And if we didn't want to copy even this, we can create a new standard for Ph.D., which will not strive to be included in the group of other Ph.D.s, but will gradually build its authority. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 10:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Juandev: I only recall one user doing this, and unfortunately, I can't remember who it was. They would be the one to work with on the proposal. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_of_Philosophy&oldid=2486822"