Search

A Critical Review of the Doctor of Philosophy and a Few Doctoral Programs

Author(s)

Xiaoyu Xu1, Yulin Zhang2

Affiliation(s)

1School of Mathematics, Guangdong University of Education, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China 2Department of Science and Environmental Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong, HongKong, China

Abstract

In today's society, academic qualifications can open up more employment opportunities for learners, and give more social recognition for individuals. These can help individuals establish extensive interpersonal relationships and have a positive impact on future career development. Therefore, the importance of academic qualifications can be seen in this article. During the doctoral stage, learners will face various challenges and constantly learn a lot of new knowledge. For example, they will have a deep understanding of existing research results and identify research gaps in order to lay the foundation for their own research. At the same time, they will master the research methods suitable for their own research topics, including quantitative, qualitative or mixed research methods. Amidst escalating academic competition, the imperative to augment educational qualifications to bolster professional acumen and enhance job market competitiveness has become increasingly evident. This research critically examines the disparities and parallels between doctoral programs and the Doctor of Philosophy degree, focusing on the disciplines of education, business, and engineering. The paper concludes by offering valuable insights and recommendations that could benefit future educators and learners seeking to enhance their academic pursuits.

Keywords

Doctor of Philosophy; Doctor of Business Administration; Doctor of Education; Doctor of Engineer

References

[1] Bareham, J., Bourner, T., & Stevens, G. R. (2000). The D.B.A.: What is it for? Career Development International, 394–403. [2] Belavy, D. L., Owen, P. J., & Livingston, P. M. (2020). Do successful PhD outcomes reflect the research environment rather than academic ability? PloS one, 15(8), e0236327. [3] Bourner, T., Bowden, R., & Laing, S. (2001). Professional doctorates in England. Studies in higher education, 26(1), 65–83. [4] Chantarasombat, C., & Sirisuthi, C. (2021). The development module of leader teacher in creative thinking for enhancement the doctor of philosophy in educational administration and leadership program. Multicultural Education, 7(11), 67-80. [5] Fink, D. (2006). The Professional Doctorate: Its Relativity to the Ph.D. and Relevance for the Knowledge Economy. In International Journal of Doctoral Studies (Vol. 1). [6] Godfrey, P. (2012, March). The engineering doctorate (EngD): Developing leaders for tomorrow with Industry. In CLAIU-EU Conference 2012: The Engineering Doctorate. Deng vs. Ph.D. Doctor of Engineering. (2018, March 2). from https://engineering.jhu.edu/doctor-of-engineering/about-the-program/deng-vs-phd/ [7] Grandon Gill, T., & Hoppe, U. (2009). The Business Professional Doctorate as an Informing Channel: A Survey and Analysis. Proceedings of the 2009 InSITE Conference. https://doi.org/10.28945/3326 [8] Gregory, M. (1995). Implications of the introduction of the Doctor of Education degree in British universities: can the EdD reach parts the PhD cannot? The vocational aspect of education, 47(2), 177-188. [9] Hoffmann, M. H., & Manfred, N. A. G. L. (2011). Skills and Competences of a Doctor of Engineering. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 9(6), 75-80. [10]Kitagawa, F. (2013). How can we capture the impact of the Engineering Doctorate (EngD) program on the Industry? Conceptual and Methodological issues related to Skills for innovation. [11]Kitagawa, F. (2014). Collaborative doctoral programs: employer engagement, knowledge mediation, and skills for innovation. Higher Education Quarterly, 68(3), 328–347. [12]Kerlinger, F. (1965). The EdD and the Ph.D. Teachers College Record, 66(5), 434-439. [13]Kerr, C. I., & Ivey, P. C. (2003). The Engineering Doctorate model of consultant/researcher/innovator/entrepreneur for new product development—a gas turbine instrumentation case study. Technovation, 23(2), 95-102. [14]Kerrigan, M. R., & Hayes, K. M. (2016). EdD students' self-efficacy and interest in conducting research. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, pp. 11, 147–162. [15]Larson, W. (1988, April). Doctor of Engineering internship experience at the ball ... Retrieved November 22, 2021, from http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/PILO-TAMU-4019353/4019353.pdf. [16]MacLennan, H., Piña, A., & Gibbons, S. (2018). Content analysis of D.B.A. and Ph.D. dissertations in business. Journal of Education for Business, 93(4), 149–154. [17]Nelson, J. K., & Coorough, C. (1994). Content analysis of the Ph.D. versus EdD dissertation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62(2), 158–168. [18]Nunez, J. L., & Gula, L. P. (2022). Becoming a Doctor: A Collaborative Autoethnography. Partners Universal International Research Journal, 1(3), 26-33. [19]Ompoc, S., & Base, R. L. (2021). Factors Associated in Students’ Completion in the Degree Master and Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Planning and Management. Factors Associated in Students? Completion in the Degree Master and Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Planning and Management, 91(1), 16-16. [20]Toma, J. D. (2002). Legitimacy, differentiation, and the promise of the Ed.D. in higher education. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education. November2002, Sacramento, CA. [21]Van Rooij, E., Fokkens-Bruinsma, M., & Jansen, E. (2021). Factors that influence PhD candidates’ success: the importance of PhD project characteristics. Studies in Continuing Education, 43(1), 48-67. [22]Walker, D. W., & Haley-Mize, S. (2012). Content analysis of Ph.D. and EdD dissertations in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(3), 202–211. [23]Yearworth, M. (2011, September). Systems practice in engineering: Reflections on doctoral level systems supervision. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the ISSS-2011, Hull, UK.