Structured PhD vs Traditional PhD

Medievalist

I am currently waist-deep in writing my PhD proposal and it's slowly taking over my life:).

I've noticed a growing trend towards universities offering structured PhDs recently. I was wondering if anyone here had any opinions as to how these compare to the more traditional PhD programme?

My main concern is that due to the first year or so being taken up mainly with classes, that the actual research time of the degree is reduced. Universities seem to be still pushing for completion in 3-4 years (ideally, I know). But with the structured PhD, does that now mean that the actual project becomes smaller or is it expected that PhDs will now take a bit longer to complete to accomodate the extra classes?

Any opinions/ experience would be appreciated!

brianthebard

I started my phd this year, most of the other people I know are in a structured plan but I opted out. They all seem to have complaints about how much time is spent on the extra stuff and how many essays were due, etc. There were some interesting modules to pick from but you would end up taking half the stuff just to fulfill the required credits. Also the way the credits are allocated is very haphazard; you get 5 credits for attending two international conferences (which could both be in your uni, so zero effort) or 5 credits for organising a conference.
Imo so far NUIG at least have not really thought about what a structured programme could be, and have just made it into a higher level BA, which is pretty pointless. I'm definitely happy with my decision to opt out of the structured programme and unless there are important reasons to take a number of modules I would suggest the same to anyone else.

Medievalist

Thanks for that, Brian. A huge part of what is attracting me to a PhD is the chance to work on my own research within my own deadlines. Adding classes into the mix just means losing an element of that and reinstating a lot of hand-holding and direction. Classes in stats etc would be useful, because to be honest the more help I get with maths stuff the better! But I want to do my PhD in the same university I did my MA; and a lot of the courses they are offering PhD students are modules from the MA classes so I've already studied the modules most relevent to my research area. Seems like a huge waste to be doing classes just for the sake of it, and perhaps degrading the quality of the PhD as a result.

Unfortunately, all the politics/ political studies related PhD in the main universities are all structured. In the ones that still offer the traditional model there's no overlap with my research area so they'd be of little use to me.

I still want to do my PhD, but guess it won't be on my terms! But then, nothing's perfect

brianthebard

You need to talk to your supervisor, there should be an option to opt out of taking modules, they just don't advertise that fact because they want you to do a structured programme. You won't be able to take modules you did previously in the MA so there's no point to that. I think between discussions with your supervisor and the relevant lecturers you could probably sit in on a few stats modules without taking the exams, depending on the size of the class and stuff. I don't really understand how there can be no overlap between your topic and the traditional PhD, you just register to undertake a PhD in the relevant department with the help of a relevant supervisor and go on your merry way, what overlap do you require?

Medievalist

I meant there was no overlap in research areas in universities offering the traditional programme, therefore therefore I'd get the best supervisor from one of the other universities.

In the structured one I'm looking at (and the school only offers a structured one), there are classes in stats and reseach methods that have to be taken. But the school runs 3 MA courses, the modules from which PhD students have their pick. I'd find a few interesting but not relevant.

On a positive note, the classes on stats etc and the classes that are aimed at PhD students could be worthwhile. It's just the amount of time they take up that I'm concerned about.

bobbytables

Wow, things have really changed since I worked on my PhD a few years ago. To be honest I'm liking the sound of the more structured approach as a means to generate more PhDs in this country. However I'm still a little confused.

IMO the goal of the PhD degree is to prove your ability as an independent researcher. You are either handed or you identify a topic worth investigating and you commence reading, reading, reading and sooner than later hopefully writing and getting involved with the wider research community in your field of interest via conferences/collaboration/etc.

When people are referring to having to hand in essays, etc, are they talking about some sort of probation period at the start where you have yet to prove to the faculty that you are worthy of access to the programme. When I started my PhD it was a case of the faculty knowing that I had a good track record from previous degrees and me wanting to work in a particular area. I never had to submit essays or attend classes. I had an office, I taught undergraduate classes, I wrote research proposals to funding authorities and I worked on my research.

Have PhDs gone back a few steps to include more taught aspects, and if so, how the hell does that work when you consider what the PhD degree actually means. I'm just curious as to how things have changed. For the record I'm glad to see that there are more ways to earn a PhD, as I think people coming from either undergraduate or taught postgraduate programs have quite a steep hill in front of them with regards to how you approach a pure research degree. It requires a much different set of skills and self motivation.

brianthebard

Medievalist wrote: »

I meant there was no overlap in research areas in universities offering the traditional programme, therefore therefore I'd get the best supervisor from one of the other universities.

In the structured one I'm looking at (and the school only offers a structured one), there are classes in stats and reseach methods that have to be taken. But the school runs 3 MA courses, the modules from which PhD students have their pick. I'd find a few interesting but not relevant.

On a positive note, the classes on stats etc and the classes that are aimed at PhD students could be worthwhile. It's just the amount of time they take up that I'm concerned about.

I'm confused, do you not have a supervisor yet? How do you intend to get a supervisor at the other unis? I was advised to seek out the supervisor that suits your work, not the other way around. Also are you saying the universities with a traditional programme don't have a politics department? And did you understand what I meant about opting out of the structured programme? Like I said earlier you should speak to your supervisor about this option, and if you don't have one yet you should be setting up meetings with prospective supervisors soon anyways, so ask them about opting out then.

bobbytables wrote: »

When people are referring to having to hand in essays, etc, are they talking about some sort of probation period at the start where you have yet to prove to the faculty that you are worthy of access to the programme. When I started my PhD it was a case of the faculty knowing that I had a good track record from previous degrees and me wanting to work in a particular area. I never had to submit essays or attend classes. I had an office, I taught undergraduate classes, I wrote research proposals to funding authorities and I worked on my research.

Its not a probation period, its supposed to teach you new skills and provide background for a variety of topics and stuff, but what they've turned into is just another year of BA and MA lectures, coupled with credits randomly picked up for attending different things. There doesn't seem to be much thought put into the purpose of these structured programmes other than that a University should have them.

Have PhDs gone back a few steps to include more taught aspects, and if so, how the hell does that work when you consider what the PhD degree actually means. I'm just curious as to how things have changed. For the record I'm glad to see that there are more ways to earn a PhD, as I think people coming from either undergraduate or taught postgraduate programs have quite a steep hill in front of them with regards to how you approach a pure research degree. It requires a much different set of skills and self motivation.

I think if you went straight into the Phd programme from a BA it might be most beneficial but I don't know how many people are capable of doing this or if it would be the best idea, an MA/MLitt is still a good stepping stone that will teach a student a lot about what a Phd might be like.

bobbytables

I suppose your own academic history and experience will determine if you are ready to embark on a PhD programme straight from your undergrad. My background is in Engineering & Informatics and I did a Masters prior to starting a PhD. In my own experience I found that there is very little that you can take from the undergraduate "taught" world in to a research PhD degree. They test you in different ways right from the start, so in many regards cannot be compared. In one you are proving that you can learn and pass exams, and the other you are proving that you alone are able to make a valid contribution to knowledge and all that goes before that.

I have many friends who qualified as Engineers many years ago, and some even did taught postgraduate programs, but if asked how does this compare to a PhD, some of them believe a PhD is merely an extension of the same thing. Someone once said to me "God, I bet your exams must be really hard" and "How many hours a week do you spend in lectures". So from my observation, many people don't actually grasp the concept of a PhD until they actually get stuck in themselves. Research Masters students would naturally have a better idea.

I am glad though that there are now more formal structured measures in place that would help people make that transition. I say this because; the day I started my PhD, I spent too much time questioning the efficiency of my approach and second guessing myself.

+1 on the advice regarding selecting a supervisor. I made that mistake and it cost me a fair bit of time.

Best of luck all of you with your respective PhDs

Medievalist

brianthebard wrote: »

I'm confused, do you not have a supervisor yet? How do you intend to get a supervisor at the other unis? I was advised to seek out the supervisor that suits your work, not the other way around. Also are you saying the universities with a traditional programme don't have a politics department? And did you understand what I meant about opting out of the structured programme? Like I said earlier you should speak to your supervisor about this option, and if you don't have one yet you should be setting up meetings with prospective supervisors soon anyways, so ask them about opting out then.

I have been in contact with quite a few people in various universities. The politics departments in the schools that have an interest/ connection with my research area offer only structured programmes and don't provide the option for opting out. Any of the departments/ schools that offer a traditional programme have a different focus than what I'd want to study. I don't have a supervisor yet, as I haven't submitted my proposal yet! Were you given a supervisor prior to the whole process? I've been told by 3 universities that they pick the supervisor depending on the topic of the proposal, although from being in contact with people I'd have a fair idea who would be/ who I'd like to be my supervisor. How are you finding your first few months?

bobbytables wrote: »

Have PhDs gone back a few steps to include more taught aspects, and if so, how the hell does that work when you consider what the PhD degree actually means. I'm just curious as to how things have changed. For the record I'm glad to see that there are more ways to earn a PhD, as I think people coming from either undergraduate or taught postgraduate programs have quite a steep hill in front of them with regards to how you approach a pure research degree. It requires a much different set of skills and self motivation.

The classes include topics like statistics, quantitive and qualitive research methods, international theory etc. On one hand, I could see that leading to a much higher level and quality of research and more PhDs actually completed as students would be more aware of what they are getting themselves into. On the other hand, when classes become topic specific (other than about methods) it turns into directing research areas and eats into research time. Perhaps 6 months of classes as a lead-in period might be useful, but I'm not convinced it is better overall. If people starting a Phd aren't capable of researching by themselves, then they aren't ready to do a Phd

brianthebard

Medievalist wrote: »

I have been in contact with quite a few people in various universities. The politics departments in the schools that have an interest/ connection with my research area offer only structured programmes and don't provide the option for opting out. Any of the departments/ schools that offer a traditional programme have a different focus than what I'd want to study. I don't have a supervisor yet, as I haven't submitted my proposal yet! Were you given a supervisor prior to the whole process? I've been told by 3 universities that they pick the supervisor depending on the topic of the proposal, although from being in contact with people I'd have a fair idea who would be/ who I'd like to be my supervisor. How are you finding your first few months?

Like I said they don't advertise the opt out but they can't force you to take the structured programme, at least not unless they are funding you for the purpose of taking a structured programme. In NUIG at least you simply put thesis under the section for module selections, and that's basically it. It really doesn't matter what 'focus' the departments have since its your work, all that matters if your supervisor and you both understand what you are doing and can work together. I wasn't given a supervisor, I chose the person who best suited my topic in the uni and we started working together on my MA, and I developed my Phd topic from that. Tbh you seem to not really know what you want from your Phd so maybe the structured programme is the best option at the minute, it will take a lot of the decisions out of your hands.

Medievalist

I actually have a very specific topic I want to research, with very definite questions I want to answer. But it straddles two disciplines somewhat, which limits my options regarding where I study. It is at its core a political studies question, with a secondary aspect. I also have one department I really want to study in, but I want to keep my options open in case I don't get funding from them or they don't accept my proposal etc.

I have asked about whether I could opt-out, but their response is that to supervise students without the neccessary skills gained through the classes is too expensive and time consuming. They seem to have had a high drop out rate for a few years, so perhaps they are being overly cautious.

Are you doing your Phd in the same uni you did your MA? Did you choose your MA supervisor? Going by my thesis topic, I knew who would be my MA supervisor before they were assigned. He'd probably be my Phd supervisor too if I got in.

brianthebard

Medievalist wrote: »

Are you doing your Phd in the same uni you did your MA? Did you choose your MA supervisor? Going by my thesis topic, I knew who would be my MA supervisor before they were assigned. He'd probably be my Phd supervisor too if I got in.

Yes and Yes. The interdisciplinary nature of your phd shouldn't be a problem, if necessary you can have a second supervisor in a different department, even a different uni if they are willing to help. They obviously won't be doing as much work or communication with you as your primary supervisor but it will fill the gap you're worried about. But this should be a relatively easy fix to your issues about where to go, you can have your cake and eat it to an extent.
Who exactly did you ask about opting-out? It sounds like its possible but the person you were talking to just didn't want you to do it. This isn't surprising if they're one of the people who are involved in the development of supervised Phd's, or someone in registration who might be trying to make things easy for themselves. I'm the only person out of about 10 people who I know started a Phd this year that opted out because my supervisor was smart enough to know it was possible and to suggest it. Most if not all of the others would have taken the option if they had known though. That's why the departments/administrators won't tell you that it is possible unless you were to push them, the structured programmes would never catch on for people with an MA or MLitt if they weren't practically forced to do them. Again this is something you can talk to your supervisor about in greater detail but if you decide the structured programme has more disadvantages than advantages for you I would push to opt out if I were you.

Medievalist

Thanks Brian! I didn't get the luxury of actually picking my MA supervisor, but it worked out well for me anyway! The person I was talking to re opting-out is the one organising the applications, so may be a little biased. My potential supervisor was a little unsure. But I think it's the best department for me, and I'd rather a structured Phd than no Phd at all! So my best bet would probably go to where I want to study and figure it out after I start (assuming I get in!). Structure only applies for the first year anyway, so I suppose it isn't too much of a big deal.

One thing you mentioned in a previous post about a lack of understanding within the department about what a structured Phd should be is also something I'm a little concerned about. If it's all new to staff as well as students, does that mean years of disorganisation and admin chaos? Not exactly an ideal scenario.

The multi-disciplinary aspect won't be a problem. I just have to make sure that's really clear in my proposal, and make a really strong proposal so there's no room for any confusion and no-one else will perceive it as an issue. I think it will actually be really beneficial for me career wise to be more multi-disciplinary.

Just out of curiousity, is this move to structured Phds more prevelent in politics/ international relations than other disciplines? My experience of archaeology/ history is that departments tend to be a bit more traditionalist. I wonder how it applies to other disciplines?

hotspur

Isn't one of the functions of the structured PhD to help prevent the traditional experience of a lonely research student spending most of their time working away in isolation supported by a single supervisor?

Being exposed to a wider team of staff, wider methodologies, and structured career development modules is the point of the structured PhD. In theory anyway.

brianthebard

Medievalist wrote: »

One thing you mentioned in a previous post about a lack of understanding within the department about what a structured Phd should be is also something I'm a little concerned about. If it's all new to staff as well as students, does that mean years of disorganisation and admin chaos? Not exactly an ideal scenario.

Well its more that they haven't thought outside the box of just giving you more lectures, its uninspired. There shouldn't be any more disorganisation that normal though.

The multi-disciplinary aspect won't be a problem. I just have to make sure that's really clear in my proposal, and make a really strong proposal so there's no room for any confusion and no-one else will perceive it as an issue. I think it will actually be really beneficial for me career wise to be more multi-disciplinary.

I was talking about your worries that the unis which offer a traditional programme don't fully cover your topic, but that shouldn't be a problem if you get a secondary supervisor from a different department. From the sounds of things this would be your best option to ensure that you have the correct supervision related to all aspects of your phd. My aim is also inter/multidisciplinary but I registered in the English department without difficulty, I don't see why you should have problems doing the same thing.

Just out of curiousity, is this move to structured Phds more prevelent in politics/ international relations than other disciplines? My experience of archaeology/ history is that departments tend to be a bit more traditionalist. I wonder how it applies to other disciplines?

Its a general shift across the board, some lecturers/departments might have held back to begin with but I'm sure within the next 5 to 10 years it will be the norm for all departments, in humanities and social sciences at least.

avalon68

I wouldnt rule out the structured PhD to be honest. I did mine the traditional way, but Im in the states now doing a postdoc and here they all do structured PhDs. I think its a good system - the students have a much broader backround knowledge - Its good to learn things that are not specifically related to your field - it broadens your mind. It also gives you more opportunities to network with your classmates, as they will be your future colleagues, and gives you the opportunity to learn to organise your time and meet deadlines, and improve your writing skills.....its win win as far as I can see - Im not really sure why you would want to opt out really. Yes it may add a little time to your PhD, but I think it will benefit you in the long run

Medievalist

I think there is a benefit of some of the classes, and as Hotspur mentioned it prevents people becoming isolated and offers more input. It would also probably result in a higher level of research if methods and techniques are taught from the onset instead of having to muddle through by yourself for the first while. The issue I would have is that universities seem to be hoping that structured Phd students will finish within the same time frame as those working on traditional Phd, even if there is considerably less research time available to them.

I wonder if there's anyone browsing around here who's currently involved with a structured Phd who could let us know how much time the classes actually take away from their work, and if the benefit of the classes makes this worthwhile?

bobbytables

Re: Taught aspects of a more structured PhD

Medievalist wrote: »

The classes include topics like statistics, quantitive and qualitive research methods, international theory etc. On one hand, I could see that leading to a much higher level and quality of research and more PhDs actually completed as students would be more aware of what they are getting themselves into. On the other hand, when classes become topic specific (other than about methods) it turns into directing research areas and eats into research time. Perhaps 6 months of classes as a lead-in period might be useful, but I'm not convinced it is better overall. If people starting a Phd aren't capable of researching by themselves, then they aren't ready to do a Phd

I couldn't agree more with everything said here. When I came from a more applied background in Engineering/Informatics, I would have seriously benefited from attending such classes. It would have given me much more confidence in my academic approach from the start and prevented me from wasting so much funded time.

Actually there you go funding authorities, look at my last sentence. I think it speaks volumes. Funding tends to commence at the start of a PhD when you are still pi$$ing about trying to understand what the hell you have got yourself in to. Perhaps it should not commence until after you have attended such classes. It's not like most of those classes could not be done part time, prior to heading full time in to your actual PhD research.

Solid advice Medievalist, and I strongly encourage prospective PhD candidates to pay attention.

Medievalist

I'm not a Phd student, but I imagine the first few months are the most daunting. So in this regard maybe the classes at the beginning would eleviate a bit of the panic and stress and start people off on the right track:). Once everyone eventually gets to decide their own track and it isn't too much hand holding all the way through!