PhD system: we need a renovation, not a demolition

The Dutch doctoral system needs to be radically overhauled, Erik van Sebille argued in a recent op-ed on DUB. Titled Back to the Drawing board, On to a New PhD System, his piece proposes to:

1) Abolish the master-apprentice relationship;

2) Replace the thesis with a portfolio;

3) Introduce a compulsory internship outside academia for PhD students;

4) Scrap the PhD bonus;

These are radical propositions. But before we start dismantling them, we must ask ourselves what we want a PhD programme to be. Van Sebille asks this question himself. He sees a PhD as primarily a development programme. In this article, I argue that the current system is not so bad and that it could function better with targeted renovations. A thorough rebuild is not necessary.

Our hybrid PhD system

According to Article 7.18 of the Higher Education and Scientific Research Act (WHW), the doctoral thesis is a “test of competence to practise science independently”. The Netherlands has a so-called hybrid system to guide PhD students to this thesis, combining research and personal development. PhD candidates in the Netherlands usually have four years to complete this and are given employee status — an enviable position by international standards. This makes the Dutch PhD system very similar to specialist traineeships, in which learning through science is central. It is the combination of research and personal development that enables Dutch PhD candidates to turn into independent scientists.

The WHW is remarkably silent on exactly what science is. The law leaves this interpretation to universities, which place a strong emphasis on research.

Other tasks, such as teaching and exerting social impact, usually receive less attention. Teaching tasks often account for around 10 per cent of the appointment. Impact is generally considered a by-product of research, rather than an independent dimension of academic work.

This is unjustified, considering PhD graduates are our future university lecturers. Society is also increasingly demanding that academia provide workable solutions for its major problems. Let us therefore look at how we can modernise implementation and personal development.

PhD candidates gain extensive research experience

In the Netherlands, the funding for PhD programmes is based on research. Funding organisations such as the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and the European Research Council provide funding for research projects. PhD candidates are given specific research questions within the context of a larger social or scientific problem. PhD candidates carry out the project, which is often a major challenge. After all, research practice is usually more difficult than a research proposal on paper.

The system enables PhD candidates to conduct scientifically relevant research, as it introduces them to international research networks and allows them to contribute to international publications. This way, PhD candidates gain considerable research experience. This is reflected in a thesis, in which they report their findings. However, the pressure to produce a fully-fledged research thesis leads to teaching and impact being seen as distractions rather than core tasks.

The PhD as a development programme

Personal development is another indispensable aspect of pursuing a PhD. Part of it is about deepening professional knowledge through national and international training schools, for example. In addition, broader academic skills such as responsible research, writing, presenting, time management, and teaching are very important, as these components reinforce learning by doing during the research process. PhD tracks also offer courses on impact, although they are less systematically linked to daily research practice, which limits their effectiveness.

Suppervising team must be qualified

Equally important is what Van Sebille calls the master-apprentice relationship, though I prefer the term “team-based supervision”. The team supports learning by doing through substantive debate and by providing feedback, contributing to the writing process, empathising with the PhD candidate, and helping them grow as a scientist. 

I agree with Van Sebille that there is a risk of undesirable dependencies, such as a supervisor who determines everything. I would not discard this relationship with permanent supervisors, because the supervision team as a whole forms a safe haven. Instead, I would prefer to see members of a supervisory team qualified to supervise PhD candidates. In practice, this means that these individuals would either have the right to supervise PhD candidates or be in the process of obtaining such a right. It does not matter to me whether team members are professors, assistant professors or something else. What matters to me is that they can play a constructive role in the candidate's daily development and guarantee the quality of a broad-based thesis.

Renovate instead of rebuild

A considerable amount of scientific work is carried out within the system, which helps to justify the relatively high costs. A PhD candidate with a four-year appointment at NWO quickly costs a total of 320,000 euros in personnel costs. A complete transformation of the system into a purely developmental programme would undermine this financial justification, as it could compromise research. I am therefore adapting Van Sebille's proposals to renovate the system rather than rebuild it.

1) Invest in high-quality supervision teams. Make ius promovendi accessible to everyone, including professors, who demonstrate that they are qualified and can supervise safely and responsibly. Professors will therefore not automatically be granted ius promovendi.

2) Broaden the scope of the thesis. Writing a monograph or scientific articles remains the core activity; these form the touchstone of scientific research. At the same time, this means that much of the knowledge does not directly benefit society. That is why education and social impact are becoming a meaningful part of the thesis.

3) Like PhD candidates, supervisors should undertake external work placements, as this would enable them to better supervise PhD candidates interested in making an impact. It will also enrich education with practical experience. We can encourage this by including social impact as a criterion, optional or not, in the qualification for the ius promovendi.

4) Reduce the PhD grant, but not abolish it. The PhD grant gives universities an incentive to train PhD candidates as future research, education and impact talent. The Netherlands sorely needs this. Abolishing it completely, as Van Sebille proposes, could lead researchers to apply for funding mainly for postdocs, which would be detrimental to future generations.

5) Bonus proposal! We'd have more scope in appointments for PhD students to develop themselves in teaching or societal impact. All this will be coordinated with funders and supervisors.

These proposals create a path in which PhD candidates would be trained to become evidence-informed scientists, making an impact through research and teaching. Exactly what we need. The great thing about these proposals is that they can largely be realised within the current system. So, let's get started!

This op-ed has been submitted to DUB. The views expressed above belong to the author and do not necessarily represent those of DUB.