IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE ‘DIMENSIONS’. THEN, EVENING PASSED AND MORNING CAME - THE ‘SOCK’ IN DOCTORAL RESEARCH

Asha Sara Mammen

doi:10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i6.2020.350

Authors

Asha Sara Mammen Christ (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru, India https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3841-5992

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i6.2020.350

Keywords:

PhD, Doctoral Research, Significant, Originality, Contribution, Knowledge

Abstract [English]

An evaluation and understanding of that genre of academic degree attributed as the highest academic recognition bestowed by a university - the PhD or the doctoral research programme, is the aim of this essay article. The attributes or nature of the doctoral programme are referred to by the writer as ‘dimensions’. The researcher utilized various reliable sources both offline and online and gathered information from seminars and talks of intellectuals from the academia in synthesizing information to create a piece of writing that comes from the prespective of an early research scholar. Research projects are done by way of a dissertation at all levels of higher education. The question asked is - can we carry the same mindset, structure and rigour of the research undertaken at the undergraduate level of education, or more precisely, the master’s research to the PhD research programme? And of course, can there be that confidence that one can bring or feel or have as a result, to the PhD programme? Furthermore, a question that is asked in the doctoral education programme is - whether a scholar creates or invents knowledge? Or is it the use of the philosophical frameworks of the science of knowledge, in attempting to bring out what is already there, to be justified and tested, thus classifying and giving it an orderly and labelled existence, which then becomes the new form of knowledge? Doctoral research projects undertaken are of various orientations, yet there is that element, a movement to the ‘SOCK’ which makes a PhD worthy. This research paper reviews and shares insights from the perspective of an early research scholar on the various premises and claims to make rationale the arguments/research questions stated.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Brabazon, Tara.]. (2018, June 2). Vlog115 – [SOCK (Significant original contribution to knowledge!)].

Baptista, A., Frick, L., Holley, K., Remmik, M., & Tesch, J. (2015). The Doctorate as an Original Contribution to Knowledge: Considering Relationships between Originality, Creativity, and Innovation. Frontline Learning Research, 3(3), 55-67.

Bennich-Björkman, L. (1997). Organising Innovative Research: The Inner Life of University Departments. Oxford: IAU Press, Pergamon.

Clarke, G., & Lunt, I. (2014). The concept of ‘originality’ in the Ph.D.: how is it interpreted by examiners? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7), 803-820.

Cordova, J. R., Sinatra, G. M., Jones, S. H., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Lombardi, D. (2014). Confidence in prior knowledge, self-efficacy, interest and prior knowledge: Influences on conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(2), 164-174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.03.006

Cray, H. (2014, August 6). How to make an original contribution to knowledge. Retrieved from University AffairsAffaires Universitaires: http://matt.might.net/articles/successful-phd-students

Decarlo, M. (n.d.). Paradigms, theories, and how they shape a resewarcher’s approach. Retrieved from Scientific Inquiry in Social Work. Retrieved from https://scientificinquiryinsocialwork.pressbooks.com/chapter/6-2-paradigms-theories-and-how-they-shape-a-researchers-approach/

Frick, B. L. (2018). The original contribution: Myth or reality in doctoral work. Spaces, journeys and new horizons for postgraduate supervision, 12, 275.

Greenspoon, A. (2013, April 3). Nine things you should consider before embarking on a PhD. Retrieved from Elseiver.

Guetzkov, J., Lamont, M., & Mallard, G. (2004). What is Originality and the Humanities and the Social Sciences? American Sociological Review, 69(2), 190-212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900203

Johnston, S. (1997). Examining the examiners: An analysis of examiners' reports on doctoral theses. Studies in Higher Education, 22(3), 333-347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331380936

Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Pugh, K. J., Koskey, K. L., & Stewart, V. C. (2012). Developing conceptual understanding of natural selection: The role of interest, efficacy, and basic prior knowledge. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(1), 45–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2011.559491

Lovitts, B.E. (2005). Being a good course-taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 137-154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500043093

MacKinnon, D. (1970). Creativity: A multi-faceted phenomenon. In J.D. Roslansky (Ed.), Creativity (pp. 17- 32). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Mason, L., Gava, M., & Boldrin, A. (2008). On warm conceptual change: The interplay of text, epistemological beliefs, and topic interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 291–309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.291

Odendaal, A., & Frick, L. (2018). Research dissemination and PhD thesis format at a South African university: The impact of policy on practice. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(5), 594-601.

Rubin, A., and Babbie, E. R. (2017). Research methods for social work (9th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.

Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2004). The Doctoral Examination Process. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Wellington, J. (2010). Making supervision work for you. London: Sage

Whittemore, R., Chao, A., Jang, M., Minges, K. E., & Park, C. (2014). Methods for knowledge synthesis: an overview. Heart & Lung, 43(5), 453-461. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2014.05.014