[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
research students often come with their own topics within the field in
which the supervisor is expert, and academics give a service of research
supervision in much the same way as they give a service of undergraduate
teaching. In this situation joint authorship appears less justified, unless
the paper is actually jointly written.
Conflict arises when students are unaware of the appropriate conventions
and supervisors appear to press arbitrarily for their names to be included as
authors. It is important therefore to have a full discussion early in the
doctoral research, so that agreement can be obtained on the appropriate
practice. Some universities have established guidelines on such matters.
For example the University of Hong Kong guidelines state that:
All those who have genuinely and significantly contributed to the
work (and only those) should be listed as authors. All should agree to
the inclusion of fellow authors names and their ordering before
publication.
Authors should be listed in relation to their contribution to the work,
with the primary author being the one who has done the most work.
INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES 195
Authors names should not be included unless they have at least the
knowledge and competence in the subject of the paper to give an
unaided seminar presentation on it.
(Butler 1995)
Given that conflicts may arise, clear guidelines are needed on student
recognition and those from Hong Kong might well serve as a starting point
for discussion. In the UK the situation would be eased if papers published
by doctoral students were counted in the assessment exercise in their own
right.
The PhD in a practice-based discipline
In practice-based disciplines such as art, music or design and technology
there is an ongoing debate on the form of a PhD. Since knowledge is
advanced in these disciplines largely by means of professional and artistic
practice, an original, creative artefact may be appropriately included as a
part of a PhD submission. This is now accepted in most universities.
The debate concerns the extent to which an artefact such as a sculpture
(represented, if necessary, by photographs or a videotape) or a musical
composition (represented by an audio recording) can be accepted as stand-
alone evidence of the contribution to knowledge and the development of
the discipline that justifies the award of a PhD. In fact, there is a gradual
shift towards the artefact being the main focus of the doctoral research
with explanatory text only as a supporting document.
As in any subject area, PhD candidates must be able to defend and
explain in what way their doctoral work constitutes an original contribu-
tion to the extension of knowledge in their field; they must also be able to
understand and to communicate the research context in which their work
belongs. This is the crucial difference between an artist s private practice
developing their own work just for themselves and practice as research
(sometimes referred to as research through practice ).
What place do videos, computer programs, crafted objects and so on
have as a contribution to actual research? Currently in the practice discip-
lines, discussion centres on the extent to which doctoral students should
be required to account verbally for their research, rather than letting the
finished work (performance, exhibition, composition etc.) speak for itself.
At present, the approach is to require both artefact and text. The debate
centres around what the weighting should be between them. It is usual to
insist on a permanent and publicly accessible form for each part of the
thesis. The creative part must be fully open to examination by illustration,
exhibition or multimedia presentation. Some argue that the develop-
mental process of the work be made public, perhaps by including all the
rough drafts that eventually led to the finished product, thus externally
196 HOW TO GET A PhD
demonstrating the thinking involved. The presentation of this develop-
mental history might even be considered acceptable in lieu of an analysis
in words.
However, institutions require that, in addition to the creative compon-
ent, students must show that they have a theoretical as well as a practical
understanding of their area. They must be able to provide a rationale for
the work undertaken. If there has been no previous academic work in the
field, then it is incumbent on candidates to cite relevant thinking from
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]