Main Article Content
This article explores the meaning of originality in doctoral studies and its relationship with creativity and innovation. Doctoral theses are expected to provide an original contribution to knowledge in their field all over the world. However, originality is not well defined. Using the literature on concepts of originality as a foundation, this article shows that originality is not a concept commonly understood. Creativity introduces a focus on the production of knowledge, which is not just novel but also meaningful. Innovation is becoming of increasing importance in doctoral theses with the societal shift to knowledge-based economies and introduces the requirement of immediate relevance for economic purposes in doctoral education. While the three elements appear to be substantial building blocks of the potential contribution doctoral work can make in the 21st century, it is unclear the extent to which doctoral theses fulfil these expectations. The article discusses this problem with a focus on implications for doctoral education.
FLR adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Common License (BY-NC-ND). That is, Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the authors with, however, first publication rights granted to the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.
Auriol, L. (2010). Careers of Doctorate holders: Employment and Mobility Patterns. STI Working Paper 201/4. Paris: OECD. Statistical Analysis of Science, Technology and Industry.
Backhouse, J. (2009). Creativity within limits: Does the South African PhD facilitate creativity in research? Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 7(1/2), 265-288.
Bailin, S. (1985). On originality. Interchange, 16(1), 6-13.
Barnacle, R. (2005). Research education ontologies: Exploring doctoral becoming. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(2), 179-188.
Bennich-Björkman, L. (1997). Organising Innovative Research: The Inner Life of University Departments. Oxford: IAU Press, Pergamon.
Brown L. 2010. Balancing risk and innovation to improve social work practice. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 1211–1228.
Byrnes, J.P., Miller, D.C., & Schafer, W.D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367-383.
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.
Cyranoski, D., Gilbert, N., Ledford, H., Nayar, A., & Yahia, M. (2011). The PhD Factory. Nature, 472, 277-279.
Delanty, G. (2001). Challenging Knowledge – the university in the knowledge society. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.
Delamont. S., Atkinson, P., & Parry, O. (2000). The doctoral experience. Success and failure in graduate school. London: Falmer Press.
Denicolo, P. (2003). Assessing the PhD: a constructive view of criteria. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 84-91.
Enders, J. (2005). Border Crossings: Research Training, Knowledge Dissemination and the Transformation of Academic Work. Higher Education, 49(1-2), 119-133.
European Universities Association. (2007). Lisbon Declaration - Europe’s universities beyond 2010: diversity with a common purpose. Brussels: EUA.
European Universities Association. (2010). Salzburg II Recommendations - European universities' achievements since 2005 in implementing the Salzburg Principles. Brussels: EUA.
Evans, P., & Deehan, G. (1988). The keys to creativity. London: Grafton.
Evans, T. (2004). Risky doctorates: Managing doctoral studies in Australia as managing risk. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Melbourne, 28 November – 2 December 2004.
Frick, B.L. (2012). Pedagogies for creativity in science doctorates. In A. Lee & S. Danby (Eds.), Reshaping doctoral education: Programs, pedagogies, curriculum (pp. 113-127). London: Routledge.
Frick, B.L., Albertyn, R.M., & Bitzer, E.M. (2014). Conceptualising risk in doctoral education: navigating boundary tensions. In E.M. Bitzer, R.M. Albertyn, B.L. Frick, B. Grant & F. Kelly (Eds.), Candidates, supervisors and institutions: Pushing postgraduate boundaries. Stellenbosch: SunMedia.
Geiger, R. (2004). Knowledge and Money: Research Universities and the Paradox of the Marketplace. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Guetzkov, J., Lamont, M., & Mallard, G. (2004). What is Originality and the Humanities and the Social Sciences? American Sociological Review, 69(2), 190-212.
Henkel, M. (2000). Academic identities and policy change in higher education. London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Holligan, C. (2005). Fact or fiction? A case history of doctoral supervision. Educational Research, 47(3), 267-278.
Hood, C., Jones, D.K.C., Pidgeon, N.F., Turner, B.A., Gibson, R., & Bevan-Davies, C. (1992). Risk management. In The Royal Society (Eds.), Risk: Analysis, perception and management. London: The Royal Society.
Hornbostel, S. (2009). Promotion im Umbruch – Bologna ante Portas. In M. Held, G. Kubon-Gilke & Richard (Eds.), Bildungsökonomie in der Wissensgesellschaft: Band 8. Jahrbuch Normative und institutionelle Grundfragen der Ökonomik (pp. 213–240). Marburg: Metropolis Verlag.
Johnston, S. (1997). Examining the examiners: An analysis of examiners' reports on doctoral theses. Studies in Higher Education, 22(3), 333-347.
Juriševič, M. (2011). Postgraduate Students’ Perception of Creativity in the Research Process. cepsJournal, 169.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of general psychology, 13(1), 1.
Kekäle, J. (2000). Quality assessment in diverse disciplinary settings. Higher Education, 40(4), 465-488.
Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think: inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latham S. & Braun M. 2009. Closing the loop: Innovation and decline. Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. August 7-11.
Latona, K., & Browne, M. (2001). Factors associated with completion of research higher degrees. Canberra: Higher Education Division, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Lin L & Cranton P. 2005. From scholarship student to responsible scholar: A transformative process. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(4), 447–459.
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.
Lovitts, B.E. (2007). Making the implicit explicit: Creating performance expectations for the dissertation. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Lovitts, B.E. (2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t, and why. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 296-325.
MacKinnon, D. (1970). Creativity: A multi-faceted phenomenon. In J.D. Roslansky (Ed.), Creativity (pp. 17-32). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge & Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Marsh, I. (2010). Innovation and Public Policy - The Challenge of an Emerging Paradigm. Canberra: Australian Innovation Research Centre.
Mommsen, T. (1905 ). Die deutschen Pseudoktoren. In O. Hirschfeld (Ed.), Theodor Mommsen: Reden und Aufsätze (pp. 402-409). Berlin: Weidmann.
New Zealand Qualifications Authority. (2001). National Qualifications Framework. Wellington: New Zealand Qualifications Authority.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty (p. 12). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Park, C. (2005). New variant PhD: The changing nature of the doctorate in the UK. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(2), 189-207.
Park, C. (2007). Redefining the doctorate. York: The Higher Education Academy.
Pope, R. (2005). Creativity: Theory, history, practice. London: Routledge.
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2011). UK Quality Code for Higher Education: Doctoral Degree Characteristics. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Rolfe, G. (2013). The university in dissent. London and New York: Routledge.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1997 ). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung: Eine Untersuchung über Unternehmergewinn, Kapital, Kredit, Zins und den Konjunkturzyklus (9th ed.). Berlin: Duncker und Humblot.
Seagram, B., Gould, J., & Pyke, S. (1998). An investigation of gender and other variables on time to completion of doctoral degrees. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 319-335.
Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T.I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R., Pretz, J., & Kaufman, J. (2003). Types of Innovations. In L.V. Shavinina (Ed.), The International Handbook on Innovation (pp. 158-169). Oxford: Elsevier.
Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2004). The Doctoral Examination Process. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Walsh, E., Anders, K., & Hancock, S. (2013). Understanding, attitude and environment: The essentials for developing creativity in STEM researchers. International Journal for Researcher Development, 4(1), 19-38.
Wellington, J. (2010). Making supervision work for you. London: Sage.
Wellington, J. (2013). Searching for 'doctorateness'. Studies in Higher Education, 38(10), 1490-1503.