05/01/2024
What Makes a Good Ph.D. Thesis? By Rajat Ganguly (International Advisory Board Member of JNEIS)
It is generally expected in Western universities that once a Ph.D. thesis is complete and the degree has been granted to a student, the thesis would then be converted into a publishable book manuscript. This provides the student with a big boost in the academic job market and sets her/him on the way toward a successful career. This, however, is not very common in India. Particularly in my discipline of politics and international relations. Why is this the case?
My theory is that politics and international relations research students in India do not do enough analytical work as part of their thesis writing. On a recent visit to India, I had the opportunity to speak at length with several doctoral students and recent graduates about their research. Most talked about the intricacies of their empirical research, case studies, and so on. But whenever I asked them questions like, "What is the big research problem or puzzle you are trying to unravel and why is this important or significant?" they struggled to put together a coherent argument or picture.
It gave me the feeling that Indian doctoral students in politics and international relations are not spending enough time conceptualizing the research project that they are planning to undertake as part of their doctoral work. They are not asking questions like: What is the research puzzle or problem that I wish to address and why? Why is unraveling that research puzzle or problem significant in terms of theory, policy, and practice? What core research questions derive from the research problem or puzzle that ought to be answered? What ontological, epistemological, and methodological choices would best inform the way that the research questions are addressed? What would be the best way to organize the literature review on the research questions so that "gaps" in existing knowledge could be identified? What alternative arguments or hypotheses can then be put forward to plug these "gaps" in knowledge and offer new and original insights about the puzzle or problem? What theories and methods inform these hypotheses and why? How are the dependent and independent variables operationalized? What testing strategies are to be applied to empirically "test" the hypotheses? How is data to be collected, collated, and analyzed? In other words, before one even talks about empirical research and choice of cases etc., one needs to fully flesh out the conceptual side of the research that one is about to do. This is the only way to highlight the importance, significance, and originality of the research project that one is undertaking. And this is what international publishers want to know when they make decisions about whether to publish the thesis as a book.
From previous experience, I have found that Indian students in politics and international relations are primarily interested in doing "descriptive" as opposed to "conceptual and analytical" work for their doctoral research projects. These theses, therefore, capture a lot of empirical data but struggle to say anything significant or original about the issue or problem that is being researched. Moreover, the conceptual connection between the thesis and the bigger questions and issues in the field is not particularly strong. Consequently, when these types of descriptive theses are completed, they either do not get published or are published by lesser-known publishers. These obscure published works, therefore, perform poorly in any citation metrics, which does not benefit the author professionally.
In my opinion, there are three main reasons for this scenario. First, Indian students are victims of rote learning. In this type of learning, students are fed a certain amount of "knowledge" (mostly existing orthodoxies or whatever the professor fancies) and are expected to regurgitate that in exams and their writings (tutorial papers for example). What these students are being tested then is on their memory power and not on their conceptual understanding or critical thinking. Consequently, when these students come to the Ph.D. level, they take the easier option of doing descriptive work simply because they have not been trained to think conceptually and critically. Second, when these students complete their doctorate degrees and become academic faculty members at different universities, they not only continue to produce the same kind of research but also inculcate the same culture of research among their doctoral students. How would then a student's research skills and subject knowledge improve? This is probably why in the field of politics and international relations India produces many research outputs that either do not get published or do not score high in citation metrics if published. Finally, the academic structure followed at Indian universities is also to blame for this.
Typically, an Indian student will apply for doctoral studies without having much clue about the state of the field and how to do proper research. The student would then appear for an interview and if selected will be assigned a supervisor or guide by the department. I was told by several people that the choice of the guide often depends on departmental politics and the supervision load carried by different faculty members. So, a student may end up with a guide who is little interested in the student’s research project and who may not have expert subject knowledge of the field or area of the student's chosen research work. How can this person then be an effective supervisor and mentor to the student?
By contrast, look at what happens in major American universities. In politics and international relations, students are admitted to a typical 5-year doctoral program. In the first two years of that program, students complete a range of postgraduate courses in their chosen field and undertake research methods training (qualitative and quantitative). On completion of the coursework, students who are assessed to be unsuitable for doctoral work are gently (and in some cases, not so gently) pushed out with a terminal master’s degree. Only those students who are considered suitable for a Ph.D. are then asked to sit a "Comprehensive Exam" (also known as "Prelims"). This is one of the toughest exams and different departments conduct it differently. But the bottom line is that only a few complete the Prelims successfully and are then "admitted to candidacy" (meaning, they can start their doctoral research). The student then chooses an advisor (main supervisor) based on the area of research, the advisor's particular expertise, and the rapport between the advisor and the student. In consultation with the advisor, the student would then choose a Ph.D. Committee, which collectively would evaluate the thesis once it is completed. The entire process is incredibly rigorous and provides students with the required skills, support, expert guidance, and mentoring that are needed to plan and execute a successful doctoral thesis. If India wants to improve its research profile in politics and international relations (and social sciences more generally), it should seriously consider moving structurally to the American graduate school model. In the meantime, listed below are certain suggestions that may help students to kick-start their conceptual thinking.
1. Research Topic & Research Puzzle:
Start by choosing a research topic. This is a very subjective exercise. At the very least, your choice of research topic may depend on your personality, your likes and dislikes, your worldview, etc. But the bottom line is, choose something that you are passionately interested in. Once you have identified a research topic, try to frame the issue as a research puzzle. For instance, if asymmetry of power may lead to interstate war, as Realist theory would suggest, then it stands to reason that wars are most likely to be initiated by stronger military powers against weaker powers. However, there are instances when weaker states have attacked stronger states (all four India-Pakistan wars have been initiated by Pakistan, the weaker military power). This is puzzling! How can we account for such puzzling outcomes? In a nutshell, decide first what topic or issue you want to study and then try to frame the topic/issue as a research puzzle. Try to explain what is puzzling in your chosen study and why is this a puzzle. Why should it be investigated?
2. Research Question & Hypotheses:
The puzzle should lead you to your research question/s. Provide a concise statement of the central question that your thesis intends to answer. Are there any secondary questions that emerge from the main/core question? I believe that a Ph.D. thesis should have one "big" question running through the entire thesis. This is because a Ph.D. thesis is expected by scholars and examiners to address a big problem/issue of major significance and offer original explanations, analyses, and solutions. The main question can lead you to ask several secondary questions, but answers to these secondary questions should help you answer the lead/core question. Once you have framed your
research question/s, you should then address what you consider to be the tentative answers (tentative because you haven't tested them yet) to the question/s. In other words, what would be the key hypotheses or tentative arguments that you would be testing empirically in the thesis? What would be the logical basis for these hypotheses/arguments? If the hypotheses/arguments are proven to be valid, what would these hypotheses/arguments reveal at the end of your thesis and how would that help answer the research question/s you are asking in the thesis? These hypotheses should not appear out of thin air. In other words, you cannot say that these are my hypotheses because that's the way I feel about the topic/questions. Hypotheses emerge out of your (a) ontological approach (your worldview), (b) epistemological approach (your approach to understanding and creating knowledge), and (c) methodological approach (research design and techniques that you use to collect, analyze, and interpret data and evidence).
3. Significance of your Research Project:
What is the significance of your research question/s and hypotheses/arguments for theory, policy, and practice? What makes the question/s and hypotheses/arguments important and original? In other words, why should anyone care about your research? Why is it worth doing? How/why will it contribute to the field? This is an essential part of a research proposal. A Ph.D. thesis is supposed to be an "original" piece of work. But original in terms of what? It could be an original theoretical contribution; that is your work will offer new theoretical insights into the issue, problem, or phenomenon that you are investigating. It could be an original contribution in terms of offering a new type of analysis of an issue, problem, or phenomenon that has not been done before. And/or, it could be original in terms of policy and practice; in other words, your findings or conclusions will help in coming up with new policies to deal with the issue or problem.
4. Relevant Literature Review:
What is the current state of research about your research question/s and hypotheses/arguments? How has the existing scholarly literature answered the question/s that you are asking? In what ways does the existing literature fail to adequately or satisfactorily deal with your research problem or answer your research question/s? How would your research and expected findings help build and advance the scholarly argument on the subject beyond the current research? This section should make clear how ‘gaps’ in the literature relate to your research objectives. This is a vital part of a research proposal. It must do three things at a minimum: (a) present a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge about the issue that you are researching (it might be best if you present this overview in terms of "schools of thought" or "approaches" etc); (b) explain why the existing knowledge is not fully satisfactory in explaining what you are trying to explain; in other words, the question/s and hypotheses that you are addressing cannot be fully accounted for by existing knowledge; and (c) this "gap" in the existing literature/knowledge then justifies what you are proposing to do and highlights the originality of your research project. In other words, you are going to offer something new and original that will add to the literature and thus help build new knowledge and understanding of that issue, problem, or phenomenon.
5. Research Design, Approach, and Method:
Pay attention to ‘Research Design’. Here identify and explain which theoretical approach will inform your work and why is it the best approach. Then explain how your main ‘hypotheses/arguments’ will be empirically ‘tested’. For instance, will you be using a quantitative testing strategy and why? Or will you use qualitative strategy and why? What kind of qualitative strategy will you follow and why? For instance, will you do a single case study or comparative case studies? How many cases, why were they chosen, and how will you compare? Then talk about why you have adopted this strategy. How will it help to test the hypotheses/arguments and answer the research question/s? Then talk about the types of data that you intend to collect and how that data will be collected and analysed. What steps will you be following? For instance, will you be conducting any personal interviews? If so, with whom? How many? Would these interviews be structured, semi-structured or unstructured interviews? Will you be doing any archival research?
What is the significance of your research question/s and hypotheses/arguments for theory, policy, and practice? What makes the question/s and hypotheses/arguments important and original? In other words, why should anyone care about your research? Why is it worth doing? How/why will it contribute to the field? This is an essential part of a research proposal. A Ph.D. thesis is supposed to be an "original" piece of work. But original in terms of what? It could be an original theoretical contribution; that is your work will offer new theoretical insights into the issue, problem, or phenomenon that you are investigating. It could be an original contribution in terms of offering a new type of analysis of an issue, problem, or phenomenon that has not been done before. And/or, it could be original in terms of policy and practice; in other words, your findings or conclusions will help in coming up with new policies to deal with the issue or problem.
