System of Postgraduate Work Makes

¶ … system of postgraduate work makes it impossible for a graduate's work to be distinguished in terms of being a PhD or a work-based doctorate, the inherent flaw in this system is that there are indeed fundamental differences between the two directions. According to authors such as Johnson (2005), for example, a distinction should be made between the two. The current system assumes that the end product of both the PhD and the work-based doctorate program is a dissertation documenting the research and its findings. Both documents take more or less the same format, although the research methods themselves differ widely. According to Johnson (2005, p. 88), the fundamental difference lies in the purpose and outcome of each respective degree. The holder of the doctorate, for example, can conceptualize, design, and implement projects to generate new knowledge and understanding. The PHD holder, on the other hand, addresses an academic research question according to theoretical research, where such research contributes to a body of existing knowledge in terms of the academic direction. Hence, the difference is in the practical application. To distinguish the two, Johnson suggests that the assessment of the work-based doctorate should also involve scrutiny of the practical component of the candidate's research by experts in the field rather than only the end product, which is the dissertation itself. Hence, the distinction is in the components of the assessment; the work-based PhD should include a practical assessment component, rather than only the theoretical.

The benefits that might be derived from agreed Learning Outcomes depends upon the nature of these Outcomes. According to Johnson (2005, p. 91), agreed learning outcomes can be useful when used in conjunction with other components such as assessment criteria, operating documents, and supervisor development workshops in order to help all involved in the supervising process to understand the student's purpose, work, and study criteria. Agreed learning outcomes, however, will not be effective when these do not adhere to the correct criteria. The main trap in terms of these agreed learning outcomes can be that they are determined in a somewhat indeterminate manner. In other words, there is no specific consideration of what is being measured, and the agreed outcomes are more or less the same for the work-based doctorate and the more academically oriented PhD. There should be a clear distinction of what is being measured, the nature and the purpose of the research in order to create effective learning outcomes (Bareham, Bourner and Stevens, 2000, p.6). Therefore, one might determine a tentatively positive answer to the question of whether agreed learning outcomes would benefit all doctorates. The emphasis should, however, be on the fact that these need to be implemented in a very specific manner to be truly effective.

I believe it will be quite difficult for academics to accept non-academics as equal partners in the supervision and assessment process. The main reason for this is simply that the traditional manner of supervision has been the exclusive domain of academia. Furthermore, academics tend to conduct their supervision and research activities in a very specific way. To be expected to collaborate with experts in practical fields, where academic prowess is not necessarily the norm, might creates some resentment on the part of the academic.