PhD/PsyD Why are we still doing the traditional dissertation?

[Cheetah89]

I find myself wondering this as I am trying to slog through my own. The traditional dissertation (i.e., 50+ pages) with all its hoops to jump through is cumbersome and a huge time-suck. One of my biggest peeves about it is it gets in the way of other research projects I'm involved in. As someone who wants a clinically oriented career, what's the point of doing this? I agree with the value of learning the research process, and as many people on this forum have pointed out, it's important to understand how research is produced in order to be an educated consumer of it. But this can be achieved in other ways, such as involving oneself in multiple smaller scale projects.

I've heard of some schools getting rid of the traditional dissertation and instead requiring students to complete and publish two smaller projects. What are your thoughts on this?

On a somewhat tangential but related note, what's the research education like in medical school? Med students are clinical practitioners who don't, as far as I know, complete a dissertation but still need to be educated consumers of scientific research.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

I still think it's necessary, even with clinicians. Being only involved at the surface level, you lose a lot of the nuance involved with being able to adequately evaluate research. Only way to do that is to really get your hands dirty. I am not a fan of the dumbing down of research education. It's already happening too much, and we have a lot of ****ty clinicians who blindly follow bad research in their clinical practice because of it. Just look at the SW/Master's embrace of pseudoscience.

As for med school, if they don't seek out additional opportunities, it's like 2 months of kind of working on a research project. May vary at certain institutions, but my spouse's research education in med school was....fleeting, to say the least. Probably a reason why so many doctors still widely prescribe things like donepezil and benzos. They simply don't know how to evaluate the research around them. Not all, just a majority.

 

[cara susanna]

My advisor was very much in favor of shorter dissertations, by which I mean keeping it more the length of a research article. Note that mine actually did end up being over 50 pages in the end, but it was nice to not have to pad it or worry about a minimum page count.

 

[syzergy]

My advisor was very much in favor of shorter dissertations, by which I mean keeping it more the length of a research article. Note that mine actually did end up being over 50 pages in the end, but it was nice to not have to pad it or worry about a minimum page count.

Same. I was encouraged to keep as close to publishable as I could. It was around 70 pages all inclusive but relatively easy to cut down. Some of the fluff was for graduate school requirements.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[barbatenussapientes]

My program encourages a publishable dissertation, including a length appropriate for the selected journals (we identify potential journals at some point in the process). I think many of the desired principles are still met. There may be some argument for greater depth of topic knowledge in a longer dissertation but I think these skills are more applicable to day-to-day activities - selective attention to those most pertinent to the specific topic, concise and integrated communication of past research, etc.

And, to be honest, most students end up still producing a dissertation that is longer than the intended journal.

 

[deleted343839]

I know that some programs allow students to submit a portfolio of first-authored publications as a substitute for the traditional dissertation. Though my program was more traditional, my dissertation (>200 pages) ended up being kind of like this, in that my literature review chapter and my pilot study had already been turned into separate publications in peer-reviewed journals by the time I completed my main study.

Regardless of the form of the dissertation, I always come back to the idea that a Ph.D. is a marker of having made a novel and meaningful contribution to knowledge in one's discipline. That's a high bar but a worthwhile one. You learn a lot from being a research team member, but there is no substitute for functioning as a PI and having that kind of ownership of the work from start to finish.

On a somewhat tangential but related note, what's the research education like in medical school? Med students are clinical practitioners who don't, as far as I know, complete a dissertation but still need to be educated consumers of scientific research.

It varies, but physicians are not trained to be scientists. It's a different model of education with different goals. There are physician scientists who have taken the time to learn research methodology and receive mentored research training, but most practicing physicians have no more than an undergraduate-level understanding of research. Again, the goals of medical education are different so this is not a criticism of that model, though where I see this affecting practice is when physicians move into areas of practice that were not within the scope of their residency training and they drift into less empirically based paradigms (eg, "functional medicine").

 

[Justanothergrad]

We do a dissertation because its important to ensure that you are an effective research (and consumer of research) in your career. That is the foundation of our discipline and being able to understand and critique articles about their findings requires a full appreciation of the research process. We don't want undergraduates who are proposing research ideas/critiquing articles/interpreting results to be at that same level when they graduate with a PhD (if you aren't familiar with how off base these typically are, ask a professor to summarize some ways that students talk about research - they LOVE to say "this study proved..." for instance). We don't want to set medical school research competency as a training standard for psychology... it's not a high bar.

That said, I'm in favor of the two chapter rather than the traditional dissertation. I did it and find it to be a useful and reasonable alternative (for those that don't know, it's basically preparing two separate manuscripts for publication - the first is a comprehensive literature review on your topic and the second is a study of the same complexity as the original dissertation). It cuts down rewriting the entire dissertation for publication and, hopefully, removes some of the barriers to publication since most never get published. It doesn't necessitate less research intensity by any stretch (Mine involved EFA, CFA, and ESEM analyses as well as several MANOVAs, a funded grant, and work in a clinical setting to gather the data). It turned out being around 80ish pages or so as I recall, with all the tables and junk for grad school.

 

[Cheetah89]

I know that some programs allow students to submit a portfolio of first-authored publications as a substitute for the traditional dissertation.

Yes, this makes sense to me. I think this approach allows you to prove that you've contributed to the field in a meaningful way and not just on a surface level, without the all the "fluff" that traditional bloated dissertations seem to encourage.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I did a three-paper dissertation, which had three interconnected, first-author articles/manuscripts (one had been published, one was an R&R, and one hadn't yet been submitted at the time of my proposal) plus a unifying intro (which ended up being more of a methods paper in my case--I later published it as such!) and a short, unifying conclusion. My dissertation was complete at the time of my proposal meeting, so from proposal to defense was basically like an R&R--responding to committee suggestions and questions. This was all from a project I did with people outside of my university, so I think the whole experience was a bit unusual, even for a three-paper set up.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

My take: I don't think traditional dissertations necessarily pull for "fluff" (although some certainly contain it). Rather, it's more of a "show your work" situation, which wouldn't be possible given length constraints in traditional publications. I also appreciate the process of having multiple folks (including a non-psych representative) dissecting and vetting the work via the proposal and defense.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm not a fan of the "publish something" dissertation method without some pretty discrete caveats. Anyone who has published more than a handful of papers knows that if you really want to, you can get that paper published. There is always some no name journal with an impact factor of .00004 that will accept it with little peer review. That's not good enough. As @AcronymAllergy says, you have to be able to demonstrate your work and thought process through this period. It's what makes us doctors and distinguishes us from mid-levels and most other advanced practice positions. This is a big issue for me, not having a dissertation with original data is a big knock against an application when I am reviewing.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I'm not a fan of the "publish something" dissertation method without some pretty discrete caveats. Anyone who has published more than a handful of papers knows that if you really want to, you can get that paper published. There is always some no name journal with an impact factor of .00004 that will accept it with little peer review. That's not good enough. As @AcronymAllergy says, you have to be able to demonstrate your work and thought process through this period. It's what makes us doctors and distinguishes us from mid-levels and most other advanced practice positions. This is a big issue for me, not having a dissertation with original data is a big knock against an application when I am reviewing.

I should throw in there that I had a rather unusual amount of research experience (PI'd several dissertation-level projects, including the one I used for my dissertation, many more publications than average [in good journals, etc], and so forth), so I think that's kind of why my committee suggested doing what I did.

 

[PsyDr]

A few reasons:

1) Clinical psychology has its roots in academia. This bred a long tradition of regarding publication history over clinical skills (or income). Without going Peterson on you, this crates an implicit hierarchy such that the more publications one has, the better the psychologist one is considered to be.

2) Psychological training is largely based upon historical precedent and not clinical performance. This is not an unusual training model, as both medicine and the law do the same. This is probably one of the reasons we ignore the fact that majority of individuals who graduate from clinical psych phds have a purely clinical career despite significant training for a research career.

2) Clinical psych PhD programs have a history of using their students as a source of cheap research labor as part of their training via the apprentice model. This reinforces a hierarchy, likely via the over justification bias.

A. The utility of the apprentice model for clinical work was significantly limited by the legal precedents set forth in the 1970s that protected disabilities in the educational setting. Around this time, psychology had just finished some very public debates which ended with us deciding we were healthcare professionals. This made the entire idea of requiring students to have their own psychotherapy, a legal no no. Think: if medicine made every medical student maintain a normal BMI as a condition of their continued education.

3) Because of the apprentice model, we have a illogical professional hazing history. The "If I had to do it..." idea. This makes higher ups reluctant to consider changing anything.

4) There is a constant change in the profession, but we are highly encouraged to ignore that a change has happened. For example: Most PhDs used to require proficiency in a foreign language. Go ask someone about that. If they remember, they'll tell you it was because you might need to read a journal in some other language. But academia dropped that requirement around the 1970s.

5) It's objectively harder to get into a clinical psych phd programs. Those that get in are rightfully proud of their accomplishments, which can be translated into some derision for those educated in the vail model by some. So if the better programs do something, so must all.

 

[WisNeuro]

I should throw in there that I had a rather unusual amount of research experience (PI'd several dissertation-level projects, including the one I used for my dissertation, many more publications than average [in good journals, etc], and so forth), so I think that's kind of why my committee suggested doing what I did.

And that's totally fair. It'd also be very evident in reviewing your CV that you had a very extensive research background. I'm talking about the applicant with 0 pubs, maybe 1-2 poster presentations at their university research day, and a lit review "dissertation." That person probably has no idea how to evaluate research for application in a clinical context.

 

[Ollie123]

I do think it is silly when emphasis is placed on writing quantity. Striking a middle ground there is fine to me. I do know some schools/labs seem like they just want students to fill space. Showing your work is fine if that is the case, but seem of these were survey studies on topics with a (relatively) limited literature base. I have literally no idea how you legitimately turn that into 300 pages without taking an undergrad-y approach to stretching out the writing. I just checked and mine came in at just under 100 pages and I'd happily pit it against any dissertation here in complexity, scope, experimental rigor, etc. That said - I do think my ability to keep it shorter was somewhat "earned" much like futureapppsy indicated by having a pretty strong research reputation by that juncture. Two shortest dissertations I've seen were ~45 pages. Both were by research all-stars who are now tenured professors at R1s.

We definitely should not be following the medical model. One of the main things we bring to the table (or should bring to the table) is comparatively greater research training. We should not be giving that up. Especially given that the mental health field as a whole already seems more accepting/tolerant of pseudoscience.

In short - quality trumps quantity. Length isn't a great indicator, I'm fine with somewhat shorter manuscripts. However, these should be substantive research projects.

 

[PsyDr]

IWe definitely should not be following the medical model. One of the main things we bring to the table (or should bring to the table) is comparatively greater research training. We should not be giving that up. Especially given that the mental health field as a whole already seems more accepting/tolerant of pseudoscience.

I disagree. I think the training people to dissect every aspect of a study promotes the idea that nothing is truly fact, which opens the door to acceptance of non-credible things.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I'd actually be somewhat in favor of length caps on dissertations for that reason. Equating length with quality, or requiring a certain length, seems problematic.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I disagree. I think the training people to dissect every aspect of a study promotes the idea that nothing is truly fact, which opens the door to acceptance of non-credible things.

I don't think being able to understand the limitations/critiques of a study equates to assuming there is nothing of value to be gleaned from the science behind it. It's a matter of correctly identifying scope and generalization of findings.

 

[Ollie123]

I disagree. I think the training people to dissect every aspect of a study promotes the idea that nothing is truly fact, which opens the door to acceptance of non-credible things.

What percentage of practitioners doing non-credible things do you think came from training backgrounds where they were (properly - and I realize this is tough to define) taught to dissect study methodology? My anecdotal experience has seen quite the opposite to be true, but I'm open to the idea my experiences may not be representative.

I do think over-dissection can be a problem in grad school (and why there are jokes about applications getting "assistant professor'd" at study sections -> meaning tanked with low scores because of irrelevant nit-picky methodology issues). I don't think de-emphasizing research training is the best solution to this issue.

 

[PsyDr]

What percentage of practitioners doing non-credible things do you think came from training backgrounds where they were (properly - and I realize this is tough to define) taught to dissect study methodology? My anecdotal experience has seen quite the opposite to be true, but I'm open to the idea my experiences may not be representative.

1) I am somewhat limited in what I can say for professional reasons, and I have a highly biased sample. It would be rare that I see work that is credible. The degree of "non-credibility" varies significantly.

2) I didn't say we should de-emphasize research training. I said the current model has significant problems, given the career course of most graduates.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Working primarily in a field (ABA) where there is much more integration of research methods into clinical practice, I always find these discussions- where "research" is discussed as if it was a totally separate beast from "clinical practice- to be interesting. I regularly use research methods from my dissertation (e.g., multiple baseline design) in my clinical work. If, as noted by PSYDR above, the career course of most Ph.D. graduates is applied work, perhaps the problem is not just with the dissertation process, but with the standard research methods used in clinical psych research, including the emphasis (almost exclusively) on hypothetical-deductive (vs. inductive) research questions and methodology.

 

[MCParent]

Programmatically, I think it is a bad idea to design a benchmark with the top performers in mind. I'm sure people like JAG would do fine with an abbreviated format. I do not think that is modal, however. I do think a dissertation has to include a thoroughness not present in other works (e.g., publications) and a more clear mastery of the subject matter.

I would be highly in favor of removing things like the insane, bizarre graduate school formatting requirements, which was more of a burden for me than any of the results reporting.

 

[denimfan]

I find myself wondering this as I am trying to slog through my own. The traditional dissertation (i.e., 50+ pages) with all its hoops to jump through is cumbersome and a huge time-suck. One of my biggest peeves about it is it gets in the way of other research projects I'm involved in. As someone who wants a clinically oriented career, what's the point of doing this? I agree with the value of learning the research process, and as many people on this forum have pointed out, it's important to understand how research is produced in order to be an educated consumer of it. But this can be achieved in other ways, such as involving oneself in multiple smaller scale projects.

I've heard of some schools getting rid of the traditional dissertation and instead requiring students to complete and publish two smaller projects. What are your thoughts on this?

On a somewhat tangential but related note, what's the research education like in medical school? Med students are clinical practitioners who don't, as far as I know, complete a dissertation but still need to be educated consumers of scientific research.

In the same vein, I don't want a clinically oriented career. I want a research-oriented career, preferably faculty. Why do I have to do a yearlong full-time internship????

 

[Justanothergrad]

Programmatically, I think it is a bad idea to design a benchmark with the top performers in mind. I'm sure people like JAG would do fine with an abbreviated format. I do not think that is modal, however. I do think a dissertation has to include a thoroughness not present in other works (e.g., publications) and a more clear mastery of the subject matter.

I would be highly in favor of removing things like the insane, bizarre graduate school formatting requirements, which was more of a burden for me than any of the results reporting.

Yeh, I can certainly see the argument there.

Part of my perception with the whole process is that the oral evaluation during proposal and defense should be used to tackle some of the underlying stuff pretty quickly. That can be done with a few quick questions. I've seen and read enough dissertations that end up being meandering theoretical summaries. I get that not everyone approaches proposal and defense that way and some get rubber stamped, but that's not committees I've been or / intend to be on.

 

[Jegg]

I enjoyed doing everything on my dissertation except the writing itself. Original research topic. Travel to a few different conference (Vegas, Cali, and NYC). Watching the data collection build up. Performing quantitative analyses on the data. Downside, I am a crunch writer, so I had to pound a lot of energy drinks, put on a terrible movie series (Transformers movies in my case) for background noise, and churn out all the sections for the proposal, and then again for the results/discussion. Ended up with ~125-130 pages which was whittled down to 105. I think it was a great experience overall. Now I have a book I can hand out to family and friends that they will never read... lol