ABSTRACT
Doctoral qualifications were first awarded in Australia after the Second World War. What it meant to be a doctoral student was largely framed by English doctoral traditions. The award of a PhD hinged on the preparation of a substantial thesis that made a significant and original contribution to knowledge. This performance was judged against the standards of closed disciplinary communities. In the 1990s, partly prompted by policy pressures on universities, the pattern of doctoral education began to change. Experiments in doctoral education proliferated. Knowledge communities beyond the academy were acknowledged and disciplinarity became more open. The establishment of professional doctorates and subsequent integration of coursework into some PhD programmes prompted questions about the performances required by doctoral students to qualify as a ‘Doctor’. In 2000 I examined these shifts in doctoral education, asking what is ‘doctoral’ in
doctoral education? In this chapter I revisit this question but now with the benefit of hindsight and awareness of new challenges confronting doctoral education. My thesis is that the ‘contribution to knowledge’ is still the key criteria in the award of a doctoral degree, but the notion of ‘scholarly quality’ is increasingly anchored in the practices of research and identity of the researcher. In this respect, ‘scholarly quality’ defines and foregrounds a practical ethic in research work. The effect is to generalise doctoral education. It is no longer just a preparation for research in academic workplaces but serves as a more ubiquitous professional education for working with knowledge across dispersed workplaces. The chapter is organised in three parts. I begin by reviewing the earlier study that
drew attention to the changing terms and conditions of doctoral education and its effect in focusing research assessment on research practice. Next, I extend that review by documenting third and fourth generation doctoral programmes. The former is a ‘life-long learning’ doctorate described in the literature. The latter is an empirically based case in which I participated. Finally, I look across these doctoral education experiments to further elaborate the idea of ‘scholarly quality’ that defines the doctoral in doctoral education.
