What does it mean by not enough for a PhD work/Qualification, it's more to an MPhil or MSc (Research)?

I read some cases where the candidate is given an MPhil after the end of their journey because their work i not 'substantial enough', what does this mean? how do we avoid it?

: /

I think that this is when the candidate's work is closer to the standard of an MPhil and the examiners don't think that a revise & resubmit decision will be enough for the candidate to bring their work to the required standard. Surely this can pretty much be avoided through the upgrade process that most students have to go through? Although I am aware that my university has a very rigid and strict structure when it comes to monitoring research students; actually getting to the upgrade seems hard enough sometimes, and the supervisors often complain about it as well.

Hi there! My understanding is that this can refer to both the volume of the work and the quality of the work. We were always told that we needed enough data to be able to write up three results chapters/papers (although obviously the data element of this won't be relevant in some disciplines). In terms of the quality, I agree with what Natassia said- I think you'd be offered an MPhil if it isn't likely that you are going to get the standard up to PhD level even with a revise and resubmit verdict. Best, KB

Hello Natassia and KB,

KB,
Enough data, as in how much? How do you know you've reached the required (quantity?quality?analysis? etc) data?
Well, that's the thing; I don't know the meaning of 'not up to the standard of the PhD level'.

Natassia,
What is the 'standard' of an MPhil?

it's a bit of both, bot by receiving an r&r I was told on the viva that my work deserves more than an Mphil. I suppose that when examiners give R&Rs they know that the thesis has a good chance to get to PhD level, otherwise I would award the PhD instead or advice the student on the viva to do so, instead of making them work for another 18 months for the same result.

Hi Dan, I think the trouble is that your asking a questions for which the answer will vary not just by subject/discipline, but by individual PhD. I think "enough work" is subjective. There are (Very) rare cases of PhDs that are less than 10 pages in disciplines such as physics. To get those 10 pages obviously was a lot of work and I'm no physicist so I don't know how they judged it to be up to some standard or whatever.

The point is that in something like English, I doubt very much that you would ever see a ten page thesis! These things vary, not just the length of the work, but how "high standard" or "enough work" is judged.

I always see a good guide as being "could you feasibly get 3 papers out of this?". One for each chapter of new and novel work. This may not be relevant in other fields however, plus you don't need to actually publish the papers necessarily (though you may as well) it's just a question of whether 3 papers COULD be taken from the thesis.

======= Date Modified 25 Oct 2012 09:36:30 =======

A ten page PhD thesis?!!

It would have to be:

a) Very succinct;

b) Drawing from a very small pool of available literature;

c) Drawing on a pool of data that does not require a large amount of discussion to deliver the original, new contribution to knowledge required of a PhD.

Any physicist on here that would care to explain? :-)

The shortest credible one I've found is (thanks Google) "An unstable Adams spectral sequence" by David Lee Rector at 9 pages at MIT.

http://library.mit.edu/item/000612341

The longest in contrast is "ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORICAL PROBLEMS OF THE SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD" (I've no idea what that means) by Bruce Williams at 2143 pages, plus 31 pages for contents etc., coming out at 2174 pages total at University of Chicago.

http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/RA/BBW/BBWIntro.html

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

======= Date Modified 25 Oct 2012 11:05:11 =======
Hi Dan,

I similarly received an R&R outcome (expecting examiners results next week). Prior to my viva, I was convinced my examiners would fail me with an MPhil or an outright fail. My supervisors were overtly expecting extensive major corrections (or an MPhil) and it was up to me at the viva to switch the balance to a resubmission.

However, at my viva and within my examiners report, my examiners were mostly positive and emphasized the enormity of my PhD work (results and coverage) and seemed to be really confused and perplexed why I was so worried about an MPhil outcome and why I clarified the resubmission verdict with them twice (showing them again that I was expecting an MPhil).

It seemed to me that given thesis coverage and the fact that my examiners noted in the examiners report that some of my findings were breaking new ground and could lead to significant new avenues of knowledge, an MPhil was simply not an option. At my viva and examiners report, I was criticized for being overly ambitious and as result, I was primarily required to reduce my thesis down and narrow my research focus onto 2-3 research questions rather than 5-6 research questions. In the end, I ended up deleting almost two results chapters and submitting a completely different reworded and narrowly focused reduced PhD thesis. Furthermore, my external examiner strongly encouraged me to think about publishing bits of my thesis and she mentioned at least 5-7 publications after I've finished with the corrections (and not to permanently delete omitted material, but publish as separate publications) so I guess that also gives an indication of thesis being substantial enough.

As my thesis was very different from my submitted draft (but adheres to their requests) I have to wait until next week to see if I've done enough. Mega eeeeek!

I would imagine an MPhil is awarded if the
- thesis fails to reach doctoral level standard, (ie weak literature review, research questions, weak discussion, lack of evaluation, poorly presented, weak/no contributions to knowledge)
- fails to make a significant contribution to knowledge (the 'substantial enough' bit).
- Perhaps poor performance at viva? ie at the viva, the candidate demonstrated that they don't have the capacity to succeed at doctoral level?
- Alternatively, the candidate decides to leave with an MPhil rather than working towards a PhD.

As every PhD is unique, I'm not sure it's useful to consider number of pages etc to ascertain whether something is substantial enough. I think the point is whether the PhD is advancing knowledge in some way and to do so the thesis needs to show some evaluative insight and research investigation into a specific niche within a particular field.

Also, asking questions on how much data completely depends on the project, especially if conducting qualitative rather than quantitative research. When my external examiner commented on the number of methods I've used to answer all of my research questions, she mentioned something about a PhD candidate receiving a PhD from a very small number of extremely in depth interviews. So, in some cases, ie qualitative research I don't think it's useful to think about numbers required for enough data. Alternatively, I think excessively large data collection (above and beyond numbers indicated from power calculations) raises some ethical questions in collecting reams and reams of data which maybe deemed as unnecessary and adverse for participants and resources.