Those who are academically able always aspire to pursue higher training to doctoral levels or even beyond. The pride of most people who have earned a PhD or conferred an honorary one can’t be hidden. This is mostly seen in writing where the prefix ‘Dr’ is added to their name, and called out when being addressed.
In some cases, leaving it out can be misconstrued as disrespect to a schooled person. In some cases, some professors with two doctorates prefer being referred to with the double doctorate on their name. Recently, the title attracted public attention and humour when a politician pronounced ‘doctor’ as ‘doktari’, while referring to a medical doctor.
Why people go for PhD study is very subjective. To some it is in anticipation of better jobs and pay. It is also interesting to note that some do what it takes to acquire the title for pride. I will not be shocked if I come across cases where some toil for the degree because they are rewarded with scholarships with some benefits such as financial, employment or travel.
Whichever the case, whether the hustle is worth it or not, I will leave it to the PhD holders. Ideally, PhD curricula are supposed to mould thinkers and solution providers to global challenges. In the current practice of transparency, some job interviews have shown that some PhD holders do not actually possess some common applied knowledge and requisite soft skills. This leaves a lot to be desired on whether it is a personal issue or the curricula.
In recent times, acquiring a doctorate degree has become even more advantageous following the directive of the Commission for University Education that one has to have the qualification to become a lecturer in a Kenyan university.
The issue became contentious, forcing lecturers in one of the universities to move to the Employment and Labour Court in 2019 to have the guidelines nullified as they argued that the country does not have enough PhD holders for this assignment.
According to the guidelines, CUE issued directives requiring that all assistant lecturers in universities must have a PhD by October 2019. The judge ruled in favour of the lecturers, declaring the CUE’s Harmonized Criteria and Guidelines for Appointment and Promotion of Academic Staff in Universities in Kenya dated October 27, 2014, null and void. The move gave a lifeline to assistant lecturers whose jobs were at stake. This discussion, will no doubt, go on into the future.
As much as CUE had a good motive of upholding the quality of university education, the teaching staff had a right to be heard. Moving forward, the question would have been, ‘why were the assistant lecturers unable to attain PhDs within the stipulated timelines, 2014-2019, assuming that the guidelines were issued while they were holding the positions?’
In as much as there may be no specific answer to the question, there are underlying issues that can be worked on to help PhD candidates realise their dreams within the stipulated timelines. I present a few, while comparing and contrasting the practices of some foreign universities that I have had the privilege to work for or study in.
It is stipulated that the duration of studying for PhD is three to five years in most Kenyan universities. According to CUE, for a doctorate degree to be recognised in Kenya, the holder of the award must have studied for a minimum of three. This is the case, in most foreign universities although some could take slightly longer or less depending on the entry level qualifications.
However, in Kenya, the five-year maximum period is not, often, implemented. It is time to be more deterministic on the completion of the programmes. I have come across PhD study admission letters into foreign universities that clearly indicate the start and completion dates of the programme. This raises another question, why can’t this be implemented in most universities Kenya?
The first weakness is in the financing options for the students. Quite a numbers of PhD students are self-sponsored. This is an expensive affair, especially if the research is experiment based like in most sciences, engineering and practical arts.
As a result, the students tend to be part-time based as they work to meet their financial needs as well as raising tuition and research fees. The obvious implication is not only cutting the student from the supervision team but it denies the student time to focus on the research full time.
Elsewhere, it has become a trend to have PhD students recruited as research assistants through a competitive process. This makes the student(s) part of a research team/university staff, expected to work on research on a full-time basis, and paid as any other staff. The student is recruited for a specific period, with clearly specified workflow and milestones to be attained within the set period.
Student supervision is another challenge that can be partly attributed to institutional capacity and lack of supportive policies. This is being addressed by CUE but we are not yet there. There have been cases where a supervisor guides more than 15 students at once, which is not very practical or convenient to both parties.
This is because most supervisors do not have teaching assistants and are at the same time expected to teach, research and carry out administrative duties. As earlier mentioned, the approach of supervisors having research teams/laboratories can address this weakness.
In a given team, is an organogram (from the head, assistant, postdoctoral students all the way to undergraduates and lab technicians/demonstrators), hence, the team can keep working with or in the presence of the main supervisor for a while. Similarly, each lab handles one project/research area, hence, the students tend to supplement each other.
Weakness in policies cannot be overlooked. In the times when thesis by publication is becoming a trend, there is a need to have clear guidelines on number and grading of research publications to avoid subjectivity.
I root for this approach. The interesting thing about this approach is that it makes PhD research a collective affair rather than two conflicting parties with a student on one side and the supervisor on the other such that some supervisors end up declining to approve their students’ work.
The collectiveness comes in through publication since the published work by the student and the supervisory team reflects their contribution/quality as a team, hence, everyone should take part in it to uphold its quality.
The supervisor on the other hand is interested in peer-reviewed publications from the students work for not only accounting for the project funds where applicable but for personal promotions as well.
Hence, it is a win-win for the student and the supervisor. In short, this will minimise the failure or delay for students to graduate that is to a large extent, blamed on the supervisor who is supposed to nurture the student into a real ‘philosopher’; the ‘Ph’ in PhD.
In connection, CUE had partly gotten it wrong on failing to grade peer-reviewed research work and distribution of weighted publication points for multiple authorship. This is stipulated in the Harmonized Criteria and Guidelines for Appointment and Promotion of Academic Staff in Universities in Kenya of October 27, 2014, signed by the then Cabinet Secretary of Education, Science and Technology.
This among other concerns were discussed and well presented in a report on Appointment and Promotion Criteria for Academic Staff in Public Universities in Kenya by the Universities’ Academic Staff Union committee in April 2018, chaired by Prof Samuel Kubasu of Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology.
Although the structure of a PhD programme is in three forms: a) coursework, examination and project; b) coursework, examination and thesis; and c) thesis only, I strongly advocate for the ones with coursework component.
I thus concur with a proposal by CUE to have PhD students take coursework for at least a year and a half before starting research. This is important not only in having the student familiarise with the research area but with the teaching/supervisory team as well, creating an ambient working atmosphere.
I can’t remember the many times our research team went out for dinner/karaoke sponsored by the supervisor during my PhD study, thanks to Prof Chen Haishan. Elsewhere, I remember sharing my research work with the team at my supervisor’s residence over a meal and a glass of wine, big up Peter Huybers.
This comes in handy especially when a student is enrolling for the programme in a different university from where he/she studied for the previous degree, which I strongly support.
As much as all universities are regulated by the same body, different institutions have their unique teaching and research cultures. The idea of studying in a different university/institution helps the student not only academically but to appreciate diversity.
Lastly, it is a practice in some countries, especially in Asia and some parts of Europe, where students are awarded a lesser degree eg, a master’s, postgraduate diploma or an honors degree, in the event that the student fails to fulfil the requirements of a doctorate degree but attains credits required for the lesser degree.
This is highly debatable since it opens a Pandora's box, but it is worth considering especially now that CUE has well-defined guidelines on recognition and equation of qualifications.
In conclusion, PhD is simply a ‘harambee’; every party should play its role to make it fun and meaningful.
Assistant professor of Climate Change Adaptation at Mohammed VI Polytechnic University, Morocco. [email protected]
