Phd means what, what makes an idea pHD worthy?

  • Context: Programs 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MedievalMan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Idea Means Phd
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on what constitutes a "PhD worthy" idea, particularly in the field of engineering. Key criteria include the necessity for novelty and significant contributions to the existing knowledge base. A participant shared insights from a fellow PhD candidate in control systems, emphasizing that a project must present new findings or approaches not previously published. The conversation also highlights the importance of collaboration with advisors to refine ideas that meet these criteria.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of PhD requirements in academia
  • Familiarity with engineering research methodologies
  • Knowledge of academic publishing standards
  • Experience with project development and innovation processes
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the criteria for PhD proposals in engineering disciplines
  • Explore academic journals in Electrical Engineering for publication standards
  • Learn about patent processes for engineering innovations
  • Investigate the role of academic advisors in shaping research projects
USEFUL FOR

Graduate students considering a PhD, engineering researchers, and academic advisors looking to guide students in developing novel research ideas.

MedievalMan
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
I know a bit about the degree, though the name itself "Doctor of Philosophy" seems awkward for some areas.

I'm finishing up my master's right now; I'm considering getting a pHD because I think there's a chance for me to develop and idea I have that is "pHD" worthy. As well, I have an opportunity to perhaps upgrade and extend my federal scholarship.

Now, what makes a phD work: concept, result, theory, idea, etc "PhD" worthy?

What most university websites says is along the lines of "must be a significant contribution to the knowledge/research base in that field".

I asked a fellow in the lab, who's about to defend for his PhD (in control systems), and he tells me:

"Your need to do something "new" or "novel", or in a way no one has PUBLISHED before".

He himself has took 3 1/2 years to finish, after a 2 years master's. He admitted, though, that for over 1 year he made no progress at all. I have 2 1/2 years of funding left; I can't afford that time. :/

The idea I'm working on has little to no direct research papers yet that I can find easily; this may be because it's not a commercial product yet, but an idea many corporations are working on.

So, I think I should be able to publish a result(s) in a decent EE journal, and get a pHD for defending the idea.

So, my ultimate question again, what makes a work "PhD" worthy (as this varies field by field, let's say for engineering) ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A project that is PhD worthy is between you, your advisor and your committee. Really anything that you can say hasn't been done before is fair game and your advisor can help you with that.

As for a significant contribution, taking an existing code and modifying it to say change material parameters is not worthy, but adding a layer of complexity to an existing set of codes just very well may be. If you add in another couple of physical mechanisms and that work hasn't been published before you are golden.

In engineering you could very well take an existing device and make changes to it which could get you a patent, that may certainly get you a PhD, or even the idea for a new control system could get you a PhD. Again, it is up to you and your advisor.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
12K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K