A UK PhD in Psychology: The British Psychological Society Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper first presents the author's impressions of the UK PhD in psychology, with respect to the author's experience of 9 years' teaching at the Universities of Oxford (1987-1989) and Manchester (1992-1999). In the second section of the paper, he discusses the Guidelines for the Assessment of the PhD in Psychology and Related Disciplines, endorsed by the British Psychological Society. Reference is also made to the Australian and North-American PhD systems, based on the author's experience working at the University of Toronto (1990-1992) and the University of Western Australia (2000-present). Several current trends are identified for the UK PhD in psychology, including the tendency for the UK PhD to become more programmatic, better regulated, and more formalized. A final point concerns the development of the international “market” in PhD graduates, facilitated via media such as the internet. The author agrees with the majority of the recommendations made by the BPS PhD Guidelines. However, based on his recent UK teaching experience, he is somewhat sceptical concerning whether these Guidelines will—realistically—be implemented within the current political and managerial climate existing in the UK higher education sector.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".