Article-based thesis or thesis by monograph? Supervisors’ views on the route to completion of doctoral studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growth in the use of article-based theses, when compared to the traditional monograph-style thesis raises the question why students, supervisors and academic institutions are pursuing this particular route. This study explores the views of experienced supervisors involved in doctoral studies. The study aims to explore the advantages, disadvantages, caveats and various routes that doctoral students can take in completing their thesis. The study was exploratory in nature, employing a qualitative research design and made use of semi-structured interviews with nine doctoral supervisors from Canada. Data was collected from experienced doctoral supervisors from Canada, selected by means of a snowball sampling approach. Data was analysed by means of thematic content analysis. Findings show that supervisors preferred the sandwich-based thesis approach, as it allowed for more rapid time to completion. In addition, the main benefits for both institution and student included having a larger volume of published research output at the end of the doctoral supervision process, as well as more rapid career advancement owing to development of both research and soft skills. The finds hold value for universities who are considering an article-based thesis as an alternative to the traditional monograph style, as well as universities who have not used this option extensively. Findings also provide an impetus for supervisors and faculties in management education to adopt the article-based thesis approach more widely and rapidly owing to the multitude of benefits it holds.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".