PhD by Published Works

Admission to the PhD by Published Works is open to any applicant, subject to the following criteria. In addition to the standard entry requirements (academic, references and English language), all applicants must provide evidence of a significant contribution to research and previous academic attainment.

The award is made to candidates who can present a published body of work that demonstrates an independent, significant, and original contribution to knowledge. The thesis must be defended through a viva voce examination.

The PhD by Published Works is a part-time only route. It is open to home and international applicants. There is no expectation of on-campus attendance for students and all necessary support can be provided remotely. This remote mode of study is compulsory for international students and optional for home students.

The University currently offers three models of the degree: the ‘conventional’ model; the creative practice model; and the hybrid model.

Conventional Model

This is where original research is published in established forms such as articles in refereed journals or other peer-reviewed sources, chapters in books and research monographs (book-length studies on a specialised topic). This excludes textbooks and similar contributions that typically present previously-published research. In terms of quantity of publications, applications will be assessed on a case-by-case basis by an expert panel within the university. For example, a single output might be sufficient, for example, in the case of a substantial monograph that explores a topic in equivalent depth to a PhD thesis (or even might exceed it). Lengthy articles (say, 8,000-10,000 words) that similarly explore a topic in depth might only require a portfolio of four, whereas a portfolio of shorter articles (around 5,000 words) might require six or more.

Creative Practice Model

Creative practice refers to a portfolio of artefacts produced in areas of the arts and the humanities. This might include music (scores, recordings, performances), design artefacts (furniture, clothing, interior design), media artefacts (films, photographs, television programmes, radio programmes). Each artefact in a portfolio, in addition to meeting the tests of doctoral quality, must also meet the test of being the result of a research process (just like ‘conventional’ outputs). A useful definition of research is that supplied in the REF documentation: ‘a process of investigation, leading to new insights, effectively shared.’

In the case of creative artefacts, it can often be difficult to ‘prove’ the process of investigation. Ideally each artefact should be accompanied by documentation of the process produced at the time of the research (to avoid any accusations of post hoc rationalisation). Where no such documentation is available, the internal panel should be supplied with a narrative that is convincing as to the status of the work as research. The ‘effective sharing’ of the outputs in this model will tend to be different from those in the conventional model. They are more likely to be through more public means, such as broadcasts and exhibitions. In these cases, evidence of peer review or similar indicators of esteem should be required.

As with the conventional model, rather than require even a notional number of outputs, each application should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, though experience suggest that it is less likely that this model will attract a single-artefact submission.

Hybrid Model

As its name suggests, this model brings together outputs from the previous two models. As such, criteria and expectations from both models apply. Coherence and consistency are equally relevant here.

In all three cases, there are general criteria that applicants must demonstrate. First, the works presented must meet the three expectations of doctoral level work. In other words, the published work must demonstrate independent research that is of significance within a field or subject area and that demonstrates an original contribution to knowledge. The complete thesis must be coherent and consistent in theme. Co-authored work may be acceptable, but only where the candidate can demonstrate that it meets the expectations of doctoral work in respect of the candidate’s own contribution. The previously published work must be accompanied by a 15,000 to 25,000 critical appraisal that explicitly shows the doctoral nature of the work and how each component of the submission coheres to the research theme. The candidate will be supported by a supervisory team throughout their studies, the members of which will provide guidance to help in the development of the critical appraisal and the coherence and significance of the portfolio. The work will be examined in the same way as a conventional PhD through a viva voce examination.

Reuse of material from other degrees

Candidates are not permitted to include material which was produced during any degree course of studies which resulted in an award being conferred. Material produced during a period of studies which did not result in an award will be considered. This rule applies equally to all three models.

Continued significance

While there is no firm limit on the age of the published works, the works must still be seen to be significant and original at the time of submission for examination. It will often be the case that older works will have been superseded and either their significance paled or the originality more difficult to demonstrate. This is likely to affect different disciplines to different degrees. Reviewers should feel confident that the significance and originality of the work as whole remains intact.

Timescales

The maximum registration period for the award is twelve months. The thesis may be submitted between three and twelve months from the date of registration. All candidates on this route are registered as a part-time student.

The application process

Applications should comprise the following:

a brief CV;
two references (one of which might be from a prospective Director of Studies);
candidates should state which ‘model’ of the degree (conventional, creative practice, or hybrid model) they are applying for;
list of publications, with a statement detailing the candidate’s unique role in co-authored papers or where the applicant is not the main author. The onus lies with applicants to state clearly and honestly their authorship contribution and they should refer to CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) or other appropriate relevant recognised disciplinary bodies, such as the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors, for details on how to conceptualise their contribution. It should be noted, however, that the application is unlikely to be successful unless the applicant is lead author on most of any co-authored publications.
electronic links should be provided to publications where available; those that are unavailable in this format should be provided to the relevant School Research Degrees Leader;
a summary of how the publications cohere (c. 500 words), plus their overall original contribution to knowledge (c. 250 words); if the research process and/or methodology are not explicit in the publications, as might be the case with creative practice publications, the candidate should make this explicit in their proposal (in an additional c. 250 words);
a statement outlining whether they have identified and contacted a potential Director of Studies.

Applicants should apply with the following form: here