UGC revises basic requirements for PhD. Scholars, professors opine on what it means for academia

The UGC revised the basic requirements for PhD this month as per the recommendations of the NEP 2020; MPhil and publication are no longer mandatory 
Pic: EdexLive
Pic: EdexLive

The University Grants Commission (UGC) released the Minimum Standards and Procedure for the Award of PhD Regulations, 2022, on November 14, 2022, which revised the requirements for PhD degrees as per the recommendations of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. According to the new guidelines, MPhil and publication in a peer-reviewed journal are no longer mandatory. Among other changes is direct entry to a Doctoral programme after a four-year undergraduate degree or just a one-year Master's degree. The announced guidelines are effective immediately, as stated in the released notification: "All HEIs are requested to initiate necessary steps to implement the new regulations for the award of PhD." About the changes, an Economics professor of Visva-Bharati University (VBU) and the President of Visva-Bharati University Faculty Association, Sudipta Bhattacharyya tells EdexLive, "The new ordinance has been framed in the line of National Education Policy whose goal is elimination and corporatisation of education."

Scholars and professors have varied views on these new changes, but mostly, they argue that the revision would make no difference. “The practice of publishing papers is now a standard and the number of publications matters. The journals and the prestige of the journals add additional weight to a profile. Without publication, you cannot enrol in any reputable universities. Thus, by removing the mandatory publication they did not accomplish anything,” says Bibu Binu Thomas, a PhD scholar from the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Bhopal. In agreement with Bibu Thomas, another scholar, Sushree Ankita Jena, questions the point of the regulation by stating, "Now the brute reality is that no matter where you go for an academic job, a huge weightage is on publication, so, what is the point?"

Removal of MPhil — waste of time, lack of experience or method of elimination?

MPhil has been completely removed as a prerequisite for enrolment in PhD programmes. While a few scholars welcome the decision calling MPhil "a waste of time", others consider it a necessary experience for a PhD. "A student is thrust into research without any prior experience though they can get that through PhD; MPhil served as a sort of bridge," states Rudra Prasad Behera, an MPhil scholar from Ravenshaw University, Odisha. Again, approving the change, VBU Prof Kausik Bhattacharya argues, "MPhil was never necessary; just an intermediary degree between postgraduation and PhD. A waste of time, in my opinion." 

However, Economics professor Sudipta Bhattacharyya considers the move a method of elimination. "Drop of MPhil is again to eliminate a huge number of people from the job market as PhD is a time-taking exercise," he says. 

PhD without publication of papers
In the new regulations, the mandatory publication of papers in peer-reviewed journals has been removed. Previously, PhD candidates were required to publish "at least one (1) research paper in a refereed journal and make two paper presentations in conferences/seminars before the submission of the dissertation/thesis for adjudication” as per the 2016 regulations. This means that the decision to publish a paper is at the scholar's discretion.

Prof Rudra Prasad Behera opines, "PhD without publication, I believe, is like biryani without elaichi; it will work, but the aroma will be missing." However, Professor Kausik Bhattacharya notes that the requirement for mandatory publication resulted in the release of articles of low quality, "To publish any useless paper makes no sense. It cannot merely be a way to create a profile. Forced publication accomplished nothing more than pushing mass publication of subpar research papers." 

Shruthi Madhu, a PhD student at the National Institute of Technology (NIT), concurs with both Professors Bhattacharya and Behera and states, "On one hand UGC did this to do away with this pressure and in the process producing low-quality papers just for the sake of publishing. That might have been the agenda why this guideline was removed, but as a result, the push to do solid research work is no longer there and one would feel much less enthusiastic about publishing them." Shruthi continues by stating that if a candidate wants to continue their education abroad, the lack of published papers may hinder their future. "Universities abroad require you to show some work outside your PhD and candidates from other countries typically will have their PhD thesis along with numerous research papers. Although it is great that there is no strict mandate to publish a paper, it could also have unintended consequences," she remarks. 

It might also be interesting to take note of the fact that the UGC's list of journals was not always up to the mark and Prof Sudipta Bhattacharyya reminds us that many reputed journals were dropped from the list. "UGC excluded reputable journals like Economic and Political Weekly for Social Sciences and, as a damage control that dropped the provision of publication as a condition of promotion and appointment," alleges Prof Bhattacharyya. 

Is direct admission to PhD a boon or curse?
Are students mature or experienced enough after a four-year course to enrol into PhD? Will this enable aspiring academicians to hasten a convenient employment search? Does a speedy process help students learn fast? These are the concerns that crop up in the face of the most drastic change in the new regulations of the UGC. "Direct enrolment into PhD after graduation, I think, is a naive move as the quality required for becoming a scholar will be rare in the mass of undergrads," says Rudra Prasad Behera. Meanwhile, Prof Kausik Bhattacharya asserts that the regulation has no bearing. "If you cannot make any changes at the fundamentals or create a vigour for research, there is no relevance to these changes," he remarks, adding, "The education system is not helping students in any way. These are insignificant changes." 

Professor of Delhi University, Rajib Roy, echoes Prof Bhattacharya when he notes the insignificance of these modifications and says, "MPhil was a breathing period and it helped me, but now one can directly enrol into PhD. You can argue that this will hasten the employment search, but then why are so many doctorates unemployed? These nomenclature changes never made any substantial changes." He concludes with crucial questions, "It is essential thus to ask why are so many overqualified students unemployed and why are there so little quality research done despite the number of papers produced?"

Related Stories

No stories found.
logo
EdexLive
www.edexlive.com