Is pursuing a 'Doctor of Philosophy' (PhD) a wise decision? A personal and philosophical reflection.

At the time of writing this, I have just submitted my PhD thesis for consideration by the panel of examiners. My viva voce (oral examination) is yet to be set, and therefore my award of ‘PhD’ is still in contention. For many personal reasons, I was extremely close to not submitting my PhD, as a series of tragic events occurred during the span of my doctoral studies (unrelated to my studies) that I had unconsciously and maladaptively attached to the PhD. This means that, while I did eventually decide to submit, it will always stand as a bittersweet reminder of certain events that I would sooner wish to forget.

My personal deliberations and hesitancy regarding the decision to submit led me to seriously ponder the value of a PhD. Why should I submit? Are three letters following my name really worth it considering the painful memories they would evoke? Also, as a large portion of my skills development had been beyond the scope of my thesis - e.g. general project and time management, securing industry and academic partnerships, working with policymakers, engaging with various media outlets, as part of my roles as Research Portfolio Lead, Clinical Trial Manager, and Project & Partnerships Manager - did the PhD itself actually accurately reflect my growth and skills as a researcher and academic?

As I enter the job market, it seems that prospective employers would most value these practical abilities in project and time management, team coordination & leadership, and nimble adaptive capabilities to solve problems and pivot to keep a project moving forward. All of these qualities I feel I can demonstrate using examples unrelated to my PhD. Even when considering the academic job market, it is readily apparent that prestige and career progression is measured by an individual’s publication record, number of citations, and ‘h-index’ score. A PhD may be a way into academia, but there are increasingly wonderful and excellent publications produced by talented individuals without a PhD. Why then should I allocate a large amount of my time and energy to complete a PhD thesis, when I could easily just write up my research in the form of citable papers or focus on more pragmatic skills that are more attractive to employers outside academia?

I hope it goes without saying that – similar to all degrees and educational qualifications - not all PhD’s have equal value. There is a 'market favorability' aspect where a PhD's value is determined by the needs of the economy and society. For example, if a student is currently studying applied artificial intelligence in economics, or innovating to help transition our energy sector to more green renewable sources, it is likely that their skills will be highly sought after and they will have competitive offers of employment shortly after (if not during) graduating their PhD. When I refer to ‘a PhD’ in this blog post however, I am referring to PhDs collectively (dangerous, I know!) as I believe there is an innate universal value to all PhDs. However, I freely admit that a more nuanced view is crucial to better understand and answer the question: ‘what is the value of a PhD?’.

Often in the literature, others have approached this question by considering the economic and social benefits of a PhD (I do not go in detail here, but see (1,2)). These authors explore the relationship between PhD holders and economic and labor market outcomes. As briefly eluded to above, these insights are highly dependent on the type and focus of the PhD, and so the answer to the economic and social value of an individuals PhD is highly idiosyncratic and can only really be assessed on a case-by-case basis and within the context of the times it is completed. A PhD's value being questioned is nothing new either, going back many decades to the 1980’s (3) and 1960s (4). Again, each time the authors outline the economic and labor market argument for and/or against the value of a PhD, with the conclusions changing accordingly to fit the current economic and labor market context of the time. Further, it is clear that the economic and social argument for a PhD will shift according to the times and type of PhD. This variability made me seriously consider whether there is a more temporally stable argument that demonstrates a deeper value of a PhD beyond economic and social returns.

The answer, I believe, is that a PhD necessitates an individual to consider more deeply the philosophical underpinnings of the pursuit and accumulation of knowledge - also referred to as ‘epistemology’ (the ‘theory of knowledge’) – rather than the interpretation and application of existing knowledge (which is the function of Undergraduate and Masters degrees).

After consideration, I believe the PhD has its foundations specifically in analytic philosophy. Analytic philosophy emerged in the late 19th century from the works of notable philosophers such as Bertrand Russell, G.E. Moore, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. It focused on empiricism, use of mathematical tools, logical reasoning, and the importance of clear and precise language – the foundation of any good PhD. In the final chapter of his 1912 collection of essays on 'The Problems of Philosophy’, Bertrand Russell writes about the ‘value of philosophy’. At first, he describes philosophy as the precedent to knowledge, for “as soon as definitive knowledge concerning any subject becomes possible, this subject ceases to be called philosophy, and becomes a separate science” (5). He uses the examples of philosophers studying the heavens (now astronomy), forces of nature (now the natural sciences), and the human mind (now psychology). And so philosophy occupies this ‘pre-knowledge space’ of uncertainty in which he contends is the core of its value. He further states:

“Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.” Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy (5)

Yes! This is the core for me. A PhD means venturing into uncertainty – to the ‘region of liberating doubt’ – to be curious and creative about the world around us.

A little bit more recently in 1955, Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman gave a public address at the autumn meeting of the National Academy of Sciences entitled, ‘The Value of Science’ (6). He had a similar philosophy to Russell, espousing: “Of all its [Science] many values, the greatest must be the freedom to doubt”. He states that when a scientist doesn’t know a problem, they are ignorant; if they have a hunch, they are uncertain; and even if they’re 99.99% sure they know the answer, they’ll always still have some semblance of doubt. Science is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty – some unsure, some nearly sure, but none that are absolutely certain! He goes on to say that:

“...if we suppress all discussion, all criticism, proclaiming “this is the answer, my friends: man is saved!” we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination.” Richard Feynman, The Value of Science (6)

Similar to Bertrand’s venture into uncertainty, doubt, again, is a core source of value: acting as the root of contrarianism that is the key to the progress of humanity and society.

He further elaborates more on the application, advances, and wonderful contribution of science in society – that it enables us to do and make all kinds of things, moving humanity forward. However, he also warns that this power doesn’t come with instructions of whether to use it in the first place, quoting a wonderful Buddhist proverb:

“To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell.” Buddhist Proverb

And so, one can correctly conclude that as a functional tool, a key to a door is valuable - and that is what science can offer. Science can make keys. The choice to unlock and open the door though, that is something else entirely.

To bring these two lines of thought from Russell and Feynman together, and using an admittedly rather reductionist approach, I consider the etymological structure of ‘philosophy’. Philosophy is derived from the Ancient Greek words, ‘love’ (philo) and ‘wisdom’ (sophia). So one could logically interpret philosophy as the ‘love’ (‘attraction and affection towards’) of ‘wisdom’. Which further begets the question: what is ‘wisdom’?

Wisdom is a very complex construct to define. In a recent paper, Zhang and colleagues identified ~30 attempts to conceptualize ‘wisdom’ with no universally accepted definition (7). However, despite cultural, semantic, and content differences, they do identify 2 common core components of wisdom that are found across the majority of definitions – ‘wit’ (referring to a person of great mental ability) and ‘virtue’ (specifically, they identify the primary virtues in wisdom as: awe, temperance, responsibility, honesty, benevolence, and justice). Both wit and virtue are required in any definition of ‘wisdom’, as a psychological construct and as an action. It is not enough to simply have the intellectual capacity to do something, but also to judge with virtue & empathy, whether it should be done. Partnered with this, is the knowledge that ‘Doctorate’ is derived from the Latin for ‘Teacher’. So when thinking about what a PhD truly means and represents, one must conclude that it is not only in the pursuit of wisdom, but also in the educational endeavor of sharing said gained wisdom with our peers, society, and the world. What an honor, privilege, and responsibility! To be awarded a PhD is to be classified as worthy of ‘teaching wisdom’.

Moreover, in response to the question that heads this blog post - yes, I do think that pursuing a PhD is a 'wise' decision.

So, to conclude, I am hopeful and proud that I submitted my PhD thesis for consideration, overcoming my doubts and putting aside my negative feelings.

I did it for my love of curiosity and creativity (as Bertrand Russell puts it).

I did it for my love of doubt and passion for progress (as Richard Feynman puts it).

But perhaps most of all, incorporating both intellect and virtue, I am proud I submitted it for my love of – and aspiration for – wisdom.

Christopher Albertyn, MSc

Alzheimer's Research UK PhD Student

Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN)

King’s College London

[email protected]

References

1.?Sarrico CS. The expansion of doctoral education and the changing nature and purpose of the doctorate. High Educ. 2022 Dec 1;84(6):1299–315.

2.?Canolle F, Vinot D. What Is your PhD Worth? The Value of a PhD for Finding Employment outside of Academia. European Management Review. 2021;18(2):157–71.

3.?Zumeta W. Doctoral programs and the labor market, or how should we respond to the “PhD glut”? High Educ. 1982 May 1;11(3):321–43.

4. Is a PhD Worth Having? Nature. 1968 Nov 1;220(5168):641–2.

5.?The Problems of Philosophy, by Bertrand Russell [Internet]. [cited 2024 May 29]. Available from: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5827/5827-h/5827-h.htm

6.?Richard P. Feynman. The Value of A Science [Internet]. [cited 2024 May 29]. Available from: https://archive.org/details/feynman_201604

7. Zhang K, Shi J, Wang F, Ferrari M. Wisdom: Meaning, structure, types, arguments, and future concerns. Curr Psychol. 2022 Feb 5;1–22.

?