QAA discussion paper about doctoral programmes:
Summary of responses to question 8

Question 8: How would/do you/does your institution define ‘originality’ in the context of doctoral study?

Numbers and percentages

Additional comments

Number

% of total

The next two rows provide an overview of responses to question 8. The rest of this table summarises the comments received, sub-divided into broad groups.

Total number of responses to the consultation:

72

100%

A significant number of institutions provided their own definitions of ‘originality’ as used in doctoral degrees. These are shown in the Annex to this summary. A small number of institutional respondents said they/their institution did not define originality at all; others said that ‘originality’ was not defined in words but in the judgement of those who examine the thesis. Two respondents referred to the doctoral qualification descriptor in The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ) as providing helpful guidance in referring to research being ‘of a quality to satisfy peer review, extend the forefront of the discipline and merit publication’.

Seven respondents (10 per cent) did not answer this question (most of these are not based in a higher education institution).

Number answering this question:

65

90%

Comments on ‘originality’
Please note that some respondents are counted more than once in the sub-categories below because they offered multiple perspectives on this question.

a  Respondents who provided definitions
of ‘originality’ in
the context of
doctoral study.

31

43%

All these respondents provided their own definition of ‘originality’; the Annex summarises their detailed definitions of the concept of originality. The numerous definitions cover:

• originality (of any kind)
• original thought
• original work.

It was clear from the way in which some of this group of respondents phrased their answers that they were referring to ‘originality’ as specified in assessment criteria for doctoral qualifications and as interpreted by external examiners.

Respondents’ definitions are on the whole complementary and do not conflict. Some definitions are regulatory, others are for guidance. There is variation in the definitions but many express ‘originality’ in terms of ‘contribution to knowledge’, specifically the extent to which the candidate’s work provides new insights into the issues examined. One respondent highlights the importance of the candidate and his/her supervisor taking appropriate steps to assure the originality of the proposed research before proceeding with it.

Phrases such as: ‘original thought’; ‘original findings’; ‘substantial original contribution to knowledge and understanding’; ‘reaching an appropriate intellectual level, including the ability to create new knowledge…’; and ‘independent critical power’ are used. Typically, ‘originality’ can be construed either as new knowledge/discovery of new facts arising from an individual’s research or creativity (in some disciplines, involving experimentation and interpretation of results; in others through the creation of, for example, a work of art, including a written work, or a musical composition), or the application of existing knowledge in a way that provides new insights into the subject, for example through using different approaches or methodology. In respect of defining originality in the creative and performing arts, one respondent mentioned ‘high level artistry’ as a contributing factor.

One respondent said that a student’s [research] activity should change the way in which the field of study is understood by others working in the field; another introduced the concept of the ‘usefulness’ of research, over and above providing new knowledge. Some of the comments that accompanied the definitions provide further insight into the thinking behind them. Examples of definitions include: ‘Forms a distinct contribution to the knowledge of the subject and affords evidence of originality by the discovery of new facts and/or by the exercise of critical power’; and ‘The ability to think independently, find solutions to difficulties and offer fresh insights into existing situations’. Another example (from a professional doctorate) is that the degree ‘is characterised by advanced learning based on professional capability and in-depth research and development leading to substantial projects which achieve major organisational change and/or excellence in professional practice’. In one institution, ‘originality’ is only mentioned in respect of a doctorate by published work (see comments under section b).

Another respondent said that originality is not the only defining attribute of doctoral study, and that it is important to avoid over-emphasis on subject differences in this area (although see section c). This respondent pointed out other important features of doctoral level study, including: clarity of focus; intellectual context; methodological awareness and rigour; honesty; and clarity of presentation.

One respondent said that whether or not a definition of originality is necessary is a moot
point: it could be argued that since two examiners provide a judgement as to the quality of
the candidate’s submission and the added value it provides to the discipline, their opinion should be seen as sufficient judgement. This respondent added two potential interpretations
of originality:

• original contribution to a wider body of knowledge
• original application, original efforts on the part of the student, developing and applying research ideas for their own professional context.

Either way, the student is still developing and using considerable scholarly endeavour, especially if his/her research is embedded in professional practice, which would almost certainly require the transferable skills looked for by employers (leadership, good communication, change management, organisational knowledge, and interpersonal skills). Finally, this respondent suggested it was pointless to attempt to define originality from a single perspective because of the emphasis in the doctorate on creativity in developing and applying knowledge. Any narrow interpretation could limit the parameters for autonomy or independence in doctoral students and might encourage academic conformity to supervisor preferences or wider doctoral strategy, that is, academic freedom is of the utmost importance.

As might have been anticipated, many of the definitions relating to ‘originality’ are linked to or embedded within assessment criteria for doctoral degrees and how the thesis is/should be judged. For example, some institutions define this element of doctoral assessment as the need to provide ‘evidence of originality of thought’. However, some believe this kind of assessment criterion is more appropriate to master’s level study and that it should be a requirement for a doctoral level graduate to have demonstrated the ability to identify a gap in current knowledge and to have pursued a piece of research through which the gap is filled (noting that doctoral candidates whose research topic is determined by their sponsor or by the broad research project they are contributing to cannot fulfil this criterion).

Another institution, referring to what examiners are seeking in doctoral candidates, said ‘…what one needs to judge is whether or not the candidate has made a contribution to the intellectual field that changes the way in which that field is understood (in the first instance by the examiners). If an examiner has his/her view added to and hence changed (in however precise an aspect of the field) then the contribution must necessarily be original’.

One respondent argued that the issue lies not in a definition of originality, but in the qualifiers [for a doctorate] and the extent of the candidate’s contribution. For example, institutional regulations for doctoral and master’s degrees may differ only slightly to distinguish between the attributes of different levels of postgraduate - ‘distinct and significant contribution’ at doctoral level, compared with ‘distinct contribution’ at master’s level. In this case, much hangs on the interpretation of ‘significant’. It is at this point that the judgement of the external examiner is critical and the point was made by the same respondent that examiners of doctoral candidates are ‘world experts’ from other institutions who are able to interpret the candidate’s contribution informed by subject specific and other context.

b  Respondents who linked ‘originality’
to ‘publishability’.

16

22%

Note: more than one respondent pointed out that it can be difficult to assess the ‘publishability’
of an individual’s work when dealing with
multi-authored papers.

In addition to the more generic definitions summarised in section a above, some respondents included a criterion about doctoral work being ‘publishable’. For a significant number of institutions, this criterion is implicit rather than explicit in formal definitions. For others, ‘publishability’ is key: this can be inferred from the following robust statement from one respondent: ‘[Originality] is a red herring. The key is “publishable” - and we are not talking of format but content’.

Phrases quoted in this category include the following: ‘Work that meets international standards of published research’; and ‘…making a novel contribution to the subject such that it is likely to be publishable in an appropriate journal/of publishable quality…’. Other statements made about the ‘publishability’ of doctoral work refer to the fact that the outcomes of a doctorate should include a requirement to produce work of publishable quality; that it should be clear examiners are looking for theses containing work of this quality rather than having the expectation that the thesis itself should be publishable; and that a basic quantifier for the quality of the PhD is how many publications or papers come out of the research. An additional comment concerns the need for the PhD model to retain the benchmark standard of publishable work to maintain the reputation of the UK PhD, especially in the light of pressure on admissions qualifications and the duration of programmes.

Therefore it appears that there are two broadly distinct schools of thought around the concept of ‘publishability’ in doctoral output: one is that the thesis itself should be publishable in whatever medium is most appropriate to the subject; the other is that the thesis should be of publishable quality, that is, an indicator that the work generally emerging from the candidate’s research is likely to be published and peer reviewed.  

c  Respondents who said that definitions
of originality were,
or should be, discipline-specific.

13

18%

Many respondents noted the differences of emphasis in doctoral attributes expected by different discipline communities and in particular by examiners of doctoral candidates. There were numerous references to the importance of subject specificity in this area.

Comments by these respondents included a statement that defining originality was a matter for disciplines, not institutions, because the ‘original contribution’ is to the body of knowledge in the relevant discipline.

One respondent summarised succinctly the differences between original work as understood: firstly, in the arts, humanities and some branches of mathematics, which may include studying previously unpublished or newly discovered material, or undertaking a fresh analysis of existing knowledge; and secondly in scientific research which usually involves working on a section of a larger research project and completing a portion of the project work as a member of a team. In the latter, there can be difficulties in identifying individual contributions and thus in assessing the ‘publishability’ of an individual student’s work where, as is usually the case, the project outcomes are published in multi-authored papers (see note in section b above).

Linked with the previous comment, another respondent said that the question to be addressed is not how institutions define originality but what expectations and assessment criteria are employed in each discipline. For example, laboratory-based supervisors in science subjects where doctoral research is conducted in a group setting may have particular expectations of the attributes required of the doctoral candidate because the research topic of the group has been pre-determined (for example, by agreement between the principal investigator and the research council funding the project). In such circumstances the criteria for success are likely to include the requirement that a candidate has completed his/her part of the pre-determined project efficiently, and effectively, using the approved methodology, as well as having the ability to contextualise his/her contribution and findings as part of the project as a whole.

To sum up on this point, a further respondent mentioned the specific differences between Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects and arts and humanities. In the former, originality is often defined as publication (or the potential for publication) of one’s work in learned journals; in the latter more emphasis may be placed on intellectual originality.

Others said that ‘originality’ was a difficult concept to define and that, because this was a matter for disciplines, institutions could only provide general guidance; examiners describe why a candidate’s work meets the requirements for originality within the discipline. One respondent said that it was better not to try to define originality in words because it was defined in the judgement of examiners who are properly equipped to make judgements. Therefore, the answer to the question perhaps lies in the process [of doctoral education] rather than in elaboration of the description of what constitutes originality, especially because of the need for sensitivity to disciplinary differences.

Acknowledging the differences between disciplines, another respondent said that ‘originality’ could broadly be interpreted to mean ‘…the presentation, exploration and evidence-based defence of new, novel (innovative) concept(s)/argument(s) which extend/challenge the current knowledge base’. Another respondent noted that the viva voce was [just] one of the forms of peer review by which a researcher’s work is judged.

d  Some institutional respondents said that they did not define the concept of originality at institutional level, although in some cases the word ‘original’ was used
in institutional documents.

10

14%

These responses are linked with section c, above, in that some of these respondents also said that it was not appropriate to have an institution-level definition of originality because it could/should only be interpreted at subject level. One or two confirmed that their institutions had no intention of introducing a definition of ‘originality’ in institutional regulations or codes
of practice.

e  A common understanding of ‘originality’ is important for staff assessing doctoral students.

3

4%

A few respondents emphasised the importance of staff training on the interpretation of ‘originality’, especially for those examining a doctoral degree for the first time. These respondents also referred to the different meanings that ‘originality’ might have for
different disciplines. 

f  Reference to ‘originality’ must remain in the doctoral qualification descriptor.

2

3%

Two institutional respondents emphasised the importance of a reference to ‘originality’ in the doctoral qualification descriptor.

1

‘Original research’ as defined in a handbook for doctoral students:

• makes an original contribution to knowledge or understanding of the subject, in topic
  area, in method, in experimental design, in theoretical synthesis, or engagement with conceptual issues
• pushes the topic into new areas - beyond its obvious focus
• solves some significant problem or gathers original data or re-frames issues
• is imaginative and creative - yet rigorous - in its approach to problems
• goes beyond its sources to create a new position which critiques existing
  theoretical positions
• uses the empirical study to enlarge the theoretical understanding of the subject
• contains innovation, speculation, imaginative reconstruction, cognitive excitement - the research student has clearly wrestled with the method, trying to shape it in order to gain new insights
• is comprehensive in its theoretical linkages or makes novel connections between areas of knowledge
• opens up neglected areas or takes a new viewpoint on an old problem
• something new must have been learned and demonstrated, such that the reader is made to re-think a stance or opinion
• shows ‘a spark of inspiration as well as perspiration’
• shows development towards independent research and innovation
• is innovative in content and adventurous in method, obviously at the leading edge in its particular field, with potential for yielding new knowledge
• contains innovative insights upon the research issue(s)
• shows clear evidence of professional development and innovation where appropriate
• contains detailed description of a very high level of professional creativity, sensitivity
  and responsibility
• makes a personal synthesis of an interpretive framework
• shows depth and breadth of scholarship - synthesizing previous work and adding original insights/models/concepts or new frameworks for interpreting the research phenomena - perhaps arguing against conventional views
• applies established techniques to novel patterns, or devises new techniques which allow new questions to be addressed
• meets the subject area requirements of the journal/conference audience.

respondent 1

2

‘Originality’ is defined in terms of a contribution to knowledge; specifically, the extent to which a dissertation provides new insights into the issues examined.
respondent 3

3

‘Originality’ is used in two senses: by requiring that the output must satisfy the examiners as making an original and significant contribution to knowledge; and giving evidence of originality of mind and critical judgement in a particular subject. An appropriate element of academic judgement is required in applying these definitions.
respondent 5

4

The ability to carry out original thinking and independent research of a high quality and to discover new knowledge.
respondent 6

5

The institution expects candidates to demonstrate the discovery of new facts and/or to exercise independent critical powers. In this respect originality can be defined either as originality of thought or as originality of knowledge.
respondent 8

6

Doctoral degrees are assessed on the extent to which the candidate has reached an appropriate intellectual level, including the ability to create new knowledge, or apply existing knowledge to new problems or situations. The following are extracts from the institutional assessment criteria for doctoral degrees.

1  The dissertation should:

• embody the results of research, carried out by the candidate, which may reasonably be expected of a capable and diligent student in the period of study set in the regulations for the degree
• consist of the candidate’s own account of his/her investigations
• make clear the sources from which information has been derived, the extent to which the work of others has been used, and the areas which are claimed as original
• show the exercise of critical judgment with regard to both the candidate's own work and that of other scholars in the field
• be an integrated whole and present a coherent argument.

2  The dissertation and the oral examination together must demonstrate that the
candidate has:

• an adequate knowledge and understanding of the discipline and the context within which the research is grounded and of the literature relevant to the research
• the ability to put forward arguments in an appropriate form, verbally and in writing.

4  The dissertation submitted for a doctoral degree should, in addition to the requirements in paragraphs 1 and 2, represent a significant and original contribution to knowledge, worthy of publication or dissemination in whole or in part in a form appropriate to the discipline.

5  For candidature by published work, the work submitted should in addition:

• relate in a coherent way to the field of knowledge and represent a significant and
  original contribution
• be accompanied by a commentary linking the published work and outlining its coherence and significance, and making clear the extent of the contribution of others to the  work submitted.

6  For candidature by dissertation or by published work, the work submitted and the oral examination together must demonstrate, in addition to the requirements in paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 or 5, that the candidate has the capacity to pursue independently original research based on a good understanding of the relevant techniques and concepts.

Definitions

Dissertation
A dissertation may include, with the approval of the faculty, work relevant to the professional practice in which the degree is embedded, such as portfolios of work and project reports. In all cases these shall be accompanied by a commentary providing a critical evaluation of the candidate’s work in relation to the academic and research context. The commentary will generally serve as the implicit agenda for the oral examination. The term ‘dissertation’ should be interpreted accordingly.

Research degrees including creative work
Where a candidate submits work which includes images, artefacts or other creative work, the dissertation comprises the creative element and a written commentary together. The creative work should be clearly presented, in an appropriate form and accompanied by a commentary that provides a discursive treatment of the creative work and sets it in its research context. The commentary is normally not less than 30,000 words and generally serves as the implicit agenda for the oral examination. The final submission includes some permanent record of the creative element, combined in an appropriate way with the commentary.

Originality
Originality, in the context of the research described in a dissertation or work submitted, means making a contribution to learning, for example through the discovery of new knowledge or the application of existing knowledge in new situations, the connection of previously unrelated facts, the development of new theory or the revision of previously held views.
respondent 9

7

Originality is a difficult concept; however, we believe that it is important to retain the idea that research at this level is making a novel contribution to the literature. Originality is best defined as ‘making a novel contribution to the subject such that it is likely to be publishable in an appropriate journal’.
respondent 10

8

No strict definition of ‘originality’, although regulations state that candidates are expected to make an ‘independent and original contribution’ to knowledge or professional practice.
respondent 13

9

The concept of originality is part of the central criterion for the award of a doctorate in this institution, which requires that ‘the thesis makes a substantial original contribution to knowledge or understanding’. This is not further defined in institutional regulations.
respondent 14

10

PhD and PhD with Integrated Studies:
Candidates are required to demonstrate the ability to conduct original investigations, to test or explore ideas/hypotheses (whether their own or those of others), and to understand the relationship of the theme of their investigations to a wider field of knowledge. The thesis should include an original and significant contribution to knowledge, for example through the discovery of new knowledge, the connection of previously unrelated facts, the development of new theory, or a new analysis of older views. It should also include substantial matter worthy of publication, though it need not be submitted in a form suitable for publication.

Professional Doctorate:
Candidates are required to demonstrate the ability to analyse, test and criticise ideas in an independent study of literature related to a specific theme and understand how the special theme is related to a wider field of knowledge. Candidates must also demonstrate mastery of the special theme and the ability to evaluate ideas within it. The thesis should contain an original contribution to knowledge. It should include matter worthy of publication, though it need not be submitted in a form suitable for publication.
respondent 17

11

Originality is defined as the candidate having ‘created and interpreted new knowledge, through original research, or other advanced scholarship, of a quality to satisfy peer review, which extends the forefront of the discipline and merits publication’.
respondent 18

12

The creation of new knowledge.
respondent 22

13

Original research contributions to the discipline.
respondents 23 and 24

14

Criteria for awards
PhD, EngD, DClinPsy, DBA, DMan, DHRes, EdD, MD, MPhil, MA/MSC by Research, MRes

PhD (Doctor of Philosophy)
A candidate for the award of PhD shall have undertaken a substantial programme of individual research, involving the sustained exercise of independent critical powers including the ability to use research outcomes to guide the development of the research programme, and leading to a significant original contribution to knowledge or its interpretation.

The candidate shall present the results of the research in a submission, embodying a thesis presented and defended in a lucid and scholarly manner, and containing material worthy of peer-reviewed publication.

The candidate shall demonstrate technical competence in the chosen field, including appropriate knowledge and use of research methods and of a substantial body of other relevant work, and an appreciation of the context and significance of the thesis.

EngD (Engineering Doctorate)
A candidate for the award of Engineering Doctorate shall have undertaken a substantial programme of individual research, involving the sustained exercise of independent critical powers including the ability to use research outcomes to guide the development of the research programme and leading to a significant original contribution to professional practice and/or the enterprise(s) in which the programme is carried out.

The candidate shall present the results of the research in a submission, embodying a thesis presented and defended in a lucid and scholarly manner, and containing material worthy of peer-reviewed publication.

The candidate shall demonstrate technical competence in the chosen field, including appropriate knowledge and use of research methods and of a substantial body of other relevant work, as well an understanding and appreciation of the context and significance of
the thesis.

DClinPsy (Doctorate in Clinical Psychology)
A degree of Doctor of Clinical Psychology shall be awarded to the candidate who has completed successfully the approved programme of study that shall include academic and professional taught courses, clinical practice and research, and has presented a portfolio including thesis in accordance with the regulations and defended it in an oral examination to the satisfaction of the examiners. The candidate will thereby have investigated and evaluated critically one or more approved topics and their associated literature resulting in an independent and original contribution to the profession of Clinical Psychology and an understanding of its merits within a wider context.  

DBA (Doctorate in Business Administration)
A candidate for the award of DBA shall have undertaken a substantial programme of individual research, involving the sustained exercise of independent critical powers, including the ability to use research outcomes to guide the development of the research programme, and leading to a significant original contribution to the practice of business administration.

The candidate shall present the results of the research in a submission, embodying a thesis presented and defended in a lucid and scholarly manner, and containing material worthy of peer-reviewed publication.

The candidate shall demonstrate technical competence in the chosen field, including appropriate knowledge and use of research methods and of a substantial body of other relevant work, and an appreciation of the context and significance of the thesis.

DMan (Doctorate in Management)
A candidate for the award of DMan shall have undertaken a substantial programme of individual practice-based research, involving the sustained exercise of independent critical powers including the ability to use research outcomes to guide the development of the research programme, and leading to a significant original contribution to the practice of organizational change.

The candidate shall present the results of the research in a submission, embodying a thesis presented and defended in a lucid and scholarly manner, and containing material worthy of peer-reviewed publication.

The candidate shall demonstrate technical competence in the chosen field, including appropriate knowledge and use of research methods and of a substantial body of other relevant work, and an appreciation of the context and significance of the thesis.

DHRes (Doctorate in Health Research)
A candidate for the award of DHRes shall have undertaken a substantial programme of individual research, involving the sustained exercise of independent critical powers including the ability to use research outcomes to guide the development of the research programme, and leading to a significant contribution to the science of health research, its interpretation or its application within professional health practice.

The candidate shall present the results of the research in a submission, embodying a thesis presented and defended in a lucid and scholarly manner, and containing material worthy of peer-reviewed publication.

The candidate shall demonstrate technical competence in the chosen field, including appropriate knowledge and use of research methods and of a substantial body of other relevant work, and an appreciation of the context and significance of the thesis.

EdD (Doctorate in Education)
A candidate for the award of EdD shall have undertaken a substantial programme of individual research, involving the sustained exercise of independent critical powers including the ability to use research outcomes to guide the development of the research programme, and leading to a significant original contribution to the practice of education.

The candidate shall present the results of the research in a submission, embodying a thesis presented and defended in a lucid and scholarly manner, and containing material worthy of peer-reviewed publication.
The candidate shall demonstrate technical competence in the chosen field, including appropriate knowledge and use of research methods and of a substantial body of other relevant work, and an appreciation of the context and significance of the thesis.

Doctorate in Medicine (MD)
A candidate for the award of MD shall have undertaken a substantial programme of individual research, involving the sustained exercise of independent critical powers including the ability to use research outcomes to guide the development of the research programme, and leading to a significant original contribution to clinical practice.

The candidate shall present the results of the research in a submission, embodying a thesis presented and defended in a lucid and scholarly manner, and containing material worthy of peer-reviewed publication.

The candidate shall demonstrate technical competence in the chosen field, including appropriate knowledge and use of research methods and of a substantial body of other relevant work, and an appreciation of the context and significance of the thesis.

MPhil (Master of Philosophy)
A candidate for the award of MPhil shall have undertaken a substantial programme of individual research, involving the sustained exercise of independent critical powers including the ability to use research outcomes to guide the development of the research programme.

The candidate shall present the results of the research in a submission embodying a thesis presented and defended in a lucid and scholarly manner.

The candidate shall demonstrate technical competence in the chosen field, including appropriate knowledge and use of research methods and of a substantial body of other relevant work, and an appreciation of the context and significance of the thesis.

MA/MSc by Research (Master’s by Research)
A candidate for the award of MA/MSc by Research shall have undertaken a programme of individual research, involving the exercise of independent critical powers.

The candidate shall present the results of the research in a submission embodying a thesis presented and defended in a lucid and scholarly manner.

The candidate shall demonstrate technical competence in the chosen field, including appropriate knowledge and use of research methods and of other relevant work.

MRes (Master’s in Research)
A candidate for the award of MRes shall have undertaken a programme of individual
research, involving the exercise of independent critical powers with particular emphasis on research methodology.

The candidate shall present the results of the research in a submission embodying a thesis presented and defended in a lucid and scholarly manner.

The candidate shall demonstrate methodological competence in the chosen field.
respondent 25

15

Institutional regulations state: ‘A successful candidate for the degree of PhD must show convincing evidence of the capacity to pursue scholarly research or scholarship in his or her field of study on a scale which can be completed during three years of full-time research. The results of this research must then be embodied in a thesis which makes an original contribution to knowledge and the completed thesis must contain material of a standard appropriate for scholarly publication.’
respondent 27

16

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
A Doctor of Philosophy is awarded to a student who has satisfactorily completed, or been dispensed from, an approved programme of research training; has investigated or critically studied an appropriate topic resulting in a significant contribution to knowledge; and has presented a satisfactory thesis. The student is required to defend the thesis by
oral examination.

European Doctorate (PhD)
A European Doctorate is awarded to students who fulfil the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy and who additionally fulfil the following:

• the thesis is examined by at least two experienced examiners from higher education institutions of two European Countries
• the oral examination is conducted in part in one of the official European languages other than English
• part of the thesis results from work undertaken in another European Country within the European Union.

PhD by Published Work
The award of Doctor of Philosophy may also be achieved on the basis of published work. This may include the candidate’s own original creative work. The work presented is required to demonstrate a systematic approach evidencing independent, critical and original aspects, with a distinct contribution to knowledge; and must include a synoptic review. The candidate is required to defend the synopsis and published work by oral examination.
See section two for further provisions relating to this award.

Professional Research Doctorate (EdD) (D Eng) (DBA)
A Professional Research Doctorate is awarded to a candidate who has satisfactorily completed an approved programme of research training and contextual study. The candidate will also have investigated or critically studied an approved topic or topics which result in a significant contribution to practice, and presented a satisfactory portfolio of research including two or more substantial research outputs. The candidate is required to defend the project by oral examination.

The awards are: Professional Doctorate in Education (EdD); Professional Doctorate in Engineering (EngD); and Doctor of Business Administration (DBA).
respondent 28

17

Institutional level definition of originality states that the thesis ‘shall afford evidence of originality by the discovery of new facts and/or by the exercise of independent critical power’.
respondent 32

18

Institutional regulations require a thesis to ‘form a distinct contribution to the knowledge of the subject and afford evidence of originality by the discovery of new facts and/or by the exercise of independent critical power…and indicate in what respects [the candidate’s] findings appear to the candidate to advance the study of the subject’.
respondent 34

19

The requirement is that ‘a thesis must form a distinct contribution to knowledge in the field and afford evidence of originality shown by the discovery of new facts and/or the exercise of independent critical power’.
respondent 35

20

The institution defines originality in research as work that meets international standards of published research.
respondent 37

21

Portwood and Thorne¹ ‘…the DProf is characterised by advanced learning based on professional capability and in-depth research and development leading to substantial projects which achieve major organisational change and/or excellence in professional practice’. 
respondent 38

22

The degree of Doctor of Philosophy is awarded in recognition of the successful completion of a scheme of further study and research, the results of which are judged to constitute an original contribution to learning and to give evidence of systematic study and ability to relate the results of such study to the general body of knowledge in the subject.
respondent 41

23

With respect to discipline differences it is broadly interpreted to mean the presentation, exploration and evidence-based defence of new, novel (innovative) concept(s)/argument(s) which extend/challenge the current knowledge base.
respondent 42

24

At PhD level, originality is covered by the ability to think independently, to find or propose solutions to difficulties and to offer new/fresh insights into existing situations.
respondent 46

25

In addition to generally recognised definitions, this institution recognises that ‘high level artistry’ is a contributing factor.
respondent 53

26

In this discipline, PhD regulations typically construe originality both as independent, original research, and as a distinct new contribution to knowledge (whether through the uncovering of new facts or the application of new approaches or methodologies).
respondent 54

27

Institutional regulations say that a thesis shall ‘afford evidence of originality by the discovery of new facts and/or by the exercise of independent critical power’. Research that is of sufficient quality/relevance to the field to lead to publication is another descriptor that might be used.
respondent 55

28

A working definition of ‘originality’ would be ‘work demonstrating innovation sufficient to provide added value to the existing corpus of disciplinary knowledge’. Alternatively, ‘originality’ could be interpreted as: ‘original contribution to a wider body of knowledge’ or ‘original application, original efforts on the part of the student, developing and applying research ideas for their own professional context’. Either way, the student is still developing and using considerable scholarly endeavour, especially so when research is embedded in
professional practice.
respondent 56

29

Regulations for the PhD and EngD say ‘distinct and significant contribution to knowledge and allow evidence of originality by the discovery of new facts and/or by the exercise of independent critical power’ while for the MD (Res) they say ‘distinct contribution to knowledge and allow evidence of originality by the discovery of new facts and/or by the exercise of independent critical power’. The issue is the interpretation of the word ‘significant’.
respondent 67

30

Point 1 of the institution’s doctoral descriptor reads: [the candidate] has conducted enquiry leading to the creation and interpretation of new knowledge through original research or other advanced scholarship, shown by satisfying scholarly review by accomplished and recognised scholars in the field.
respondent 70

31

‘Originality’ is described as ‘the discovery of new facts or methodologies…and/or through the revision, confirmation or adaptation of existing theories or methodologies to the new circumstances described in the thesis. Evidence of an ability to develop new hypotheses or research questions…to design, plan and implement a research programme to test, explore and evaluate these hypotheses or research questions.
respondent 71