From Thesis to Product

Reform that prizes speed over standards risks weakening the science it seeks to mobilise.

For a long time, the meaning of a PhD was clear. A PhD meant deep and original thinking on a narrow question. It meant years of careful work, guided by a supervisor, resulting in a written thesis. The thesis was examined by experts and placed in a library so that others could read it, question it, and build upon it. Papers and patents could follow, but the thesis was the main proof that the candidate had learned how to do independent research.

This model created generations of scholars and helped universities become centres of knowledge. But the world of research has changed. Technology now moves faster than academic publishing. Societies expect research to solve real problems. Governments invest public money in science and want visible outcomes. In this setting, an old question has returned. Is writing a thesis the only way to prove doctoral-level ability, or can building a validated solution also qualify?

This debate reflects the long-standing tension between fundamental and application-oriented research. The former is driven by curiosity and seeks to understand how nature works, with benefits that are often uncertain and slow to emerge. The latter begins with a defined problem, applying existing knowledge within real-world constraints of cost, scale, safety and reliability. The traditional PhD was shaped largely by the culture of fundamental research, even as societal expectations have increasingly tilted toward work that delivers practical outcomes.

Distinct Pathway

China’s recent move towards so-called practical PhDs has brought this debate into the open. In early 2026, China awarded some doctoral degrees in engineering where the centre of evaluation was a demonstrated system or product rather than a conventional written thesis. Candidates defended the originality, safety, reliability, and usefulness of what they had built. This change is supported by a revised national degree law that allows universities to award degrees through thesis-based routes or practice-based routes. The intention is to train elite engineers and accelerate innovation in areas critical to national development.

This does not mean China has abandoned fundamental research. China continues to invest heavily in basic science. What it has done is create a distinct pathway where application-oriented excellence can receive doctoral recognition. In effect, China is acknowledging that deep understanding and practical mastery are both valuable, even though they may be demonstrated in different ways.

The idea of connecting doctorates with industry is not new. Variants of industrial PhDs have existed for decades in countries such as Norway, the United Kingdom, and Australia. In these programmes, candidates work with companies while remaining enrolled in universities and are supervised jointly by academic and industry experts. The research must meet academic standards while addressing real industrial problems. In most cases, a thesis still exists, but it is closely linked to practical needs. Industrial PhDs therefore change the setting and purpose of research, but they usually do not remove the thesis from the system.

China’s practical PhD approach goes further because it questions whether a thesis must always be central. This is a bold move. It reflects China’s strong focus on engineering capability, manufacturing strength, and rapid technology deployment, as well as confidence in its ability to set strict assessment standards. The question it raises is relevant to all countries that seek faster translation from research to impact.

The advantages of industrial and practical doctorate models are clear. They can reduce the distance between the laboratory and the field. They can make university–industry collaboration more systematic. They can train doctoral candidates in design, testing, validation, and scale-up. They can also reduce the loss that occurs when promising ideas remain confined to papers.

Rigorous Evaluation

The risks are equally serious. A PhD is not just a certificate. It is a symbol of intellectual depth and independence. Not every prototype deserves doctoral recognition. Doctoral-level work must still involve originality, rigorous reasoning, careful evidence, and the ability to explain why something works, where it fails, and how it can be improved. Industry timelines can push candidates towards short-term deliverables at the expense of deeper inquiry. If evaluation standards vary widely, trust in the degree can weaken.

University rankings and individual evaluations rely heavily on publication counts, citations, impact factors, and global league tables. Such metrics reward volume and visibility more than verification, reliability, or real-world performance. If doctoral models evolve but evaluation systems remain unchanged, incentives will continue to favour papers over solutions, regardless of national needs.

These risks make context critical, and nowhere is this more complex than in India. India is actively redesigning its research funding ecosystem. The creation of the Anusandhan National Research Foundation reflects a desire to strengthen research culture across universities and promote collaboration among academia, industry, and government. The Research, Development and Innovation framework aims to draw private industry far more deeply into research while aligning innovation with national priorities. These are now plainly defined: clean water and sanitation, river and wastewater management, air quality, renewable and clean energy including green hydrogen, sustainable agriculture, climate resilience, public health and biomedical technologies, advanced materials, semiconductors and electronics, digital and cyber infrastructure, space and defence. In most of these fields, progress will hinge less on discovery alone than on the ability to deliver technologies that work reliably at scale.

These changes make doctoral reform a practical necessity rather than a theoretical discussion. Large funding initiatives can generate many projects, but projects succeed only when there are trained people to execute them. India therefore needs doctoral training models that supply both kinds of talent and scholars who deepen knowledge and publish high-quality science.

Seen this way, reform should strengthen institutions rather than fragment them. Universities must remain places of questioning, disagreement, and slow thinking, even while engaging with industry and national missions. Assessment must reward depth, verification, and failure honestly reported. Funding agencies should enable shared testbeds, independent validation, and transparent review so that practical pathways raise standards instead of lowering them.

The goal is not more doctorates, but better science. When understanding and usefulness move together, reform has done its job.

(The author is an ANRF Prime Minister Professor at COEP Technological University, Pune; former Director of the Agharkar Research Institute, Pune; and former Visiting Professor at IIT Bombay. Views personal).