The PhD conundrum in architecture

For too long, academic research in architecture and other design fields has played second fiddle to practical application and groundbreaking design. Unlike the sciences, which prioritise rigorous scholarship, the arts have historically favoured professional practice. This difference has made the integration of robust PhD programmes into architectural education complex and often challenging.

The journey of the PhD in architecture in India began hesitantly in the 1970s, with IIT-Kharagpur and IIM-Bangalore taking the lead. The real surge, however, came in the 1990s and 2000s, when the University Grants Commission (UGC) mandated doctorates for senior academic positions.

This sudden demand created an imbalance. Aspiring scholars multiplied, but qualified guides were scarce. Senior architecture professors unfamiliar with research were pressed into guiding roles, while students were handed guides from allied fields such as urban planning, civil engineering, or even mechanical engineering. The results were predictable: a decline in academic rigour. In one shocking case, a university even permitted a candidate to “self-guide” due to a lack of supervisors. Many early PhDs were mere compilations of data, devoid of new knowledge creation.

Today, many Indian universities offer PhDs in architecture, but quality remains a persistent concern. Most candidates are faculty members who pursue doctorates primarily for career advancement rather than curiosity. Juggling teaching, administrative duties, and family responsibilities, they are seldom able to devote the time rigorous research demands. 

Professors, permitted to guide up to eight PhD scholars, are similarly overburdened. When their specialisations do not match student topics, topics are often chosen for convenience rather than professional or societal relevance. This disconnect leaves practising architects largely indifferent to PhD research. Much of the work ends up gathering dust in libraries.

The prescribed coursework for PhD candidates – covering methodology and ethics -- often fails in practice. Methodology, crucial for designing a study, is sometimes treated as an afterthought. One guide, during a viva, openly admitted they would “decide on it [methodology] as we proceed”. Ethics, vital for scientific integrity, is often reduced to a subject to pass. Plagiarism, inappropriate influence, and poor discipline are alarmingly common. Domain subjects fare no better: some universities even allow students to repeat master’s-level courses, defeating the purpose of doctoral study.

Data collection, a cornerstone of research, suffers too. Topics are selected for convenience, gaps between required and gathered data are ignored, and misrepresentation to achieve “expected results” is common. Sampling methods are often chosen for ease and wrongly presented as robust, undermining reliability.

Evaluation processes are equally weak. Doctoral Review Committees often comprise only internal members, including the guide, leaving no scope for independent scrutiny. Guides may suggest “soft” examiners, while low honoraria discourage competent experts. Unsurprisingly, glaring errors slip through, and rejections are rare.

The final defence, ideally a rigorous intellectual exercise, is often reduced to formality. Candidates often bear external examiner expenses, creating conflicts of interest. Audiences – usually colleagues --tend to be uncritical, further diluting the process.

Despite hundreds of doctorates since the 1970s, their impact on teaching and practice remains minimal. Experimental research, vital for understanding cause-and-effect, is rare due to poor laboratory infrastructure. 

Addressing these issues requires a multi-pronged reform:

Addressing these multifaceted issues requires a multi-pronged approach:

Focus on Utility: Universities must prioritise the societal and professional utility of PhD work over mere numbers.

Aptitude-Based Entry: Entry into PhD programmes should be restricted to candidates who demonstrate a genuine aptitude for research.

Enhanced Infrastructure: Upgrading laboratory and digital infrastructure is crucial to support experimental research.

Dedicated Study Leave: Institutions should offer study leave with financial support, allowing faculty to fully dedicate themselves to research.

Independent Review Committees: Doctoral Research Committees should comprise independent external experts to ensure unbiased critical evaluation. Inbreeding within committees must be avoided.

Fair Compensation for Examiners: Universities, not candidates, must bear examiner expenses, and examiners should be adequately compensated for their crucial role.

Mandatory Scopus Publication: Making publication in a Scopus-indexed journal mandatory for PhD work would ensure impartial and rigorous peer review, elevating the quality and impact of architectural research.

If implemented, these measures could transform architectural PhDs from perfunctory degrees into meaningful contributions that advance knowledge, address professional challenges, and earn a rightful place in the academic and professional landscape.

(The writer is Professor Emeritus at the Gopalan School of Architecture and Planning, Bengaluru)