Can Doctorate be Unaccredited?

My thanks to Gus, Bill and Jack for their clarifications of my earlier post.

I should really have made an exact distinction between the higher doctorate (DLitt, DSc) and the PhD by publication, although my impression is that these degrees are regarded by academic employers as essentially similar beasts. As far as I know, most British universities do not record the route by which the degree was obtained on the degree certificate; however, even if they did, the intention of UK universities in this regard is that the PhD by research and that by publication should achieve parity in the public gaze (see reference in the next paragraph for a statement of this). The DLitt/DSc often does not require the contextualising paper of the PhD by publication, either.

The issues regarding quality assurance in the PhD by publication, together with the general *how it works* mechanics of the award are discussed in this excellent article authored by a senior professor at the University of Hertfordshire.

In the PhD by publication, unpublished work cannot usually be submitted. However, work of a creative nature may in some cases become an exception to this rule. I think in these cases that material such as art exhibition catalogues may become eligible, which is essentially internally published.

For a DLitt or DSc, however, the rules are rather more relaxed.
These regulations for the degrees of DLitt/DSc at the University of Bradford, UK, explicitly allow for the submission of unpublished work. If we take the point that Bill made:
QUOTE
It could never be granted in my example of producing company confidential documents because that wouldn't even satisfy the publication criteria.
UNQUOTE
that would not be the case for a Bradford DSc (assuming that Bill had first established his eligibility for the award through connexion with the university). The issue then would revolve around the standard of the work and whether it could be argued to be sufficiently substantial and above PhD level.

The higher doctorate regulations for Charles Sturt University also allow for unpublished work to be submitted when that work cannot be published by conventional means. This *may* (I don't know for sure; it might well depend on case-by-case decisions by CSU) include documents prepared in a confidential or commercially-sensitive setting. That issue is also commented on in the article referenced above.

Bill also said:
QUOTE
Since it must be a significant volume of work of already published material, it is even more stringent that the work has made a significant contribution to the academic knowledge of mankind than the more common method of earning a doctorate discussed earlier.
UNQUOTE

That is exactly the implication of all the regulations quoted here in respect of the higher doctorates. However, for the PhD by publication, there seems to be a tendency in regulations for universities to attempt to model the published submission closely upon the amount and level of work required for a PhD by research. In other words, for a UK PhD by publication, the portfolio is emulating the standing of an 80,000+ word thesis (remembering that UK PhDs do not require coursework) rather than necessarily trying to supersede that standard. There has, perhaps, been an attempt in the past towards setting the bar that bit higher for published work PhDs in order to establish the award as academically valid, but as the award develops in popularity this should level off to some extent.

The contextualising paper that accompanies the PhD by published work is customarily set at between 5,000 and 10,000 words, to include a literature review.

To bring things back to Dr Hayes, I think the issue that he has tended to raise is that the quality of his dissertation is of considerable merit as a contribution to knowledge in his field. If Trinity C&U employs stringent standards to judge that contribution, it would be good to know what those standards are, who reviewed his work etc. Given the availability of routes towards the acknowledgement of his standing in his field (for example through CSU, which will allow candidature without connexion to the university) the opportunity for his work to earn a higher doctorate from a reputable institution must surely appear attractive at this stage. The fees are relatively affordable, by all accounts, as well.

As far as unaccredited institutions (Trinity C&U (well, perhaps I should say *self-accredited* in their case) and Knightsbridge in particular, although I think they are quite different animals), the extent of the credibility of doctorates by published work would surely rest primarily upon the credibility of those who assess them. If, for example, one were to examine the list of senior faculty at Knightsbridge, it might be possible for such work to be assessed entirely by members of the faculties of GAAP universities who would be qualified to undertake such assessment within those universities as well. *If* that were the case, such an award would have some credibility on an academic level.

Ultimately, the big question for many at the graduate level becomes as much *who* (in the sense of who supervises/assesses the work) as *where* in the sense of the chosen institution. Perhaps, in that sense, the virtual university becomes nothing more than the sum of its parts; nothing more than the credibility of those with whom it is associated and who are prepared to teach/examine for it. If those people are fitted for their task through qualification and institutional experience, that renders their judgements worthy of note whether they are made in the context of an accredited or unaccredited institution. The degree of difference that one would apply when comparing a Rohan Gunaratna-supervised PhD at St Andrews with one he had supervised at Knightsbridge is an interesting matter.

Of course, for Trinity C&U, with no apparent faculty at all aside from Gus Payne, Peel-Bayley (now in Spain) and the other chap, the issue doesn't really arise, does it?

 

Oops...

I posted the wrong link for Charles Sturt's regulations above. Here's the right one.

 

I'm not sure what gave JackT the impression that I published the brown teal manual. It was published by the Brown Teal Conservation Trust, a registered charitable society, with grants of $3,000 & $2,000, plus $2,000 from the BTCT to cover publication costs. In any case self publication of a PhD dissertation/thesis/study is quite common in New Zealand, but generally only a maximum of ten copies are
published - the majority of which languish in the University library, never to see the light of day, and rarely, if ever, used as
reference material outside of the university. However, the papers published prior to the final publication of the research (these are an intrinsic part of a PhD programme in NZ) are always available as references from the source of publication.
The BTCT published 300 copies of the brown teal manual and many copies have been circulated. The manual has also been used to solicit memberships and donations to the BTCT, and as already mentioned, the manual is also being used as a educational tool within the NZ educational system.
Naturally some of my own published material was listed in the
reference sections of the dissertation and manual, such as
Hayes F.N. 1981 The aviculture, re-establishment and status of
the New Zealand Brown Teal (Anas aucklandica
chlorotis) Ducks Unlimited (NZ) Publication
Hayes F.N. 1994 The Status and Decline of the New Zealand
Brown Teal. NZ Outdoor magazine June/July
1994 32-38
Hayes F.N. 2002 The Rapidly Approaching Demise of the NZ
Brown Teal NZ Outdoor magazine April/May
2002 78-79
Hayes F.N. & G.S.Dumbell 1989 Progress in Brown Teal
conservation. Wildfowl 40: 137-140
Hayes F.N. & M.J.Williams 1982 The status, aviculture and re-
establishment of Brown Teal in
New Zealand. Wildfowl 33: 73-80
As an aside, another major publication I helped institute (two of us were involved) was the NZ Government's AUDIT of the whole brown teal recovery programme - which was launched in 1999 after the two of us appeared on national TV slating the lack of progress in brown teal recovery programme. The Audit Report was published in 2000 and whilst its recommendations were very sound and forceful I felt that it lacked many other aspects of brown teal management, which gave rise to the brown teal manual.
Regardless of the thoughts on TCU their dissertation/thesis guidelines were almost identical to those from NZ universities.
It was good to see some 'new blood' in the form of Dr Marianus on the scene. I am sure this new blood will keep this thread going for quite a while yet?
Being now, in the words of GusS, 'a little old man' and having achieved most of what I set out to achieve with the publication and distribution of the manual, raising my qualification level is the last thing on my mind.
Dr Anatidae

 

Hi Dr Hayes,
Regardless of my reservations about your alma mater, I do respect your work in the conservation field. However, I don't particularly think associating it with Trinity C&U does it any favours. Your work stands just as well and as authoritatively on the basis of the professional respect in which it is clearly held in your field.

I for one would be interested to see a copy of the Trinity C&U dissertation requirements. I'd also be very interested to read a copy of your brown teal manual. I doubt that my opinion of TCU will go up any, but at the least I think I'll probably learn something worthwhile.

 

Well I suppose I came to the conclusion that since you have a formal relationship with BTCT it was essentially the same thing as being self-published. My overall point was that your research was never reviewed in a manner that is even roughly equivalent to that of a standard doctoral dissertation. It might normally have been reviewed by the school but we know that didn't happen. It might also have been reviewed by a publisher who might have an editor expert in such matters, but we know that didn't happen either. BTW, I did a bit of a google search on those brown teals of yours. They are cute. I hope they're doing OK. It looks like you've got an uphill battle on your hands.
Jack

 

In the words of everyones hero (?), Frank Abagnale, I concur with JackT and thank him for his comments.
Dr Anatidae

 

Re: Oops...

Thanks!

 

Okay, you would probably need at least a Bachelor's degree in a related field to have a decent chance anyway.

I do strongly suggest though that you cease claiming to be a doctorate. I consider it extra sad when pleasant hard working people participate in academic fraud. Your honor and reputation are far too valuable to take such a big risk.

 

BillH, My UK quals are way above a Bachelor degree level, and if you view my post on the Bill Grover thread you will see that I've been divinely blessed with a Doctorate - when it comes to western action shooting! My alias 'Doctorate' is also registered with the SINGLE ACTION SHOOTING SOCIETY in the USA.
Dr Anatidae

 

I'm very confident that Gus will be pleased to know that three of my totally unaccredited papers/manuals on brown teal are cited in the Reference Section of the NZ Government's Department of Conservation's forthcoming publication of brown teal husbandry. There are only nine references in total. (And no I did not write this new publication!)
I am, however, working on another unaccredited paper relating to progress in the brown teal recovery programme.
Dr Anatidae

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "unaccredited paper". Attaching your work to degree mills is degrading to your work rather than legitimizing, at least IMHO.

 

As usual Bill H you talk a lot of crap. Please read some of my earlier posts on this subject and try to digest what I said. If you don't understand what I said I'd be happy to work through it - line by line, or word by word.
Interestingly a former DegreeInfo member (I think he left because too many psedoe academics have taken over) is looking forward to me reciting to him what Gus and you have to say in response to my post!
Dr Anatidae

 

Neil:

I wasn’t going to reply, as there isn’t anything of real substance in your post. However, because you specifically requested my response, here it is.

You still don’t get it, do you?

Two individuals purchase a fake Rolex watch. One pays $20.00; the other pays $6,000.00. Who is the greater fool? Who is more likely to insist that his or her watch is genuine?

Similarly, two individuals purchase bogus doctoral degrees from Trinity College and University. One submits a 10-page book report, the other a dissertation that might have been acceptable at a legitimate institution. Who is the bigger patsy? Who is more likely to insist that his or her degree is legitimate?

Neil, what you utterly fail to understand is that, as concerns distance education, if the work you did for your bogus degree from a blatant mill is of sufficient quality to perhaps have garnered you a legitimate degree from a reputable institution, more is the pity.

If you were truly serious about your mission of saving the NZ Brown Teal, you would never risk undermining your credibility and casting such a shadow of doubt over your work by, as you have done, claiming credentials from, and associating your work with, a blatant degree mill.

 

As a person goes through life claiming a degree from a bogus institution, I believe that most people will keep quiet about it, especially if the person seems to be a nice person. When they are out of the academic fraud's presence they may laugh or wonder what this person is thinking. Very similar to the way that I treated Neil before he started getting personal. I thought, "Why mention to him that he's a fraud? He seems like a nice enough guy. Let him hold onto his fantasy. He doesn't really push bogus schools to others, so what does it hurt?"

I only mentioned it at this time Neil because it apparently isn't water under the bridge. You apparently are making the same mistake again. I thought that I would try to help you out. If you aren't interested then fine, be a fraud, it's your choice.

 

> Similarly, two individuals purchase bogus doctoral degrees
> from Trinity College and University. One submits a 10-page
> book report, the other a dissertation that might have been
> acceptable at a legitimate institution. Who is the bigger patsy?

Hmm. Suppose two people do Ph.D.s at Harvard. One submits a dissertation of the minimal quality necessary for a Harvard Ph.D. The other submits a dissertation good enough to win a Nobel prize. Which is the bigger patsy?

> Two individuals purchase a fake Rolex watch. One pays
> $20.00; the other pays $6,000.00. Who is the greater fool?

It's hard to see how wasting $5980 in this way could have the beneficial effects that FNHayes claims for his dissertation.

> If you were truly serious about your mission of saving the NZ
> Brown Teal, you would never risk undermining your credibility
> and casting such a shadow of doubt over your work by, as you
> have done, claiming credentials from, and associating your
> work with, a blatant degree mill.

Here I agree.

 

Bingo. I find myself agreeing with Gus this time... I don't know anything about the unaccredited school in question, but if it has a bad reputation, then the claim of a doctorate could detract from the obvious, significant quality of your research, with researchers not citing it. If the unaccredited school has a good reputation, then in academic circles you still don't gain anything by touting it. If the doctorate is legitimate in your own view, list it on your CV when appropriate (if you must) and don't make a big deal about it. Still, if the doctorate calls your work into question, why not just leave it out entirely? If you are the domain expert that you seem/claim to be, then academics and layman will give respect anyway. I just don't see the utility in putting a target on your chest... Some thoughts...

Best wishes,

Dave

 

Dave Wagner, Thanks for getting a degree of sanity in this discussion.
Dr Anatidae

 

The entity in question, Trinity C&U, is not a school at all. It is an IBC corporate shell registered in the British Virgin Islands, but operated from New Orleans and Florida. As such, it is prohibited from doing business with BVI residents. The BVI Ministry of Education does not even bother responding to inquiries about TC&U and its ilk.

Two guys, neither of whom are known to have any legitimate academic credentials, and a web site. No faculty, fake accreditation agencies, and addresses that have bounced from Louisiana to South Dakota to Louisiana to the BVI and back to Louisiana.

The only way the word 'reputable' could apply would be in reference to the verification of their worthless diplomas, and there's evidence to suggest they've failed at least one customer in that regard.

 

All,

Sorry for jumping in late to a long running (and long cold) thread, but Bill Hoffman had asked me if I would post my thoughts on this topic (the main topic, not the Knightsbridge/Trinity sideline). I’ve been digesting the excellent comments that have been posted on this topic and I would qualify my opinion as “Yes… but…”.

The whole concept of what represents a substantial (I think most folks agree on what is “original”) contribution to the body of human knowledge is somewhat subjective (by its nature and as evidenced by some of the discussion on this thread), but I would tend to agree that public availability is an important contributing factor (as are all of the elements of a traditional doctoral program including the formal proposal process, committee review, elements of originality, acceptable/established format, and an oral defense of the work).

A brilliant dissertation that isn’t read by anyone won’t do much to expand the frontiers of human knowledge. By that standard, however, I would say that better than 90% of accredited doctoral dissertations don’t make the cut. The truth is that most dissertations are never published outside of their dissertation format and will never be cited… and at best, most published journal papers resulting from doctoral research will be cited maybe once or twice.

However, given that the works are available, that proper committee review/defense has occurred, that the research is documented in a way that permits utilization, and that we cannot possibly know what foundational research future developments in our academic disciplines will depend on… I’m willing to say that the availability (in any number of forms) of original work that has undergone committee review and defense, meets a sort of minimum threshold for contributions to the body of human knowledge.

That being said, with the difficulties that students at non-accredited schools (and here I am talking about legitimate unaccredited or state approved schools, not mills) may have in getting their work out through the traditional route (UMI, etc.) it does become somewhat more difficult for their work to find it’s way into the body of knowledge… difficult, but not impossible. I think that is important to recognize that there are other ways for dissertation works, research, and ideas to make it into scholarly circulation besides UMI published dissertations (the world was awarding doctorates long before UMI and will continue to do so long after). The first and most obvious is through journals. Provided that the work/paper can pass muster with peer and editorial review, it is quite probable that the student can get their ideas out to the academic community.

Several years ago I had done a fair amount of research for an article on peer-review bias in scientific literature, and there are a number of studies that show that there are factors of institutional bias in article selection (in controlled and blind studies). Institutional prestige of the author has been identified as one such possible influencing factor, even when that is not part of the selection criteria. But even so, it is quite conceivable for a good study from a non-accredited/state approve institution to make it into a solid 2nd or 3rd tier journal (although, I’ll agree you probably wont see many in Science or Nature).

Additionally, there are other ways for research to be incorporated into the body of knowledge. As an example, I know one student at a non-accredited university that made a significant contribution while she was still researching her dissertation. As part of the preparatory work for a comprehensive water quality study, she did an exhaustive analysis of an Environmental Impact Statement (about a 2,000 pg document) for a proposed hydroelectric project on the headwaters of her study area. The document had some serious omissions, errors, and data inconsistencies that nobody had ever thought to check. As it was proposed, the dam would have presented a much more significant environmental risk than was being reported to the government. Armed with her data and analyses, she went to a public hearing on the proposed dam, and proceeded to tear them apart with sound critique and scientific analysis. As a result of her analysis, the project was put on hold (for about 18 months, I think) while the company re-examined those issues and put corrective measure into place. The dam is now (likely) going to go through, but as a much sounder project, and the student’s water quality research will likely serve as a baseline for future environmental monitoring of the dam’s impact. This is just one example, but it shows that there are other ways of making a contribution other than being a part of the UMI database.

Tere are others who pursue dissemination through book publication, partnerships with non-profits, professional presentations, etc. Again, as long as the other elements of what makes a dissertation a dissertation are in place, then these may be acceptable alternatives. So I believe that it is possible for these students to be able to make significant contributions to human knowledge… but in all honesty, they probably have to work a little harder at it.

If any new accredited doctoral programs are to develop (in the US), then there must be unaccredited doctoral degrees as no institution starts with accreditation and any institution seeking accreditation must be able to demonstrate a track-record (and sound student research is certainly a part of that). In that way, it seems to me that dissertations at unaccredited institutions are something of a proving ground, not only for the student, but also for the institution. Just my thoughts.

… Oh one question for anyone who knows, are Bob Jones University’s dissertations accepted by UMI? I’m not sure.

Cheers,
Tony

Ph.D. Environmental Science, Union Institute
M.A. Environmental Science, Goddard College
B.A. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

 

Wise post.