The Dissertation Book; Should it be a Monograph or a Compilation Thesis?
Bengt Fridlund · European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · 2010
As a “senior and old” supervisor, the students occasionally ask me what concept of dissertation book is preferable — a monograph or a compilation thesis. Coming from a Nordic academic culture I answer diplomatically that it depends on several factors [1], but some of them are more decisive than others. One is the academic culture of the faculty where the student applies to the PhD programme — what is common and/or traditional there. In the social sciences and humanities we are familiar with both types while in the science of medicine we are instructed to mostly do compilation theses. But what are the differences between these two concepts? Briefly, a monograph is a comprehensive and rather extensive book comprising all parts of a study — from the theoretical part involving theoretical reasoning, containing an introduction, underlying concepts, literature reviews and theoretical frameworks ending up with the aim, to the empirical part comprising the study design, target groups, data collection, data analyses, results and discussion with conclusions and implications, and finally references. The monograph gives the author the right or even imposes an obligation to make the most of the opportunity to deepen and broaden the topic, methodology used as well as the findings and discussions. It is really to create the book! During the research education or, more precisely, the individual study plan or programme that the PhD student must fulfil, he/she also carries out the theoretical studies (several PhD courses on the topic and methodology) and their reporting of these can make up a good part of several chapters of the monograph. This means that very early during the study programme, the PhD student produces chapters after making a good, sound and comprehensive research proposal for which he/she becomes accepted as a PhD student, assuming the faculty finds that the proposal has the required quality and originality [2]. During this time, it is assumed that the PhD student has the drive, force and motivation to produce chapters on a regular basis and at the same time, the empirical data have to be collected, analysed and presented. These chapters are presented for audit at different research seminars at the home faculty or elsewhere. After the dissertation it is common to publish the dissertation book in the form of some articles in peer review journals in the English language, while the monograph itself is usually written in the native language. The advocates of the monograph concept also claim that a monograph is “a one man job”, as the PhD student is undergoing a study programme. A compilation thesis is more understood as team work, where the PhD student is just one of many – sometimes too many – researchers involved. This is why it is difficult to see and follow the PhD student's progress in the study programme. A dissertation book based on articles, i.e. a compilation thesis, has the same structure as the monograph, but the theoretical part, the so-called summarising chapter or framework, is much more condensed while the empirical part includes the peer reviewed articles which make the backbone of the thesis. The theoretical part could of course not be as extensive as the monograph depending on these articles, also being a part of the dissertation book, but depending on their comprehensiveness (having a common and main thread together), the theoretical part has to be further explained and amalgamated. In the research proposal the empirical part is planned to comprise a number of articles, but this number, and content as well, can also be changed depending on the conclusions made in the first articles. In both concepts, the PhD student does the theoretical part in parallel with the empirical one. For PhD students who pursue a compilation thesis, it is common and desirable to produce one article per year. It is also logical, but not necessary, that the next article goes hand in hand with the previous article, but it can be troublesome if a time consuming intervention is being implemented [3]. Each article is audited in manuscript research seminars at the home faculty or elsewhere before being submitted for publication to the peer reviewed journal selected. At the end of the study programme – often around 6 months prior to dissertation – it is common to start writing (or end up) the framework. As most results have at that time been presented in the articles, it is possible to summarise and create a comprehensive understanding and/or conclusion. During these natural stops it is quite possible to follow the PhD student's progress in the study programme. So what are the pros and cons with these two dissertation concepts and who decides which is preferable? First, the tradition — what is common at the faculty? As mentioned above, the PhD student has the right to decide which dissertation concept he/she wants to use, but if the faculty has a certain policy, the supervisors also follow those rules and have their set of ideas for how to do a proper thesis. The supervisor preferring the monograph concept often stresses the fact that the dissertation book is something the PhD student should produce him/herself, showing his/her progress in the study programme and taking advantage of the possibilities to deepen and broaden the topic and methodology. This supervisor also finds it very logical to write the monograph in the native language in order to reach out and disseminate “the message” nationwide. The supervisor preferring the compilation thesis concludes the good by seeing the proceeding and progress by means of the articles he/she has produced; every article reviewed, accepted and published becomes like a quality assurance that the PhD student and his/her project is doing well. The framework is usually also written in an international language, usually English. That way the framework together with the articles can be spread not only nationally but also worldwide. Another advantage is that producing articles puts the researcher “on the scientific map” very early; the articles are to be found at PubMed/Medline and CINAHL even before the study programme has been finished, meaning that the researchers make claim to their research topic and descriptions and/or interventions. In addition, it is more common for organisations and societies that provide research funding to take a more positive view to providing such funding if the PhD student has been published and/or cited in journals and the results are satisfactory as well as applicable in clinical practice. A further aspect of importance to consider when choosing either the monograph or the compilation thesis is that it seems to be more common not to pass when doing a monograph [4]. However, this very seldom happens but is not impossible, otherwise we should not have such a demanding examination procedure like a dissertation defence. It is possible that it is easier to be scrutinised through articles (already reviewed and published) and a condensed framework compared to a comprehensive and lengthy monograph, maybe only scrutinised at a mid and a final seminar. We also know that it is more common to publish scientifically when there are several authors, and this is especially true in the case of an international mix of authors [5]. It is also a well-known fact that it takes time to condense a monograph into some articles if, after the dissertation day, the former PhD student starts a new life with new obligations and possibilities such as working as a teacher and supervisor at different academic levels. At the same time, the former PhD student should apply for a new salary and time for post doc studies. This makes it difficult to find time for condensing and writing articles from the “old” dissertation book. So the conclusions are; first, the PhD student must decide which dissertation concept he/she prefers depending on his/her outlook and motivation for doing a dissertation book. Second, it is important to find the faculty(ies) and supervisor(s) who have the same reasoning and outlook as the PhD student. Third, it is important to consider in which faculty area the PhD student wants to be active in the future so the former PhD student avoids getting stuck between two systems of academic outlooks; one that does not find publications in journals particularly important while the other finds publications and citations very important.