“The objective of the PhD is therefore not to produce the final word on a subject, but to demonstrate that the researcher has acquired the intellectual capacity to contribute meaningfully to the continuing conversation”.
BY PROFESSOR ABIODUN ADENIYI
A professor’s recent account of his experience as an external examiner went viral after he described an examination in which some of the candidates, despite supposedly having reached the doctoral stage, appeared unable to demonstrate a basic grasp of the subject. The account is concerning, not because every candidate must perform perfectly under examination conditions, but because it raises a more fundamental question about what to understand by the PhD.
There is something fundamentally wrong when both staff and students are invested in celebrating success before an examination has been conducted than in preserving the integrity of the examination itself.
An examination is supposed to be an intellectually serious process through which a candidate demonstrates the depth, originality, rigour and independence of the scholarship claimed. When the outcome appears predetermined by celebration, social expectation, or institutional pressure, the examination no longer serves its academic purpose. It becomes a ceremony rather than an intellectual test. And when such processes produce PhD holders, it raises questions on whether the title has been earned in the substantive sense that the university degree is intended to convey.
Perhaps this is why some people become unusually defensive about the title. They may insist that everyone prefix their names with “Doctor”, or make the word “Doctor” louder than their actual names when introducing themselves. Some will write a paragraph and append “PhD” to their names, as though the letters are there primarily to remind the reader of their qualification. In ordinary disagreements, the PhD may suddenly be summoned as an argument in itself: “I have a PhD.” But a PhD is not an argument. It is a qualification that ought to demonstrate the capacity to make an argument, defend it with evidence, engage alternative perspectives, and withstand intellectual scrutiny.
Indeed, a genuine PhD is often a humbling experience. The journey involves countless revisions, difficult conversations, intellectual disagreements, moments of uncertainty, and the often uncomfortable experience of having supervisors, examiners, peers, and the literature itself challenge one’s assumptions. It is a largely solitary journey, not necessarily because the scholar works alone, but because the candidate ultimately bears responsibility for the work’s intellectual integrity. The deeper you engage with scholarship, the more you discover the limits of your own knowledge. The more you read, research, and interrogate a subject, the more apparent it becomes that there is still much more to learn. In that sense, serious scholarship tends to produce intellectual humility rather than intellectual arrogance.
This is also why a PhD is fundamentally a training in research and critical thinking, rather than merely a licence to use the title “Doctor”. A serious doctoral programme should cultivate the ability to interrogate evidence, recognise complexity, engage competing perspectives, identify gaps in knowledge and arrive at conclusions that can withstand scrutiny. It should leave the scholar with greater confidence in thinking, but also with a greater awareness of the limits of certainty. A genuine doctoral education should make a person more intellectually independent and, at the same time, more cautious about easy conclusions.
This explains why universities and supervisors work with defined timelines for doctoral research. One could research a subject indefinitely. New literature will emerge, new evidence will become available, and new questions will continually arise. The deadlines and milestones are therefore not merely administrative requirements. They provide a framework within which a candidate must eventually bring the research to a defensible conclusion. In that sense, one might even say that the day a thesis is submitted is also the day it begins to age, because knowledge does not stand still. New developments will inevitably emerge around the subject. The objective of the PhD is therefore not to produce the final word on a subject, but to demonstrate that the researcher has acquired the intellectual capacity to contribute meaningfully to the continuing conversation.
That is the distinction that should be preserved. A PhD should not primarily be something to silence others with. It should equip its holder to listen, question, analyze, defend, reconsider, and learn. It should be visible not merely in the letters after a person’s name, but in the quality of the person’s reasoning, the sophistication of their questions, the fairness with which they consider opposing views, and the evidence they bring to bear on the issues they discuss.
So, where does one find the kind of doctoral education that takes this responsibility seriously? Kindly visit Baze University website, or better still, come physically and see us. Over.
…Professor Abiodun Adeniyi is the Vice Chancellor of Base University, Abuja
