A week ago I sent a message to the Sportscience list seeking information
about the Scandinavian model for PhD theses. My original message and edited
versions of the 11 replies I received appear below. Any administrators
reading this message and opposed to the Scandinavian model will just have to
take my word for it that I have included all the messages I received and
have not modified the messages substantially.

First, a summary. Everyone supported the Scandinavian model. As several
people pointed out, this model is also known as thesis by publication or
similar. I don't think my administrators are opposed to such a model in
general, but they can't get used to is the idea of using publishers' PDFs
for the chapters. In particular, they don't want a summary at the beginning
of each chapter, a reference list at the end of each chapter, and each
chapter in the format of the journal the manuscript was submitted to. They
also seem to think that a thesis has to look like a double-spaced manuscript
from the days of typewriters.

Someone else pointed out that the viva or oral exam is an important part of
the Scandinavian model. I did not mention in my original message that we
have a viva at my institution.

When a thesis consists of a set of publications in press or submitted for
publication, it's likely that the supervisor and any coauthors will have
made a substantially greater contribution than they would have to the
writing of an old-fashioned thesis. I have absolutely no problem with this
development: research is a collaborative effort, and I like to tell the true
story of an Oxford don of my experience who was a successful researcher but
relied heavily on his students and collaborators to write coherently. The
preface, concluding chapter and the viva are the place for the student to
demonstrate scientific aptitude. The student can still fail the PhD, even
if the papers have been accepted for publication.

Will

Here's my original message.

My institutional colleagues and I have been pushing for a PhD thesis format
that we proclaim as the Scandinavian model.  We thought we had succeeded,
but we have encountered strong resistance now that one of my PhDs has
submitted a thesis in this format.  It looks like the rules will be changed
to prevent theses being presented in this format again. We need evidence to
convince the Luddites, so I am hoping people on this list can help provide
it.  Please note that the opposition in no way reflects the quality of the
student’s thesis, which in my view is outstanding.

We call the model Scandinavian, but for me at any rate that’s based on
limited experience of browsing Scandinavian journals in a library more than
10 years ago.  (At that stage at least some PhDs in Scandinavia were being
published as supplements in Scandinavian journals.)  I have no idea of what
currently passes as best practice for PhD thesis presentation in
Scandinavia, and I have little idea of the extent to which this model is
used elsewhere.  I know that all of my colleagues here and overseas are 100%
in favor of it, but our doctoral studies boards seem to be made up of people
with more conservative ideas.

Be it Scandinavian or not, the kind of thesis format I regard as
self-evidently superior to anything else is the following:
• an abstract of no more than 400 words;
• an introductory preface, in which the student explains in a first-person
plain narrative style why they did what they did and what each chapter is
about;
• one or more literature reviews, each as a chapter with a focused title
that need reflect only part of the original research in the rest of the
thesis and each written as a manuscript for a journal;
• a series of original-research chapters, each written as a manuscript in
the format of the journal to which it has been or is intended to be
submitted, and presented as the published PDFs, if these are available at
the time of submission of the thesis and if the journal gives its permission
for their inclusion verbatim and formatim (I just made up that word);
• a concluding chapter in which the student reflects on all the findings of
the PhD in some coherent non-repetitive manner and which in some
circumstances could be written as another literature review or as a
plain-language report for a magazine;
• a series of appendices representing other relevant creative output during
the course of the PhD (magazine articles, minor-author articles, website
material, conference abstracts, industry reports…);
• no list of cited references, because each section of the thesis contains
its reference list.

I put “Scandinavian model ‘PhD theses’” into Google and found a document
from the University of Limerick http://www2.ul.ie/pdf/547176012.doc that
summarizes the advantages.  I did not see anything else relevant on the
first page of hits.

Will

And here are the edited replies in the order I received them. I have
included email addresses in case anyone wants to contact any of these people
to verify that I haven't changed their messages substantially. I hope you
don't mind.

From: Ken Quarrie [mailto:Ken.Quarrie@...]
I have read your interesting post to the Sportscience forum, and would
like to state that I wholeheartedly agree that the proposed approach to
thesis presentation is the way to go!

From: Felipe P Carpes [mailto:felipecarpes@...]
This point is very interesting. Here in Brazil we experience the same
kind of problem, and the additional problem of the language (we are
Portuguese speakers). In the end of the 4 years of doctoral program, we have
to present a formal thesis document (i.e., it should present Introduction,
Review, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, References, Appendices),
but in my opinion it is not functional, since many of the students have
already published the papers from their studies (in English).
We are discussing exactly this question. How to organize the thesis. In
my case, I perfectly agree with your viewpoint.
Please let me know if you have (or find) additional documents regarding
this point. I will use this material to support a proposal for thesis
documents giving value for those studies already published; [that is, to
allow] the student to add the published PDF to their thesis.

From: Rob Wust [mailto:r.wust@...]
This is essentially also the format I am writing my thesis at the moment
(hope to submit it end of the month). I am doing a double
doctorate in Manchester (UK) and Amsterdam (the Netherlands) and at least in
the Netherlands, this is the usual way of submitting
a thesis. In the UK it seems that there are currently 2 ways of writing a
thesis: the way you describe it and the conventional
way: long introduction (+review), long methods chapter, long results chapter
and long discussion chapter. However, at our
institute (the Institute of biomedical research into human movement and
health - www.irm.mmu.ac.uk) the first model is the usual
way of submitting for the last 8 years or so. Especially if the university
(or institute) wants the PhD to submit and publish some
of the work.
The Dutch thesis is published in a small book you can request from the
PhD-student (if you want to read it though....). Have a look here:
http://www.pul.unimaas.nl/theses/
You can read the summaries (and what is described in each chapter) of a
few Dutch theses and can request a copy from the writer.

From: Catherine Bacon [mailto:c.j.bacon@...]
I think that my colleague (Mark Bolland's) thesis was along these lines
and he won an award for best thesis last year at Auckland Uni.
In our official guidelines, there are minimal directives as to the style
or layout of the PhD thesis, and this is left pretty much to the
student, supervisory committee and external examiners.

From: Louise Burke [mailto:Louise.Burke@...]
I am totally with you on this but coming from outside the academic, I am
not sure how much my opinion counts. It just makes sense to have the
studies written up individually and independently for high level publication
- efficient for making sure that the student commits to it. And in the case
that they have actually managed to get them published first, it means they
have had some peer review and external commentary for final polish and
better objectivity. I guess there could be a small negative if the thesis
reviewer doesn't agree with the perspective that the journal reviewers have
helped to shape for one of the individual studies. It makes it difficult for
the particular chapter to be unravelled in light of the thesis examiners'
input. But I guess that is what the final chapter could
include--alternative ideas or an updated analyses. Why do universities not
like the idea?

From: Mark Haub [mailto:mdhaub@...]
Our institution accepts a model very similar to what you described.  Our
graduate program basically accepts a dissertation that has been approved by
the candidate's dissertation committee, which includes an outside chair
representing the Graduate School.
The only difference (although I recently served on one committee where it
was identical or nearly so -- student was from Copenhagen) is that we rarely
use your first person description in the first chapter.  Many of our
students are using this format --abstract with no set limit, but most are
1.5-2 pages -- Lit Review -- paper A, full papers as submitted/published --
paper B -- paper C -- etc. with a summary of the work following.  Each
chapter/paper has its own ref list.  The general criteria is to have at
least 2-3 depending on the student and/or project.  The initial chapters &
lit review tend to be published by the time of defense with the final
chapter being the one most scrutinized as it tends to be to the culminating
work and hasn't been published. 
Not sure how similar/dissimilar that might be, but that's the direction
many faculty are going, especially the physiology and phys activity
committees–our nutrition faculty are still more traditional.  From a faculty
perspective (especially those not yet tenured), I view this as the way to go
to insure students are doing the work instead of faculty finishing the
papers after the fact.

From: Paul Montgomery [mailto:PaulM@...]
Many students completing their PhD call this style a ‘PhD by
publication’. Although it is not a true PhD by publication in which you
receive your PhD, because you have published extensively in a certain area,
it is a thesis by which you have published all of your papers relating to
your research. This is the style in which I intend to use and I know many
other recently finished students have used. I believe it is quite widely
accepted, and is an expedient way of submitting as the papers have already
been reviewed extensively by the journals’ review process….which would be
advantageous if you were reviewing the PhD thesis I would have thought!

From: Takken, T. [mailto:T.Takken@...]
That is exactly the way how we do a PhD thesis in Holland!
If you look at the website of our University Library (largest Uni in
Holland, Number 49 of the Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities ).
You will see thousans of comparable PhD thesis in the "Scandinavian format"
http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/search/search.php?m=advanced&language=en&p=1\
&collection=Geneeskunde%20Proefschriften&community=Utrechtse%20Proefschriften&n1\
=q&s1=s&n2=t&s2=s&n3=a&s3=s&n4=c&s4=s
For example my theisis can be found at:
http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2003-0128-154454/inhoud.htm
You see, same format; general introduction: A review, some original
articles, a generals discussion and some CV stuff.

From: Chris Lonsdale [mailto:cslonsdale@...]
You may be surprised to learn that that a similar battle has been fought
at your old institution, University of Otago. I believe Phil Hancock was the
first person to submit a thesis in this format -and he met with much
resistance. In 2005 I completed a PhD thesis under the supervision of Ken
Hodge. My thesis was structured in a format similar to what you described. A
pdf is attached. Feel free to follow up with me about this.
[And in reply to my reply that the format looked pretty traditional to
me...]
I agree with your sentiments, but knew that the U of Otago tends to be
quite conservative. So, Ken and I decided to temper our wishes a bit.
You may find the attached article useful. The reference is
Jensen, B. E., Martin, K. A., & Mann, B. L. (2003). Journal format versus
chapter format: how to help graduate students publish. Measurement in
Physical Education and Exercise Science, 7(1), 43-51.

From: handrigg@... [mailto:handrigg@...]
I am in the process of submitting my thesis (Master's) for external
review at
Memorial University of Newfoundland (www.mun.ca) and would like to say that
in
my department we permit either format, that is, it is at the discretion of
the
student/supervisor which format will be presented.

From: Eric Goulet [mailto:eric.goulet@...]
As you may know, the "Scandinavian PhD model" is most commonly referred
to as an ''Article-Based PhD''. In Canada, this model is most commonly used
medical faculties. I myself did an ''Article-Based PhD''. In order to be
able to write/defend my thesis, I had to already have two original research
articles accepted for publication (or already published) and one submitted
for publication. As far as I am concerned, any serious departments or
faculties should offer this option, along with the more traditional thesis
option.


Will G Hopkins, PhD FACSM
Institute of Sport and Recreation Research
AUT University, Akoranga Drive
Private Bag 92006
Auckland 0627, New Zealand
Cell +64 21 804 736
Landline +64 9 921 9793
Fax +64 9 921 9960
Skype WillTheKiwi
will@..., will.hopkins@...
Sportscience http://sportsci.org
Statistics http://newstats.org
Be creative: break rules.