For over a century, the PhD has revolved around a single defining ritual – the dissertation. It was a bound volume, lying on a shelf and perused by a committee, and vindicated in a room full of learned men. It is the initiation stage into the republic of knowledge.
However, what ensues when a nation begins to pose another question: what would happen should the great demonstration of doctoral aptitude not be a thesis, but a breakthrough?
This is exactly the change that China is currently tinkering with: a doctoral trajectory in which high-impact innovation, patenting, commercialisation or transformative technological products can replace the traditional dissertation. The point is, once you do a large-scale real-world problem, why do you also have to write 300 pages to demonstrate that you know it? It is not a typical procedural change. It represents a more fundamental philosophical renewal of the 21st century university.
The development strategy in China and its reforms in the area of higher education is intertwined. It is global competitiveness, technological independence and growth driven by innovation. The PhD is no longer viewed solely as a symbol of academic specialisation in this respect. Its contribution as an agent of industrial transformation is increasingly gaining recognition. A doctoral output can be a patent portfolio, a deployed industrial solution or a globally competitive prototype. The scholarly thesis does not entirely disappear but should no longer be the sole or prevailing manifestation of scholarly worth.
Thus, China’s move is a sign of redefining the republic of knowledge. The ‘doctor’ is not simply one who writes about problems, but solves them. The dissertation was designed at a time when printing knowledge was the greatest obstacle. Today, the barriers are elsewhere. It is in scaling technology, reducing carbon intensity, raising productivity and designing smart systems. When innovation becomes a substitute for thesis, the university basically becomes less a site of commentary and instead becomes a site of transformation. This reform speaks to a broader tension around the world. Are our universities producing scholars or innovators? Are doctoral programmes producing candidates for academic publishing, or industrial leadership and advancement of technology?
Many countries face the “PhD paradox”: rising doctoral graduates, limited academic jobs, and weak economic impact. Pakistan’s higher education system has expanded significantly, with more PhDs and publications, yet few translate into patents, start-ups, policy innovation, or productivity gains. The system remains overly paper-centric, with limited industry linkages. China offers useful lessons. Pakistan’s doctoral programmes should align with national priorities such as energy, water, climate, exports, digital governance, and agriculture through mission-driven clusters. Innovation requires more than publications; it needs ecosystems. Strong integration between universities, industry, and technology sectors is essential to ensure doctoral research contributes meaningfully to economic and societal development.
The future PhD may not be one-size-fits-all. Some candidates may pursue traditional theoretical dissertations; others may pursue innovation-driven doctoral tracks. Excellence can be found in flexibility. At the heart of China’s new doctoral experiment lies a question which must be confronted by all of us: Do we want universities that mostly certify knowledge or universities that create transformation? In a country fighting for export-led growth, technological upgrading, and institutional reform, doctoral education cannot be immune from development strategy.
A nation that invests public resources in advanced training is obliged to see that the product is productive, governs and innovates. The era of the global knowledge economy is evolving. Countries that make research part of their innovation systems will move faster up the value chain. Intellectual isolation will be a risk for those confined to performance metrics based on paper. Pakistan does not have to follow China’s model exactly. The institution’s context is important. Academic freedom is important. Assurance of quality is important.
Pilot doctoral programmes centred on innovation at a few universities. Use industry experts to introduce co-supervising models. Create technology parks connected to doctoral incubators. To reward for translational impact, change the HEC criteria. Such actions would convey the idea that a PhD is a commitment to solving national problems rather than merely a ceremonial title.
China’s emerging doctoral degree model forces us to reconsider what it means to ‘contribute to knowledge’. Perhaps contribution is no longer measured by what we write anymore, but by what we build. For Pakistan, the real question is not whether or not we can adopt such a model. The question is whether we can afford not to rethink our doctoral ecosystem in a world in which innovation, not the number of publications, determines national competitiveness.
If a PhD is the highest level of intellectual training, then it must also become the powerhouse of national transformation.
The writer serves as the director of the Centre for Governance, Markets and Regulatory Analysis (CGMRA), Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE), Islamabad. He can be reached at: [email protected]
