Scientific journal Nature recently reported about a PhD in which an engineering doctorate was assessed primarily on an implemented solution rather than a traditional dissertation. The defence focused on a field-tested innovation documented in use. The evaluation centred on demonstrable contribution in practice. The work was judged for usefulness and implementation.
Many top-ranked universities today offer industrial or application-oriented PhDs. The University of Cambridge, for example, offers a PhD in industrial engineering in which research is pursued primarily in an industrial setting while maintaining the expectation of original contribution. The University of Warwick’s engineering doctorate programme is designed around company-sponsored problems. It follows a system of dual academic and industrial supervision. The final submission is explicitly framed as a portfolio rather than a single project.
The National University of Singapore offers an industrial postgraduate programme in which students conduct doctoral work in partnership with companies. In this programme, co-supervision and the requirement that the student spend substantial time in the company setting are mandatory.
These examples raise a pertinent question. Why can’t such innovative work in Indian institutions lead to a practice-oriented or practical PhDs, making validated application the primary evidence rather than the usual publication-plus-thesis requirements?
In current PhD programmes in India and most parts of the world, we follow a traditional path. Supervisors and students optimise research for publishable pieces; paper counts are invariably the goal. Such outcomes are a direct result of the processes we have adopted in recruitment, promotion and graduation. So there is hardly any effort to promote outcomes that address real constraints, manufacturability and adoption in live systems.
The traditional PhD pathway will remain in many disciplines. But, at least in engineering, it is now time to introduce pragmatic reforms in the form of a carefully-governed, practical PhD track. Established Indian institutions must reorient doctoral programmes to train young scholars who can convert their doctoral work into robust products and processes.
How can we evaluate practical PhD programmes based on product or process development? In a conventional thesis evaluation, two external examiners, who are invariably academicians, examine the thesis and give their recommendations. The process includes, if required, a revision of the thesis and a mandatory oral defence. It is not designed to judge whether the thesis represents a real-world product or process.
For a practical PhD, the examination panel should bring together academic examiners and experienced industry practitioners to ensure both scholarly and applied evaluation. We can adopt an India-specific approach in which the panel treats the doctoral output as a rigorously audited technical dossier. This dossier should document research contribution, engineering trade-offs, experimental evidence and path to deployment. Since a practical PhD is more relevant in the engineering discipline, we can measure the maturity of the presented work through technology-readiness milestones, third-party testing and field trials.
The National Education Policy 2020 makes this reform timely. The University Grants Commission’s PhD regulations should now include a practical PhD pathway in engineering and applied domains with clear rules on supervision, work evaluation and intellectual property. It does not mean that we replace the classical PhD, which remains essential for foundational science and long-horizon discovery. Both can coexist in the way NEP 2020 envisions differentiated, flexible and learner-centric higher education.
What could be the risks? Quality dilution is one. To safeguard, the award panel must ensure that the work demonstrates originality through novel design, method, algorithm or process. The practical PhD work should improve performance, safety, cost or reliability. This rigour can be validated through independent tests.
Conflict of interest is a risk if examiners from industry fail to disclose conflicts of interest. IP disputes are a risk when universities and firms negotiate ownership at the end of the PhD; its safeguard is standardised IP and revenue-sharing agreed at admission. Confidentiality is at risk if students are blocked from presenting evidence; its safeguard can include limited patent embargoes and a preserved audit trail. Supervisor quality is a risk if the industry mentor is not strong enough; its safeguard is mentor certification based on experience and professional contributions.
What should India do? The best policy answer is to pilot, measure and scale with proper safeguards. We can launch a pilot practical PhD programme in a small set of top technical institutes. Pair them with engineering firms and public-sector users. Measure the success based on patents and designs filed, certifications completed, deployments achieved and doctoral graduates placed in high-impact R&D and manufacturing roles. The economic case is ultimately the strongest for starting these programmes—practical PhDs can turn frontier knowledge into better products and processes, enhancing India’s self-reliance.
India needs a doctoral system that values both fundamental research and solutions to real industrial problems. NEP 2020 provides the policy foundation to implement this logic. We can do it in a distinctly Indian way without compromising rigour.
Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar | Chairman, Review Committee for NEP 2020 and former Chairman, University Grants Commission
(Views are personal)