The short answers: PhD programs

No, not at any accredited institution. And if you get an honorary doctorate it is not going to be a PhD but something else.

How to get a PhD: A Handbook for Students and their Supervisors by Estelle M. Philips and Derek S. Pugh. Now in 6th edition.

It depends on what you mean by “the normal path.” To earn a recognized PhD anywhere, you will have to submit an original dissertation of research. Having said that, the dissertation may take different forms depending on the country, institution, and particular department/field, e.g.:

1. A collection of journal articles on the same topic that together are equivalent to a dissertation.
2. An item of original creative writing with an exegesis.
3. A portfolio of previous work that together constitutes an original contribution to knowledge.
4. A published monograph that is equivalent to a dissertation.

Short answer: a research doctorate is designed to provide skills for doing original research, and it best suits academic and research positions. A professional doctorate trains people for senior positions in the profession but is also suitable for university positions training professionals.

Dissertations can be quite different. Research doctorates must make a new contribution to knowledge in their field, and are designed mainly for other researchers to read. Some professional doctorate programs allow original research. However, some dissertations might instead be applied research or difficult field projects that are not research.

It depends on the institution, but it does count in some institutions where the PhD is defined as training to be a researcher and the intern is an enrolled PhD student. Some students resent extra work not related to their dissertation but it can be a fair ask.

Perhaps. If you meet admission requirements, you still have the energy and curiosity, and the research is valuable to others in its own right, it's never too late to do a PhD.

If you're doing it for your career future and mainly due to your own curiosity, it will be too late sometime in mid-life.

Getting a university appointment is quite different. You might get an entry-level tutoring position as temporary hire but don't count on it. A PhD is usually entry level in an academic career, and you might need more to get a permanent position (post doc, publications, teaching).

This is almost a trick question so I'll give several different answers.

1. Answer One. In the USA, many students come into the PhD program with little or no experience in producing original research. The reason they do the PhD is to not only learn how to do it but also to produce a dissertation that proves they can.
2. Answer Two. Anybody who doesn't have a fairly solid academic training in their field of study and writing methods won't even get into a reputable PhD program.
3. Answer Three. In some countries, applicants must already have training and some experience in research to even be admitted to a PhD program.
4. Answer Four. Find a shady degree mill and send $50. The wording might be good for your ego but it's academically useless, and positively harmful if you put it in your CV.

It is a little artificial to ask for only one thing as the first thing.

One of the main things a student learns during a PhD is what it means to do a PhD, and that only comes by doing it, and to some extent, through reflection afterward.

In the US, the first stage is coursework, which varies according to institution. In some schools, much of the work is prepatory to the dissertation. In others it is advanced coursework. In the UK, that kind of prepatory work has already been done, so PhD students start reading in their field of interest to focus on a topic.

If I could narrow it down to one thing, it might be to follow instructions. Research has lots of protocols, and even though they often require originality and initiative, some of them are usually (sometimes always) rigid, such as:

• Standards of integrity
• Ability to work independently but also collaboratively.
• Role of literature review
• Ethical protocols in research
• Validity in methodology
• The style guide

PhD programs in every country now require a dissertation, so the question is not really about the value of a dissertation as a piece of original research. The question is whether or not a coursework plus dissertation (North American style) is better than a dissertation only kind of PhD such as in the UK.

The outcomes are actually equivalent, but not the same.

According to some reports, the biggest single difference is what a subsequent employer prefers. US employers want to see that applicants have done those methodology units and have broad expertise in their fields. UK employers like the idea of a longer dissertation with a more significant finding. I should also add that the coursework in many US programs is really step-by-step preparation for the dissertation.

Usually the student owns copyright, but there are exceptions. The most obvious exceptions are:

1. The project is done in a commercial organization. In this case, the researcher might be a paid employee and has signed an agreement that hands over copyright.
2. The work has been published in whole or part and copyright is then owned by the publisher. Check the publication agreement; copyright might revert back to the author if the work goes out of print for a defined period.
3. Some institutions might expect copyright ownership as a condition of being a student, but perhaps more common is that students must give their institution the right to make copies at least for their own library purposes.

This is a trick question so let me explain.

British-style PhD programs are dissertation only. They do not require a coursework component because those prepatory topics have already been learnt before PhD admission. So no competitive coursework. And a caveat … there might be some competition to get in but probably not. Many institutions are very enthusiastic to accept applicants who show the capacity to do well in the PhD.

After that, you are working on a unique topic by yourself. It's like being the only student in the class. No competition there.

1. The person might need certification of expertise in unrelated fields to be able to teach in both fields.
2. One might have trouble moving recognition from one jurisdiction to another.
3. I know one school that uses a professional doctorate as a mandatory pathway for its students to transition from a professional pathway to research.

If the topic is a philosophical study, the sooner you start reading and developing your thoughts, the better. Keep notes because you don't know what will be useful later.

However, to avoid discarding lots of work, do not over-commit to writing a polished draft until your topic is approved. The state of current research will change and your views and area of interest might also change. Over-commitment is also a very bad idea unless you have doctoral level expertise in research methodology.

If the study depends on the use of a methodology to collect new data in the field, you normally cannot start until you have all necessary approvals. If it uses human or animal subjects, it would be illegal to do so in the US without first getting IRB ethical approval.

It depends on many factors. US doctorates normally have lots of time-based coursework and there are limits on how much you can speed it up.

In a British style PhD, you are expected to already know how to do research and only do a dissertation, which is often longer than the US equivalent.

How fast you can write the dissertation depends on many factors: the topic and how well set up the research is beforehand, eg choice of topic, how well read you are in the topic, access to a research population, methodology, how closely related it is to your employment, your research experience, how good you are at writing, etc. Other than that, institutional procedures (especially supervision and all approvals) might be fast or very slow. I'd add that family is an essential factor.

Having said that, 5 years is a good goal. In other circumstances, it is possible in a year or two.

If you are a full-time student, anything less than 35-40 productive hours on the research and dissertation is inadequate. Count time reading and thinking, but not time wasted. If you are doing well, you will probably spend much more time than that because you'll be at least thinking about it a lot of your waking moments. Count time solving problems even if it feels like you are not making progress. (I can remember whole days solving problems that resulted in only a sentence or two.)

However, the question specifically mentioned “writing.” In many programs, the research is lab work or field work, which takes a lot of time, and the write-up is just part of the whole project. At the literature review stage, much of the task is writing. In fieldwork, the student focuses mainly on keeping good field notes as well as incidental thoughts. The analysis and write-up stages are all about writing and editing.

If you are a part-time student, there is no single right answer about how much time. The real question is whether you have a schedule that works for you and makes reasonable progress. There isn't a perfect schedule that works the same for everybody.

You need to know what is “reasonable progress” for you. For example, it might be determined by funding, fees, student debt, supervisor expectations, or personal goals.

Being online or not is irrelevant. If the degree is legitimate, then you should call them Doctor in formal situations.

There are several answers to this question.

First, every PhD dissertation is on a unique topic, so in one way, every dissertation is something that nobody else has.

Second, you asked about a new field. Possible, but I'd like to see what you want to put in your literature review, because most new fields grow out of existing fields. And those fields quite often already exist, but you just don't know.

Third, although it is possible to establish a new field, a PhD dissertation is not an advisable place to do it. Don't try for your Nobel prize here. Do something achievable within the scope of the PhD and leave establishing new fields until later.

No. You need to be interested in research and in your particular field. You also need to be extremely enthusiastic about your dissertation topic; otherwise you'll give up when you face obstacles or feel overwhelmed.

Almost all PhD students go through an emotional crunch stage when they feel it is too hard and want to give up. They don't know this when they start and need to be coached or supported through that stage. The PhD is as much a test of tenacity as of academic ability.

It depends on the particular degree and the country. Degrees entirely by publication are not available in the US. Some European schools still have them. However, the expected standard is still at least the same as the normal dissertation so it is not an easy option.

In Australia, they are higher than the PhD and usually for only senior researchers after long and stellar careers in research.

You will find a number of programs that allow students to include published material, but that is a different question.

Yes, it will be a good outcome. Let's say you have a good research question and it is supported by a good literature review, which indicated that your hypothesis was the next stage of research on this topic. You expect it to be true. You proposed a credible hypothesis and a way of testing it. Then you ran the research and produced a valid result, but found that the hypothesis is not true.

Here's why the research should be seen to be successful and why your conclusion is valuable:

1. Your literature review gave every indication beforehand that the topic was significant, and that the hypothesis could have been correct.
2. If you know that the hypothesis will be proven correct, there is no point in testing it. And if you did, the finding would not be valuable.
3. If the purpose of the experiment is solely to prove that the hypothesis is true, the experiment is not valid.
4. A surprise is often more valuable. An unexpected and counter-intuitive result is probably more valuable than one that is quite predictable.

The next step is probably to suggest new hypotheses to explain what happened and why.

In a PhD, it means usually one of two things:

1. You must do some minor corrections but the dissertation does not need to be assessed again.
2. The examiners think the dissertation could pass if you make some bigger changes. You need to make those changes, resubmit, and be reassessed.

All universities have their own appeal system.

However, it is quite unusual for a PhD dissertation to be failed completely; most failing PhD students either drop out first or are not allowed to submit (the latter of which might be grounds for complaint). Many students are required to submit corrections, and some are downgraded to a Master degree.

In the rare event that a dissertation has been submitted and failed, an appeal would probably be futile if it were based on the content. The examiners are experts and universities would normally believe what they say. A formal appeal based on examiner dishonesty or procedural unfairness would be viewed very seriously as the institution's reputation and perhaps its accreditation would be at stake.

No. The degree has not yet been conferred. Depending on your institution's rules, you might be able to use PhD (Cand.) as a candidate.

No. If you tried to send in someone else to do it for you, two things would happen:

1. They’d recognize the fake straight away because at least one of the assessors already knows you.
2. You would be failed immediately with no chance of forgiveness. In other words, you wasted your time writing the dissertation. You cannot then offer it to another institution either.

Several candidates for worst reason:

1. Deliberate plagiarism
2. Fictitious data
3. Using a ghost writer. (It probably isn't a surprise but there a lots of I'll write your dissertation for a fee contractors out there.)