The pursuit of economic growth and dominance in the present era is unsustainable without investing in advanced scientific research and building sophisticated technological capabilities. To bridge gaps in such capabilities, emerging economies are pushing their universities not just to scale their research, but also to produce innovative new technologies.
In this context, China’s story is interesting. It has made advances in technical and scientific abilities. To accelerate innovation, it has moved beyond the traditional path for awarding PhD degrees. Now, innovators can earn a PhD without being required to write a thesis, substituting the candidate’s practical research output for the mundane and time-consuming process of dissertation writing.
This radical approach has triggered a mixed response from the global community. Advocates contend that moving away from traditional dissertation requirements eliminates the non-productive burden of formal writing, which often consumes an innovator’s most valuable creative years. By decoupling doctoral recognition from traditional publication requirements, this change also curbs the rise of predatory and unethical publishing practices. By prioritising practical outcomes over traditional dissertations, this model is likely to yield more tangible, market-ready outputs for the billions of dollars invested in academic research.
India’s economic ambitions make the Chinese doctoral model an attractive proposition for maximising returns from its limited resources. But before committing to such a shift, we must evaluate whether bypassing the traditional research process risks diluting our capability to carry out deep scientific inquiry.
While a thesis is not a universal requirement for professional doctorates, such as the Doctor of Musical Arts (DMA), it’s mandatory for the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), which prioritises original knowledge creation over professional mastery. Around the world, a PhD in science or technology is about creating new knowledge through original research.
While critics often complain that writing a formal thesis is a slow and arduous process, it exists for a reason: it serves as a complete paper trail, proving that findings are transparent and replicable. More importantly, the rigour of writing a thesis trains the scholar to ask the right questions, connect those questions to a solid plan of action, and critically judge other scientific work. Therefore, a PhD degree certifies a candidate’s proficiency in the process of inquiry, rather than just the immediate impact of the tangible output.
Innovation begins with critical thinking and the courage to ask original questions. But a true innovator must also possess the methodological rigour to validate their findings and ensure results are replicable. It is a mistake to reward an outcome without valuing the journey that produced it; a PhD programme provides exactly that – training in the disciplined process behind the breakthrough. A thesis, then, is the formal crystallisation of that research into a rational, systematic framework.
Awarding a PhD based on tangible innovation presents significant operational hurdles, primarily regarding the verification of originality. In a traditional dissertation, every claim is footnoted and every data point is traceable. But when a scholar presents a functional prototype, examiners may struggle to isolate the individual’s unique contribution from existing technologies. In such cases, examiners might rely on patent databases for comparison, which are not necessarily designed for academic rigour. This creates a blind spot. A patent generally protects functional utility, not the creation of fundamental knowledge.
Many foundational elements of innovation – such as abstract theories, mathematical formulas, and creative ideas – are ineligible for patent protection under current IP laws, yet they remain essential intellectual ingredients of the final product. Without a thesis, the PhD risks becoming a certificate of craftsmanship rather than a degree of philosophy.
A more ambiguous scenario arises when a scholar appropriates an existing idea or product and presents it as an original prototype. This introduces a grey area of academic corruption that could prove far more systemic and difficult to detect than traditional plagiarism. Furthermore, mandating a functional prototype as a graduation requirement may create a barrier to entry for ambitious research. Scholars may opt for safer, iterative projects to ensure a working prototype rather than tackling complex, theoretically challenging contexts that push scientific boundaries.
Thus, a PhD based solely on innovation without a thesis would merely trade a toxic ‘publish or perish’ culture for a new, equally demanding ‘patent or perish’ mandate. If India abandons the rigorous theoretical training of the PhD in favour of China-style industrial output, it risks becoming a hub for incremental improvements rather than disruptive breakthroughs.
In fiscal year 2025-26, India’s trade deficit rose by $48.7 billion, with $21.19 billion due to higher gold and silver prices. This was influenced by investors and central banks turning to precious metals amidst Trump’s tariffs. Despite the expensive costs, silver imports rose by 149.48% and gold imports by 24.08%. However, measures may need to be taken to address this issue.