As farmer_C has righty said it, that cannot be applied to all fields.

You can't expect a sociologist, a historian, a psychologist, or those in the pure science to work in the industrial corporate setting. For them, research activities are their "experience".

So, I believe you are referring to those in the business field.

However, I wouldn't say those working in the industry are the best teachers. Or they would have the best experience.

Let's compare a logistic manager working in the industry for 20 years with a professor (with zero hands-on indusrial experience) but who have actively carried out research for 20 years. Who has better experience here? It really depends.

The logistic manager may have hands-on working experience in two to five companies for over 20 years (his experience is only limited to the companies he worked in before) but a professor who have personally carried out research in the logistic area have seen the business outcomes/performance of several companies for over 20 years.

The same can be said between an accountant and an auditor. An accountant may personally prepare the accounts in one company but an auditor who checked the accounts of several companies is often said to have collected more experience than an accountant, although the auditor is not the one who prepare the accounts.

True. But research does not only involve surveys and mere reading.

There are some who carry out case study business research which involves close observation and in-depth interviews at corporate organisations similar to how consultants/auditors understand deeply about their clients' operations.

I know one PhD graduate who carried out a management "action research" for an MNC and that was his PhD thesis. He provided a solution for that company and he helped the company saved millions of dollars. He is akin to a consultant but he was not paid anything for his contribution to the company at the end of the day.

And some university academics are also involved in consultation activities with industrial practitioners.

So, it really depends on the individual academic of how he/she is involved in the research activities. If the academic is not involved in such research and consultation activities, then he will lose out. I believe that's how many corporate practitioners often misunderstand what academics actually do and they believe that academics only know their stuff "theoretically".

This post has been edited by Blofeld: Mar 12 2013, 02:36 PM

Observation and in-depth interviews as in a researcher actually sits in and observe the work procedures and interviews employees in the organisation. In this scenario, it is considered a "passive" research, then you are right, they are not involved hands-on in making decisions and doing the administrative work.

But then, not only industrial phd students are carrying out action research for organisations, academics are doing that too. In the case of an action research, the researcher is part of the decision making team. And as you said, those who are already armed with the necessary qualifications, such as PhD, are roped in as consultants by the practitioners.

I always like your replies with those coloured fonts.

This post has been edited by Blofeld: Mar 20 2013, 06:33 PM

If you have an understanding partner, then it should be okay.

If your partner is someone immature, then there will be trouble.

Basically, a PhD qualification is important for those who wish to pursue an academic career.

It's similar to those who take up ACCA in order to become an accountant or those who take up CLP to become a lawyer.

I'm pretty sure Master's and PhD qualifications are important for those in the pure science field. Just like in Engineering, even those with a PhD in Engineering are welcomed and are highly paid by the manufacturing firms.

This is unlike in the business field where the PhD qualifications are deemed unimportant unless you are in academic.

Which field are you in?

I hardly encounter anyone personally that decided to pursue PhD for the sake of knowledge.

Knowledge can be easily gained by reading books and articles.

Could this be a common misunderstanding what PhD is for?

The ones I know personally do it for the sake of academic career.

Just like how those who wish to be accountant decided to take up ACCA.

Likewise, those who wish to climb up the academic ladder decided to take up PhD.

I see.

I know one PhD engineering graduate who went back to the industry and he's paid very well overseas. He's has never been in academia before. He's not in Malaysia for sure.

What do you think about the situation in Singapore?

Why are you regretting it?

It's not my forte yet