Assessing the person or the project? How disciplinary ontological and epistemological assumptions shape doctoral admissions in elite UK institutions

Abstract Research suggests there are notable differences in approaches to doctoral admissions and the criteria employed to select doctoral candidates. Through interviews with 65 academic staff involved in doctoral admissions at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, this paper examines how these different approaches to admissions play out in different disciplines, driving the disciplinary divergence in conceptualisations of the PhD and, in turn, admissions practices. Findings suggest that differences are shaped by varying underpinning assumptions within disciplinary clusters about the nature and process of knowledge production and the purpose of doctoral education, what we refer to as ‘ontological and epistemological assumptions’ about the doctorate. These tend towards two dichotomous positions: one that views the doctorate primarily as knowledge production, an approach mainly linked with humanities and social science, and one that views the doctorate as skills formation and a licence to research, an approach mainly linked with STEM and medical science. These conceptualisations are manifested in radically different approaches to doctoral admissions across the clusters, reflected in heterogeneity in the role of the research to be undertaken, the role of the potential supervisor, and judgements about existing skills and knowledge in selection decisions. We draw on neo-institutional theory as a heuristic device for understanding how assumptions about the nature and purpose of the doctorate can be viewed as disciplinary norms that get reproduced in the processes and practices of doctoral admissions. Understanding these disciplinary differences and their drivers is a critical first stage in understanding variations and potential inequalities in doctoral admissions and ensuring that these nuances and complexity are reflected in ongoing graduate access work.