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

TL;DR

This qualitative multiple-case study of 65 academic staff involved in doctoral admissions at Oxford and Cambridge finds that disciplinary assumptions shape how the purpose of the PhD is understood. HSS tends to emphasize knowledge production and the project, while STEMM tends to emphasize skills formation and the person.

Key findings

• HSS and STEMM diverged in stated purpose: in HSS, 19 of 28 participants viewed the PhD primarily as knowledge production; in STEMM, 32 of 37 framed doctoral potential solely through person-focused factors such as skills, experience, and trajectory, with 4 explicitly saying the PhD trains researchers.
• Admissions practices followed that split: in HSS, 21 participants viewed the research proposal as the central application element, with 15 emphasizing alignment between the project and the applicant’s biography; in STEMM, no participating department required a full research proposal, and 5 participants said expecting applicants to propose a feasible project at that stage was unrealistic.
• The role of supervisors differed: HSS supervisor capacity and project-supervisor fit were central, and lack of capacity was often cited as a reason for rejection; in STEMM, supervisors generally played a smaller role, and capacity “probably won’t affect whether [applicants] get an offer,” though it could affect project matching.
• Skills were assessed differently: HSS emphasized writing and critical thinking, with 15 participants stressing writing skill before entry and 8 in non-interviewing departments focusing on argument construction; STEMM emphasized technical skills, disciplinary background, and the academic record, which 17 participants described as the key paper-application element.

Methods

• Qualitative multiple-case study at the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge, using 16 departments (8 per university) and 2 DTCs/DTPs, selected across disciplinary clusters.
• Data included semi-structured interviews with 65 academic staff involved in doctoral admissions (46 at Oxford, 19 at Cambridge), lasting 60–90 minutes online, plus admissions documents from participating departments.
• Analysis combined within-case and cross-case analysis; interview data were coded in NVivo 12 using predefined codes based on interview questions and admissions phases, then inductive codes developed from the data and refined with the research team.

Limitations

• The paper states that it captured only a select group of academics and may not have captured within-discipline differences in sufficiently nuanced ways.
• The paper states that Oxbridge staff experiences are arguably unique given the elite nature of these universities, and that two-thirds of interview participants came from Oxford, creating an institutional representation imbalance.
• The paper also states that the HSS/STEMM dichotomy is a simplification that may not capture within-discipline diversity or the spectrum of conceptualisations of doctoral purpose; evident from the methods, the study also relies only on academic staff perspectives and does not include applicants’ or students’ views.