#013 When Products Replace Theses: What China's PhD Experiment Tells Us About Research

When Products Replace Theses: What China's PhD Experiment Tells Us About Research

Last month, Wei Lianfeng became the first PhD student at Harbin Institute of Technology to graduate without writing a thesis. Instead, he defended his doctorate based purely on practical results (vacuum laser welding processes and manufacturing equipment)

The university announced this as innovation. A new model for engineering education. A response to real-world demands.

It's not new. And that's precisely the point.

Research by Design Isn't Revolutionary

Design-led research has existed for decades. Architects, engineers, and product designers have long argued that making things can generate knowledge just as rigorously as writing about them.

The principle is sound. Physical prototypes, iterative testing, and material investigation can reveal insights that purely theoretical work misses. Design is a form of experimentation and testing. We can apply a method. A well-documented design process can be as intellectually rigorous as any literature review.

But - and this matters - "well-documented" is doing heavy lifting in that sentence.

The problem isn't that Wei Lianfeng created equipment instead of writing 80,000 words. It’s amazing he was able to do this as part of his PhD. The problem is what happens to knowledge when the thesis disappears entirely.

The Defence Context Changes Everything

HIT isn't just any university. It's one of China's "Seven Sons of National Defence" - institutions dedicated to military and strategic technology. This initiative is part of a nationwide programme targeting semiconductors, quantum computing, and other fields where, as the China Science Daily put it, "theoretical knowledge alone will not break through US-led technological blockades."

Defence innovation has always pioneered new products. Military funding drives breakthroughs that later transform civilian life - e.g. GPS, the internet, microwave ovens. The sector is extraordinarily innovative because it's extraordinarily well-funded and faces existential problems.

But defence research operates under different rules. Secrecy. Strategic advantage. National security. These aren't compatible with open knowledge exchange.

When HIT graduates a PhD student with a product rather than a thesis, they're not just changing academic requirements. They're acknowledging that the research output isn't meant for peer review—it's meant for deployment.

What Gets Lost

A PhD thesis forces researchers to do uncomfortable things:

• Articulate why decisions were made, not just what was made

• Document failures alongside successes

• Position work within existing knowledge

• Make methodology transparent enough for others to replicate or challenge

• Reflect on limitations and implications

• allow the work to be repeated or at least understood.

These aren't academic hoops. They're how individual work becomes collective knowledge.

A product - no matter how brilliant - doesn't do this automatically. You can hold advanced welding equipment in your hands and learn almost nothing about the thinking that created it. The iterations that failed. The hypotheses that proved wrong. The unexpected discoveries that emerged from systematic investigation.

Without documentation, innovation stays locked in the object. It can be used, even copied, but rarely understood or built upon in fundamentally new ways.

The Validation Problem

Traditional theses undergo brutal scrutiny. Two or three examiners read every word. They challenge methodology. Question conclusions. Demand evidence for claims. Push back on overreach.

This process is frequently painful. But it serves a purpose—it ensures that what emerges as "knowledge" has survived serious challenge.

When the PhD becomes a product defence, who validates the research? Industry experts, apparently, in this case. That's not inherently wrong - practitioners often spot flaws academics miss.

But it changes what's being validated. Industry experts assess whether something works, whether it's commercially viable, whether it solves the intended problem. These are important questions.

But, they're not the same as: Is the methodology sound? Are the conclusions justified by the evidence? What are the limitations? What doesn't this tell us? Perhaps the process isn’t that important, and it’s only the product that matters?

When Impact Replaces Understanding

There's a seductive logic to this approach. Why make doctoral students write lengthy theses that few people read when they could be solving real problems? Why prioritise publication over practical application?

It sounds pragmatic. Results-oriented. Focused on impact rather than academic navel-gazing. I get that and I too want the dissertation structure to change. We can use other formats - we can reduce the length of the thesis - we can produce films/animations and lots of other diverse output types (DOTs) to explain and defend.

Impact without understanding is short-term thinking. You solve today's problem without necessarily building the knowledge base to solve tomorrow's. You create a tool without necessarily equipping others to create better tools.

The value of research isn't just in immediate outcomes - it's in developing frameworks, methods, and insights that others can apply to entirely different problems. That requires transparency about process, not just presentation of results.

What This Means for Research

I'm not arguing that every PhD needs an 80,000-word thesis. I've read too many bloated dissertations to believe length equals rigour.

But I am arguing that knowledge needs documentation. Research needs transparency. Academic degrees need intellectual accountability.

Research by design can absolutely be rigorous - when it includes systematic documentation of process, rigorous analysis of outcomes, and honest reflection on limitations. When it positions discoveries within existing knowledge. When it makes methodology transparent enough for others to learn from both successes and failures.

The moment you remove those requirements, you've stopped training researchers. The PhD is meant to show a capacity to generate, validate, and communicate knowledge that advances collective understanding.

The Wider Implications

This experiment at HIT won't stay contained to defence research. Other fields will watch. Other countries will consider similar approaches. Pressure to make PhDs more "practical" and "industry-relevant" already exists everywhere.

Some of that pressure is justified. Academia does sometimes prioritise publishing over problem-solving. We do sometimes mistake complexity for sophistication.

But the solution isn't to abandon documentation and validation. It's to do both—solve real problems AND document the process rigorously enough that others can learn from it.

Because knowledge that can't be shared, challenged, or built upon isn't research.

Resources & Next Steps

If you're interested in temporary research/AI roles - I've been working with Mercor on positions for PhD students and researchers. Many of my readers have found these valuable for bridging funding gaps or gaining industry experience. If you're interested, applications take 15-20 minutes: https://work.mercor.com/?referralCode=6578187f-cfd6-41b3-84a4-0d34eeeac960&utm_source=referral&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=platform_referral

Connect with me on LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/iain-jackson — or simply reply to this email.

Please subscribe - I only write every 2 weeks or so….

Thanks for reading. See you next time.

Iain