The change in Academic Setting

In the last few decades, knowledge becomes a critical factor in the industry, as performance in economy comes to rely more comprehensively on inputs of knowledge. Organizations and individuals are forced to understand the necessity for continual and constant learning, though not necessarily the type of academic learning universities instill. It is not discipline based learning, but active and interacting learning, that is extremely problem-oriented and contextualized (Usher 2002). Alternatively, the university could find a way to turn knowledge into an asset appreciated in the industry and by the general public, since "money is power" (Usher 2002; Ryan and Deci 2008; Gunaratne 2008).

One way to reach this goal is to examine the concept of knowledge economy. According to Horvath (2000):

"It has become widely accepted that businesses compete on the basis of knowledge and, indeed, that knowledge may be their only sustainable source of competitive advantage. It has become likewise accepted that knowledge… represents an invisible but substantial component of a firm’s market value and, thus, an asset to be measured and managed - just as assets are measured and managed".

Contrary to that, the universities today tend to assume the opposite position. The very culture of the academy directs research into narrow and specific "disciplinary channels" and encourages a working approach which does not suite with concept of applicable knowledge production (Usher 2002). It is advised to inspect that approach, since the author believes there is a way to maintain scientific integrity while making sure the products of academic research are suitable for use in economy. Knowledge could, and must be managed efficiently, and effectively embedded in industrial systems in order to enhance innovation. Economic growth demands substantial development of an infrastructure which enables and facilitates production of sustainable knowledge. Universities are more resilient and adaptable than they are given credit for, and could in fact function as agents of economic growth (Usher 2002).

All that said, conventional PhD programmes may no longer be the only optimal way to train professional workers nor produce the knowledge needed for contemporary economy. Mainly, since the method and attitude of the conventional Ph.D. dismisses the important contribution of industry practitioners as knowledge producers. Additionally, the kind of training involved in completing a Ph.D. is excessively narrow and specialized, does not provide a broad skill set, nor does it encourage multi-disciplinary, trans-disciplinary and collaborative work (Usher 2002).