Rethinking doctoral research: Can dissertations be collaborative?

These challenges require interdisciplinary knowledge and teamwork within and across disciplines, fields, and institutions. The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine emphasized this back in 2015 and again in a recent 2025 report: collaboration isn’t optional anymore, it’s essential. Yet, most doctoral programs — PhDs and professional doctorates — seldom explicitly train their students in team science and how to collaborate effectively on research projects. The traditional notion of the independent scholar who conducts original research and creates knowledge has held firm for over 200 years.

What’s missing? Opportunities to build the real team science skills that students need in today’s collaborative research environments.

As the 2024–25 Graduate Fellows at Arizona State University’s Graduate College, we (Nancy Cooke, professor of human systems engineering, and Josephine Marsh, associate professor of literacy education) set out to explore this gap. It all began with a powerful question from Vice Provost and Dean Elizabeth A. Wentz: Are we giving our doctoral students the tools they need to work well in research teams?

We were also guided by our personal and professional beliefs in the power of team science, and the power of multiple voices, expertise and perspectives to transform learning and create new understandings and knowledge.

Why team science matters

Team science refers to collaborative, interdependent research efforts involving multiple individuals (often from varied disciplines, institutions or career stages) working together toward a common scientific goal. The National Academies have emphasized in their reports the importance of team science for tackling societal-scale problems, as it allows for the integration of diverse perspectives and expertise.

Despite these benefits, collaborative research can be difficult to implement effectively. Challenges include managing team dynamics, integrating knowledge deeply across disciplines and ensuring fair recognition of individual contributions.

For doctoral students, the stakes are even higher. Their academic and career success is often tied to individual achievements such as sole-authored publications and independently defended dissertations. As Patel explained in 2016, this emphasis can disincentivize collaboration and make it harder for students to gain the team-based skills they will need in today’s workforce.

What we did

To begin to answer Vice Provost and Dean Wentz’s question, we surveyed ASU professors and doctoral students to find out how they perceived team science, what and if any collaborative research opportunities were available to them, and the potential perceived obstacles and benefits of doctoral students working in research teams and conducting collaborative dissertations. We also conducted an analysis, using a large language model, of 57 ASU doctoral program handbooks and held interviews with 12 doctoral program directors from PhD and professional doctoral programs. Five of these directors were from EdD programs at other universities who reportedly supported collaborative dissertations.

What we found

After analysis of the data from these three activities, some general conclusions emerged.

First, there is significant variance among colleges and disciplines in the value of collaboration and collaborative dissertations, ranging from “I am excited to advance in this direction” to “This is the way it has always been done and would devalue the degree if it changed.” For this reason, team-based or collaborative dissertations should be optional for programs and students.

We also found that collaborative dissertations, in many cases, have existed at ASU in several forms. There are many examples of single-authored dissertations based on shared data collection coupled with independent research questions and analyses. In addition, we found “stapled dissertations,” in which an independent or co-authored introductory chapter and concluding chapter bound a set of single or co-authored journal articles — either submitted or ready to submit. These two options can differ in terms of the independent or collaborative dissertation dimension. At other universities, we found co-authored dissertations with chapters written by two to four students, with authorship details defined by the doctoral program.

In addition, it became clear based on our study that there are some pressing needs in this area.

• Information about collaborative dissertations needs to be communicated clearly to faculty and students in program handbooks, workshops and through Graduate College policy.
• Doctoral programs should clearly define what counts as collaborative or team-based doctoral research and should differentiate collaborative research from collaborative dissertations.
• Shifts in cultural norms and institutional acceptance of collaborative or team-based dissertations are needed.

These needs have been addressed by a set of emerging practices in some ASU programs and other universities.

Emerging practices to address collaborative dissertation needs.

• We recommend that the Graduate College, together with the individual doctoral programs, define doctoral collaboration research and collaborative dissertations.
• Students should be aware that collaborative options are available early in their degree program and that there is an opt-in structure.
• Expectations for dissertations, including collaborative options, should be clearly communicated through policy, guidelines and program handbooks.
• Mechanisms to support collaborative research should be implemented such as team formation opportunities, incentivization of faculty participation and support of conflict resolution mechanisms.
• Structural support for teams should be implemented such as templates for authorship agreement, collaborative agreements and project management tools.
• Students should be provided training in collaboration through workshops that teach teamwork skills, project management and collaborative writing.
• Faculty should be trained to oversee and mentor collaborative teams and manage group dynamics and guide equitable contributions.
• A university-wide collaborative culture and infrastructure should be fostered that includes celebrations and normalization of interdisciplinary collaboration, aligned with disciplinary practices and models.

Toward a new model of doctoral education at ASU

The next phase of this initiative involves broader engagement and institutional action. We recommend to Vice Provost and Dean Wentz that ASU’s Graduate College host a series of town halls for faculty and graduate students to share examples of collaborative research and gather feedback. Additional workshops should facilitate teamwork, advising teams, collaborative writing, conflict resolution, team formation and interdisciplinary communication. These recommendations are being evaluated.

Ultimately, the goal is not to replace individual research with team-based or collaborative models but to provide students with the skills and opportunities to choose collaboration when appropriate and to be recognized for it. Through innovation that embeds team science and opportunities for collaborative research into the fabric of doctoral education, ASU can lead a worldwide conversation and better prepare future academic scholars and practitioners for solving some of society’s most challenging problems.

---

References

National Research Council. (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/19007

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. (2025). The science and practice of team science.Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/29043

Paltridge, B. & Starfield, S. (2020). Change and continuity in thesis and dissertation writing: The evolution of an academic genre. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100910

Patel, V. (2016). PhDs embrace alternative dissertations. Job market may not. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 62(4),8.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.