Dear Fil,

Gordon Rugg and Marian Petre (2004) offer a good list of what a doing a PhD
implies in their excellent book on earning a PhD. . Unless you find a gap or
omission in this list, it should do the job.

It has several skills headings and it covers most of the information in
generic lists though it may be missing the skills required for specific
disciplines:

[Use of academic language] “correct use of technical terms; attention to
detail in punctuation, grammar, etc.; attention to use of typographic design
… to make the text accessible; ability to structure and convey a clear and
coherent argument, including attention to the use of ‘signposting’ devices
such as headings to make the structure accessible; writing in a suitable
academic ‘voice’; [Knowledge of background literature] seminal texts
correctly cited, with evidence that you have read them and evaluated them
critically; references accurate reflecting the growth of the literature from
the seminal texts to the present day; identification of key recent texts on
which your own PhD is based, showing both how these contribute to your
thesis and how your thesis is different from them; relevant texts and
concepts from other disciplines cited; organization of all of the cited
literature into a coherent, critical structure, showing both that you can
make sense of the literature – identifying conceptual relationships and
themes, recognizing gaps – and that you understand what is important;
[Research methods] knowledge of the main research methods used in your
discipline, including data collection, record keeping, and data analysis;
knowledge of what constitutes ‘evidence’ in your disciplines, and of what is
acceptable as a knowledge claim; detailed knowledge – and competent
application of – at least one method; critical analysis of one of the
standard methods in your discipline showing that you understand both its
strengths and its limitations; [Theory] understanding of key theoretical
strands and theoretical concepts in your discipline; understanding how
theory shapes your research question; ability to contribute something useful
to the theoretical debate in your area; [Miscellaneous] ability to do all
the above yourself, rather than simply doing what your supervisor tells you;
awareness of where your work fits in relation to the discipline, and what it
contributes to the discipline; mature overview of the discipline” (Rugg and
Petre 2004: 6-7).

Warm wishes,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean

Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia

Reference

Rugg, Gordon, and Marian Petre. 2004. The Unwritten Rules of PhD Research.
Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press.


Fill Salustri wrote:

—snip—

There's many good, but possibly misguided or ignorant, people out there who
can be exceptional academics and advisors and members of PhD cmtes, if they
had some guidance on matters of what doing a PhD implies. I have my own
mental checklist. It's on my todo list to get that out of my noggin and onto
paper (or website). I think that sort of thing can be exceedingly valuable,
just to remind us what's going on.

—snip—