PhD by publication, a route of attaining a ‘doctorate’, is growing in adoption, yet has not gained universal acceptance. Whilst doctoral students are expected to free range, be independent in their study, and contribute to knowledge, there is a tendency to be schooled or mainly assessed along the lines of positivism and interpretivism. This paper, in part the author’s situational reflexivity and noting Liezel Frick’s “PhD by publication – panacea or paralysis?”, carried out a documentary analysis of academic regulations of 101 universities in the UK, South Africa, Ireland, Australia, and examined the literature for demi-regularities supporting or inhibiting critical realism in doctoral studies. It followed a (multimethod) plural approach. The examination revealed that critical realism is sparse in doctoral studies, and universities do not cohere in nomenclature and ‘form’ of PhD by publication. In filling the ‘free range’ gap, this paper contributes to the ongoing discourse on PhD by publication by introducing the IDADA (‘identify’, ‘define’, ‘analyse’, ‘develop’ and ‘apply’) methodological framework. The framework evolved from the demi-regularities understudied. IDADA is a practical solution-centric, methodological approach to PhD by publication. The paper calls on researchers and practitioners to be open to structured and ‘alternate’ approaches to research whilst ensuring ontological, epistemological, and axiomatic rigour. Researchers need not approach research religiously — as that of a particular paradigm sect; but rather embrace ‘practical adequacy’. Doctoral students should be encouraged to produce research output with more significant impact through interrogation and unearthing phenomena rather than just “observing, outlining and discussing findings” or conforming to ‘writing style’.
