The domain of doctoral dissertations within the fields of business and management is currently experiencing a profound transformation, prompting critical inquiries into the epistemological foundations of knowledge generation and validation. This study examines two concurrent yet distinct trajectories for doctoral dissertations: the article-based (cumulative) model and the integrated (compiled) model. Each trajectory embodies divergent epistemological paradigms, institutional expectations, and strategic responses to the pervasive 'publish or perish’ paradigm.

The article-based dissertation conforms to the fragmented, positivist paradigm, prioritizing quantifiable outputs and peer-reviewed publications. It exemplifies the prevailing emphasis on academic performance metrics, yet remains susceptible to critiques concerning superficial novelty, knowledge fragmentation, and reliance on external editorial mechanisms. Conversely, the integrated dissertation adopts a transdisciplinary framework, aiming to synthesize complex issues into a cohesive intellectual artifact that transcends the mere aggregation of its constituent parts. This modality aligns with abductive reasoning, characterized by iterative cycles of reframing, hypothesis generation, and sense-making, which are particularly pertinent within the human-social sciences where causal relationships are often non-linear.

This paper critically examines the enduring dominance of “mirror to reality” and monodisciplinary gatekeeping in doctoral education and argues that future-oriented doctoral research must embrace complexity, contextual understanding, and the significance of tacit knowledge. Drawing upon the epistemological insights of Popper, Kuhn, Bourdieu, and Nicolescu, we conceptualize the doctoral dissertation not merely as a compliance exercise but as an intentional act of knowledge creation within a social and cognitive community.

We further argue that neither path is inherently superior; instead, doctoral education must explicitly recognize these two models as equally valid, provided that each adheres to rigorous standards of internal coherence and intellectual contribution. The choice between a cumulative or integrated dissertation should be a deliberate methodological and epistemological decision, reflecting the research problem, the disciplinary context, and the candidate’s trajectory as a future scholar or practitioner.
By outlining the structural, epistemic, and procedural characteristics of both paths, this paper contributes to the ongoing discourse on the future of doctoral education in business. It offers a framework for doctoral programs to move beyond the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ phenomenon—where form is mistaken for substance—and instead foster meaningful, sustainable, and contextually relevant knowledge production.

Keywords: Doctoral dissertation models, transdisciplinarity, problem solving.