It's somewhat uncommon for someone to just suddenly go from philosophy to teaching sociology, but then it's not impossible. I mean, I switched myself from physics to history, but still not to a people job.
I think when we see "philosophy", we think of things like moral philosophy, or fundamental theories of how we can know anything.
In academia, a "Philosophy Doctor" means someone who has demonstrated mastery of the theory of knowledge of a specific field of study.
An
Associate is someone who is aware that the field of study exists, and what subject(s) it covers.
A
Bachelor is someone who has studied the basics of that field, and can do junior/journeyman work in that field.
A
Master is someone who has mastered the current body of knowledge and applications in that field, and can do advanced work in that field.
A
Doctor of Philosophy is someone who has not only mastered the state of the art in that field, but has also mastered the field's underlying theory of knowledge, to the point where not only can they do applied work at a Master's level, they are also able to add to the state of the art, with new knowledge and improved theories.
It's not uncommon at all for someone to progress from Bachelor's to Master's to Ph.D. in their field of interest.
What we would expect from Arday, whose doctoral thesis was on the subject of Sociology in Education, is the following:
- He has mastered the current state of the art in Education.
- He has mastered the current theory of Education.
- He is qualified to work on extending the current state of the art, and the current theory of Education.
- He is specifically ready to apply sociological theories and practices to extending the theory and practice of Education.
What we would expect from Cambridge, in awarding a professorship in the Education department, is that the Professor has
already advanced the theory and practice of education, with new publications that document new research and new findings in that field.
Arday clearly plagiarized heavily in his doctoral thesis. This suggests to us that he had not mastered the theory of Education, and probably had not even mastered the current state of the art. This suggestion is further bolstered by the lack of any post-doctorate contributions to the field. As far as we know, he has not actually extended the theory of education via sociological lines of inquiry.
Cambridge just handed him a prestigious teaching position, even though by his own CV he didn't have anything new to say, wasn't going to be teaching anything that any grad student TA couldn't teach, and by all accounts he wasn't even a good teacher anyway. As Cambridge themselves make clear, they awarded him the professorship because of the color of his skin, not because he had anything of academic value to contribute to their Education department.
