One aspect that strikes me as particularly interesting is the balance between down-to-earth analysis of the past and a more forward-looking (and more obviously normative) design perspective. Of course, I do not have any empirical data on the different approaches to writing a doctoral thesis in different cultures. But when I think about my western European civil-law background, there seems to be a deeply rooted belief that a doctoral thesis is first and foremost a thorough analysis of the past. This is where we get our data from, can interview people about, and do extensive literature reviews on. To qualify as scholarly, a thesis has to meet at least one of these criteria, fill a gap in the existing literature, and eventually culminate in a “big book” (as opposed to a series of papers). There may be a reference to future developments and policy implications, but it is normally well hidden in the last couple of pages before the conclusion.

No doubt, there is a lot of value in this approach. But maybe doing research in dynamic fields like the Internet sometimes requires an even more forward-looking perspective: how much of a design perspective can a thesis shoulder? Is scenario writing a viable research method? As to presentation, how much story telling and anecdotal evidence makes a thesis comprehensible without risking its credibility in traditional academic settings? Where is the line between science and science fiction?

If this sounds too abstract, try to think about the following question: would Lessig’s Code, and Other Laws of Cyberspace have been accepted as a doctoral thesis at your university?