harvard business school master thesis

Please sign in

You need to log in to use the bookmarking feature.

• Baker Library
• Special Collections
• Fast Answers
• All Services
• Plan Your Visit
• Working Knowledge
• Academic Programs
• Faculty & Research
• Harvard Business Review
• Initiatives
• Map / Directions
• Collections & Archives
• Special Collections and Archives
• Collecting Areas

HBS History

Printed versions of all HBS Doctoral theses are available for use in Baker Library Special Collections and Archives.

Written by HBS Doctoral students in their final years at HBS, these original works typically include presentation, analysis, and evaluation of unique data yielding significant, relevant, and independent research conclusions in major fields of study. Focus areas include managerial performance; economic, behavioral, psychological and administrative theory; formulating, executing, and evaluating strategy; the use of economic analysis and statistical methods for dealing effectively with management problems; and applied business fields such as capital markets, financial institutions, corporate finance, experimental and behavioral economics, business strategy and industrial organization. Research themes include innovation, entrepreneurship, organizational learning, and networks.

Printed copies of HBS Doctoral theses are available for use in Baker Library Special Collections and Archives.  

Electronic versions are available through the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database (HarvardKey required).

Since 2015, electronic copies are also available through DASH , Harvard's open access repository. 

This Collection is Part of:

The HBS Archives include the records of Harvard Business School from its founding in 1908 to the present day. The archives are a rich resource to learn about subjects such as:  the development of the case method, changes in curriculum, the intersection of the School and innovations in business, and the global impact of Harvard Business School.

While Sandel argues that pursuing perfection through genetic engineering would decrease our sense of humility, he claims that the sense of solidarity we would lose is also important.

This thesis summarizes several points in Sandel’s argument, but it does not make a claim about how we should understand his argument. A reader who read Sandel’s argument would not also need to read an essay based on this descriptive thesis.  

Broad thesis (arguable, but difficult to support with evidence) 

Michael Sandel’s arguments about genetic engineering do not take into consideration all the relevant issues.

This is an arguable claim because it would be possible to argue against it by saying that Michael Sandel’s arguments do take all of the relevant issues into consideration. But the claim is too broad. Because the thesis does not specify which “issues” it is focused on—or why it matters if they are considered—readers won’t know what the rest of the essay will argue, and the writer won’t know what to focus on. If there is a particular issue that Sandel does not address, then a more specific version of the thesis would include that issue—hand an explanation of why it is important.  

Arguable thesis with analytical claim 

While Sandel argues persuasively that our instinct to “remake” (54) ourselves into something ever more perfect is a problem, his belief that we can always draw a line between what is medically necessary and what makes us simply “better than well” (51) is less convincing.

This is an arguable analytical claim. To argue for this claim, the essay writer will need to show how evidence from the article itself points to this interpretation. It’s also a reasonable scope for a thesis because it can be supported with evidence available in the text and is neither too broad nor too narrow.  

Arguable thesis with normative claim 

Given Sandel’s argument against genetic enhancement, we should not allow parents to decide on using Human Growth Hormone for their children.

This thesis tells us what we should do about a particular issue discussed in Sandel’s article, but it does not tell us how we should understand Sandel’s argument.  

Questions to ask about your thesis 

• Is the thesis truly arguable? Does it speak to a genuine dilemma in the source, or would most readers automatically agree with it?  
• Is the thesis too obvious? Again, would most or all readers agree with it without needing to see your argument?  
• Is the thesis complex enough to require a whole essay's worth of argument?  
• Is the thesis supportable with evidence from the text rather than with generalizations or outside research?  
• Would anyone want to read a paper in which this thesis was developed? That is, can you explain what this paper is adding to our understanding of a problem, question, or topic?
• picture_as_pdf Thesis

• Harvard Business School →
• Doctoral Programs →

PhD Programs

• Accounting & Management
• Business Economics
• Health Policy (Management)
• Organizational Behavior
• Technology & Operations Management

Students in our PhD programs are encouraged from day one to think of this experience as their first job in business academia—a training ground for a challenging and rewarding career generating rigorous, relevant research that influences practice.

Our doctoral students work with faculty and access resources throughout HBS and Harvard University. The PhD program curriculum requires coursework at HBS and other Harvard discipline departments, and with HBS and Harvard faculty on advisory committees. Faculty throughout Harvard guide the programs through their participation on advisory committees.

How do I know which program is right for me?

There are many paths, but we are one HBS. Our PhD students draw on diverse personal and professional backgrounds to pursue an ever-expanding range of research topics. Explore more here about each program’s requirements & curriculum, read student profiles for each discipline as well as student research , and placement information.

The PhD in Business Administration grounds students in the disciplinary theories and research methods that form the foundation of an academic career. Jointly administered by HBS and GSAS, the program has five areas of study: Accounting and Management , Management , Marketing , Strategy , and Technology and Operations Management . All areas of study involve roughly two years of coursework culminating in a field exam. The remaining years of the program are spent conducting independent research, working on co-authored publications, and writing the dissertation. Students join these programs from a wide range of backgrounds, from consulting to engineering. Many applicants possess liberal arts degrees, as there is not a requirement to possess a business degree before joining the program

The PhD in Business Economics provides students the opportunity to study in both Harvard’s world-class Economics Department and Harvard Business School. Throughout the program, coursework includes exploration of microeconomic theory, macroeconomic theory, probability and statistics, and econometrics. While some students join the Business Economics program directly from undergraduate or masters programs, others have worked in economic consulting firms or as research assistants at universities or intergovernmental organizations.

The PhD program in Health Policy (Management) is rooted in data-driven research on the managerial, operational, and strategic issues facing a wide range of organizations. Coursework includes the study of microeconomic theory, management, research methods, and statistics. The backgrounds of students in this program are quite varied, with some coming from public health or the healthcare industry, while others arrive at the program with a background in disciplinary research

The PhD program in Organizational Behavior offers two tracks: either a micro or macro approach. In the micro track, students focus on the study of interpersonal relationships within organizations and the effects that groups have on individuals. Students in the macro track use sociological methods to examine organizations, groups, and markets as a whole, including topics such as the influence of individuals on organizational change, or the relationship between social missions and financial objectives. Jointly administered by HBS and GSAS, the program includes core disciplinary training in sociology or psychology, as well as additional coursework in organizational behavior.

Accounting & Management  

Business economics  , health policy (management)  , management  , marketing  , organizational behavior  , strategy  , technology & operations management  .

2023 Peter Rice Prize: Sujie Park’s “Material Alchemy”

by Sujie Park (MArch I ’23) — Recipient of the Peter Rice Prize. The history…

Andrew Witt and Martin Bechthold , Faculty Advisors

Spring 2023

2023 Urban Planning Thesis Prize: Michael Zajakowski Uhll’s “Our History is our Resource:” Historic Narrative as Urban Planning Strategy in Chicago’s Pullman Neighborhood

by Michael Zajakowski Uhll (MUP ’23) — Recipient of the Urban Planning Thesis Prize. How…

Rachel Meltzer , Faculty Advisor

2023 James Templeton Kelley Prize: Jacqueline Wong’s “An Intrinsic Model for a Non-Neutral Plural National School”

by Jacqueline Wong (MArch I ’23) — Recipient of the James Templeton Kelley Prize, Master…

Sergio Lopez-Pineiro, Faculty Advisor

2023 Urban Design Thesis Prize: Saad Boujane’s “Dwellings, Paths, Places: Configurative Habitat in Casablanca, Morocco “

by Saad Boujane (MAUD ’23) — Recipient of the Urban Design Thesis Prize. The Modernist…

Peter Rowe , Faculty Advisor

2023 Landscape Architecture AP Thesis Prize and 2023 Digital Design Prize: Sonia Sobrino Ralston’s “Uncommon Knowledge: Practices and Protocols for Environmental Information”

by Sonia Sobrino Ralston (MLA I AP ’23) — Recipient of the Landscape Architecture AP…

Rosalea Monacella , Faculty Advisor

2023 Design Studies Thesis Prize: Alaa Suliman Eltayeb Mohamed Hamid’s Ghostopia: Interrogating Colonial Legacies and A Manifesto for The Modernized Nile

by Alaa Suliman Eltayeb Mohamed Hamid (MDes ’23) — Recipient of the Design Studies Thesis…

Montserrat Bonvehi Rosich, Faculty Advisor

2023 Landscape Architecture Thesis Prize: Kevin Robishaw’s Manatees and Margaritas: Toward a Strange New Paradise

by Kevin Robishaw (MLA I ’23) — Recipient of the Landscape Architecture Thesis Prize.

Craig Douglas , Faculty Advisor

2023 Outstanding Design Engineering Project Award: Rebecca Brand and Caroline Fong’s Jua: Cultivating Digital Knowledge Networks for Smallholder Farmers

by Rebecca Brand (MDE ’23) and…

Jock Herron , Faculty Advisor

2023 James Templeton Kelley Prize: Deok Kyu Chung’s “Boundaries of Everyday: walls to voids, voids to solids, solids to walls”

by Deok Kyu Chung (MArch II ’23) — Recipient of the James Templeton Kelley Prize,…

Lyndon Neri and Rossana Hu, Faculty Advisors

2023 Landscape Architecture AP Thesis Prize: Celina Abba and Enrique Cavelier’s Plantation Futures: Foregrounding Lost Narratives

by Celina Abba (MLA I AP ’23) and Enrique…

Pagination Links

• Go to page 2
• Go to page 3
• Go to page 4
• Go to page 5
• Go to page 6
• Go to page 7
• Go to page 8
• Go to page 9
• Go to page 10
• Go to page 11
• Go to page 12
• Go to page 13
• Go to page 14
• Go to page 15
• Go to page 16
• Go to page 17

• Dissertation Advisory Committee
• Introduction

Harvard Griffin GSAS strives to provide students with timely, accurate, and clear information. If you need help understanding a specific policy, please contact the office that administers that policy.

• Application for Degree
• Credit for Completed Graduate Work
• Ad Hoc Degree Programs
• Acknowledging the Work of Others
• Advanced Planning
• Dissertation Submission Checklist
• Formatting Your Dissertation
• Publishing Options
• Submitting Your Dissertation
• English Language Proficiency
• PhD Program Requirements
• Secondary Fields
• Year of Graduate Study (G-Year)
• Master's Degrees
• Grade and Examination Requirements
• Conduct and Safety
• Financial Aid
• Non-Resident Students
• Registration

Dissertation Advisory Committee; Thesis Acceptance Certificate

The Dissertation Advisory Committee formally approves the dissertation by signing the Thesis Acceptance Certificate . In PhD programs that are not lab-based, this committee also guides the student in writing the dissertation. The committee should work cohesively in supporting the student to produce their best work. The signatures of these faculty members on the Thesis Acceptance Certificate indicate formal acceptance of the student’s scholarly contribution to the field.  

In some fields, especially in the sciences, the Dissertation Advisory Committee described below is known locally as the “Dissertation Defense Committee.” In these programs, a separate additional committee (also called the Dissertation Advisory Committee) that includes the student’s primary advisor, will guide the student’s progress until submission for formal review by the DAC/defense committee. The members of the DAC/defense committee give formal approval to the finished work, but the student’s work will be understood to have occurred under the guidance of the primary advisor. The changes to the DAC/defense committee as described below do not in any way affect the essential structure of dissertation advising that already exists in lab-based PhD programs. 

The following policy applies to every Harvard Griffin GSAS Dissertation Advisory Committee formed on or after July 1, 2024. Any Dissertation Advisory Committee approved before July 1, 2024 is subject to the rules outlined below, see “Grandfathering.”  

Effective July 1, 2024:  

•  The graduate thesis for the PhD shall be accepted, and the Thesis Acceptance Certificate signed, by at least three advisors, who will form the Dissertation Advisory Committee (DAC). At least two members of the committee shall be on-ladder faculty members. 
• In FAS-based programs, the Director of Graduate Studies or Department Chair or Area Chair shall sign off on the proposed committee.  
• For programs based outside the FAS, the Program Head shall sign off. 
• A program may petition the Dean of Harvard Griffin GSAS to consider a variation to the above requirement. 
• A Professor in Residence or Professor of the Practice may serve as a non-chairing member of the DAC, as long as the committee composition is consistent with “1.”  
•  Senior Lecturers and other non-ladder faculty may serve on the DAC as the third member when appropriate, as approved by the Director of Graduate Studies, Department Chair, Area Chair, or Program Head, as long as the committee composition is consistent with “1.” 
• Tenured emeriti faculty members (including research professors) may serve on the DAC. They may co-chair the DAC with a current on-ladder faculty member from the student’s department or program but may not serve as the sole chair. 
• Non-Harvard faculty of equivalent appointment rank to on-ladder faculty at Harvard may serve as one of the non-chairing members of the DAC.  
• A committee with co-chairs shall require a third member, consistent with ”1.” 
• Additional members may be appointed to the DAC, as long as the core three-member committee is consistent with ”1.” 
• They may continue to serve as a committee member if they have moved to another institution with an appointment rank equivalent to on-ladder at Harvard.  
• Or, if they are no longer serving on the DAC (by choice of the student, the student’s program, and/or the departing faculty member), the advisor must be replaced in accordance with ”1.” 
• If the departing faculty member will remain as chair on the DAC, a co-chair must be designated in accordance with “1.” The co-chair may, in this instance, be the Director of Graduate Studies in the student’s program if a faculty member with field expertise is not available to serve in this capacity. 

Please note:

• “On ladder” refers to faculty members with tenure or who are tenure-track. The phrase “on ladder” is generally not used at HMS, but all HMS and HCSPH assistant, associate, and full professors are considered to be “on ladder” according to HMS Faculty Affairs, and, for the purposes of this legislation, may serve on the DAC/defense committee. 
• With regard to paragraph 3.b.ii, and in keeping with the spirit of this legislation, ordinarily a scholar appointed as a College Fellow would not be ready to serve as one of the three core members of the committee. 
• With regard to paragraph 3.b.iv, individuals who do not fit this category (e.g., a scholar holding a non-ladder faculty position at another institution) may sit on the committee as a fourth member, in accordance with paragraph 3.d.  
• On the rare occasion that a situation requires special consideration, programs are advised to consult with the Dean of Harvard Griffin GSAS.  

Grandfathering

Grandfathering, and rules applying to all dissertation advisory committees, regardless of status prior to July 1, 2024:  

For dissertation advisory committees approved before July 1, 2024 under the former policy ( Two signatories must be members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS); FAS emeriti (including research professors) and faculty members from other Schools at Harvard who hold appointments on Harvard Griffin GSAS degree committees are authorized to sign DACs as FAS members. Harvard Griffin GSAS strongly recommends that the chair of the dissertation committee be a member of the FAS. If approved by the department, it is possible to have co-chairs of the dissertation committee as long as one is a member of FAS) , the following rules apply:   

Dissertation Advisory Committees approved prior to July 1, 2024 will be grandfathered, except in two situations:  

• An existing DAC chaired by an individual whose faculty appointment does not meet the requirements of the new rules will need to be adjusted. A co-chair should be designated, with the option of appointing the DGS to serve as co-chair, as allowed in paragraph 3.e.iii;  
• An existing DAC with fewer than three members should be updated, and the new member(s) should be consistent with the new policy.   

Thesis Acceptance Certificate

Contact info, noël bisson, shelby johnson, explore events.

• University News
• Faculty & Research
• Health & Medicine
• Science & Technology
• Social Sciences
• Humanities & Arts
• Students & Alumni
• Arts & Culture
• Sports & Athletics
• The Professions
• International
• New England Guide

The Magazine

• Current Issue
• Past Issues

Class Notes & Obituaries

• Browse Class Notes
• Browse Obituaries

Collections

• Commencement
• The Context
• Harvard Squared
• Harvard in the Headlines

Support Harvard Magazine

• Why We Need Your Support
• How We Are Funded
• Ways to Support the Magazine
• Special Gifts
• Behind the Scenes

Classifieds

• Vacation Rentals & Travel
• Real Estate
• Products & Services
• Harvard Authors’ Bookshelf
• Education & Enrichment Resource
• Ad Prices & Information
• Place An Ad

Follow Harvard Magazine:

Science & Technology | 5.9.2024

Proactive AI Policy

Businesses should start self-regulating before government intervention, argue harvard professors..

At a May 7 conference, "Leading with AI," at Harvard Business School, many speakers argued that businesses will have to fundamentally shift how they approach labor, upskilling, marketing, and more in the age of AI. | MONTAGE ILLUSTRATION BY NIKO YAITANES/ HARVARD MAGAZINE ; PHOTOGRAPHS BY ADOBE STOCK, UNSPLASH

Artificial intelligence is developing faster than policymakers can keep up, and the gap in understanding between government and industry could pose challenges for effective regulation. But that doesn’t mean corporations should develop and deploy AI as they please until the government catches up, cautioned speakers discussing AI regulation at a May 7 “Leading with AI” conference at Harvard Business School (HBS). Instead, panelists urged businesses to take proactive steps in self-regulating and preparing for government regulation.

“You need disclosure through [a company] as things go wrong, and internal transparency that will prepare you for when the government starts to mandate transparency,” said Noah Feldman , Frankfurter professor of law (who advised on Facebook’s self-regulatory “oversight board”). “It’s coming. There’s never been a regulatory regime that hasn’t relied on transparency as one of its crucial tools.”

At the conference—presented by HBS Alumni Relations and the Harvard Digital Data Design Institute, a lab dedicated to the study of technology and business—many speakers argued that businesses will have to fundamentally shift how they approach labor, upskilling, marketing, and more in the age of AI. “This shift is not incremental,” said Fitzhugh professor of business administration Tsedal Neeley. “It’s not tweaking existing structures and processes. This is introducing radical changes, new systems, new processes, new structures.” HBS has committed to studying and preparing students for these changes, said Mitchell Weiss, MBA ’04, Menschel professor of management practice. Last fall, HBS became “maybe the only business school to require that every student have GPT Plus,” which provides access to ChatGPT’s most advanced model—“and we paid for it,” he said.

One of those fundamental shifts will take place in the relationship between business and technology, speakers at the conference said. As corporations make decisions about how to self-regulate and maintain records of AI usage and development, “we can no longer sit in business siloes,” said Anita Lynch, M.B.A. ’08, a board member for Nasdaq U.S. Exchanges. “You can’t be a business leader and not understand the technology anymore.”

Speakers also anticipated the form that government regulation might take. In a Bloomberg article last year, Feldman laid out possible approaches. The most extreme would be nationalization of the AI industry—a path few in the United States endorse. More moderate options, he continued, include criminal codes, statutory civil regulation, and administrative rules. In these more moderate paths forward, a separate regulatory agency overseeing AI is unlikely, he said at the conference: existing “regulatory agencies won’t just hand over their authority.” Instead, he foresees existing agencies taking over relevant areas of oversight.

Feldman also outlined an additional option: self-regulation by the industry. This option has already been pursued to some extent: in July 2023 , companies including Meta and Google voluntarily committed to AI safety standards—though there are “no hard gating factors to stop them from doing things differently,” Lynch said. Moving forward, she added, governmental regulation will set a “minimum standard”—but self-regulation and higher internal standards that companies can begin to establish now will remain important.

Lynch pointed to another technology that could provide guidance as regulators face the unknown. The Stanford computer scientist Andrew Ng has compared AI to electricity—and regulation in that industry is strict yet flexible as AI regulation should be, Lynch said. “It’s hard to think about the different ways [electricity] could be used or abused, but there are basic safety protocols,” she said. With AI, too, “There are industry-specific uses that are going to be tough to anticipate, and therefore to regulate. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attempt to, and that doesn’t mean there’s no hope in trying to.”

Those attempts may require some experimentation—especially now, in the present era of little to no regulation. Bemis professor of international law and professor of computer science Jonathan Zittrain, faculty director of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society , floated policies that would encourage data collection and disclosure. For instance, Zittrain asked, how can the government incentivize disclosure of “something that’s not clearly illegal—because there hasn’t been time to identify and pass every conceivable protective law—but is a little dodgy?” If the corporation discloses that activity, he continued, “maybe that should occasion a cap for damages.” A policy like this shifts the incentives for the company: “I’m going to come forward, give society a chance to grapple with this, and I’ll be protected.”

Amid this experimentation, Lynch said, it’s important to educate policymakers so they have the foundations to make such decisions. “Despite initiatives trying to get more tech and product people” involved in government , “I don’t know that they’ll ever catch up. So we’ll have to come up with a mechanism that works in spite of the lack of supply,” she continued. “We’re going to have to educate people more.”

It’s necessary not only to decide on the exact form of regulation, but also the purpose, added Zittrain, who has taught a course on ethics and AI . “You have to have a destination, regulatorily speaking, in mind,” he said. “I don’t know if we do.” Currently, companies such as OpenAI “align” their models with human values during the training process to ensure that they don’t produce offensive or harmful outputs. If users ask ChatGPT how to commit a crime, for example, the bot is trained to respond “in a friendly but ultimately scolding voice” that it can’t provide that information, Zittrain said. But, he asked, are we sure such guardrails are necessary—and don’t conflict with free speech principles?

“I find myself worrying more about the fine-tuning of these models for safety than I do about the recondite uncertainty about what they’re going to say to begin with,” he said. “The process of alignment happens totally internally, and we don’t know—except for what [companies] choose to share—what that alignment looks like .”

Working through these questions should be a societal process, speakers said—not one confined to tech companies and Congress. And this process offers the chance to fundamentally shift how we think about regulating the Internet. Now, Zittrain said, our system is like a cocktail olive: a big green oval with a small portion of red; in other words, “everything not forbidden is permitted.” What if we swap that logic, he asked, and everything not permitted is prohibited?

As AI continues to progress, it’s important for regulators to keep big questions like this in mind alongside concerns about regulating specific technological advances. “From a regulator point of view,” Zittrain said, “figuring out how to…[keep] the wheels on the bus as the bus is roaring along, while also thinking about the map—that’s the important thing.”

You might also like

Harvard Students form Pro-Palestine Encampment

Protesters set up camp in Harvard Yard.

Harvard Discloses Administrator and Investment Manager Compensation

The annual release on leaders’ most recent pay

Radcliffe Institute Announces 2024-2025 Fellows

Scholars will pursue interdisciplinary research on climate change, the Supreme Court, and more. 

Most popular

Michelle Yeoh’s Three Tips for Success

Oscar-winning actress offers advice in Harvard Law School Class Day address.

More to explore

University People

Harvard Cardinal Robert W. McElroy on the Changing Catholic Church

Cardinal Robert W. McElroy on how the Catholic Church has moved towards inclusivity.

AI as Cancer Oracle?

How is artificial intelligence (AI) being used for cancer detection and prevention?

The Harvard Graduate and Early Vegetarian Benjamin Smith Lyman

Brief life of the vegetarian trailblazer, 1835-1920