Reforming the doctorate in the social sciences : a report on good practice.
Date: 2017-06-22
Institutions: European University Institute
Subjects: European University Institute, diploma, education policy, educational reform, higher education, professional qualifications, social sciences, university research

Reforming the Doctorate in  
the Social Sciences:  
A Report on Good Practice

Published in Italy in February 2017
© European University Institute

The European Commission supports the EUI through the European Union budget. This publication reflects the views only of the author(s), and the 
Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Foreword

Recent decades have seen a rapid expansion of doctoral education in Europe. At the same time, a number of 
new challenges have emerged, not the least related to high levels of unemployment, coupled with the scarcity 
of  financial  resources  in  the  educational  sector.  A  different  category  of  challenges  relates  to  difficulties  in 
simultaneously  meeting  the  standards  of  scientific  excellence  and  the  expectations  of  many  non-academic 
employers who do recognise the need for highly educated specialists, but who may be less convinced of the 
capacity of the traditional doctorate to provide the required qualities. At national and European levels, much 
attention has been given to the need to further develop doctoral education through, for instance, improved 
funding arrangements, doctoral schools, and other forms of structured PhD education, internationalisation, 
and  increased  attention  on  various  ‘skills’  elements  as  part  of  doctoral  education.  One  feature  of  these 
discussions and of the responses so far has been the predominant place that experiences from medicine and 
‘hard’ natural sciences has had, simply because of the volume of doctoral education in those fields, as compared 
to, for instance, social sciences. The specific challenges related to doctoral education in social sciences have so 
far received much less attention.

In 2016, the European University Institute (EUI) reached the age of 40 years. Since 1976 the EUI has served 
as a European level institution for doctoral education in the fields represented at its four departments, namely 
economics, history and civilisation, law, and political and social sciences. Doctoral education, and the quest 
for  excellence  in  it,  remains  the  core  business  and  main  identity  of  the  EUI.  At  its  inception,  the  EUI  was 
unique  due  to  its  European  and  international  setup,  its  focus  on  social  sciences  broadly  speaking,  and  the 
absence  of  undergraduate  and  master’s  students,  allowing  its  faculty  to  focus  on  the  provision  of  excellent 
supervision and PhD level teaching. The four decades that the EUI has been in existence have witnessed the 
emergence of structured PhD schools or programmes at national level, at top universities, or in the form of 
networks of universities, and of internationalisation through mobility of PhD researchers, exchanges between 
various  national  programmes  and  funded  European-level  schemes  for  various  dimensions  of  Europeanised 
PhD education.

As a consequence, the EUI may be less unique than 40 years ago, but this does not mean it would have lost 
its cutting edge or its place as a vanguard and a role model. As a European-level and highly internationalised 
institution of doctoral education with experienced and committed faculty whose primary task is to supervise 
PhD researchers, the EUI remains a key actor in PhD education in social sciences. The developments that have 
meanwhile happened elsewhere may cause a need for the EUI to rethink what such a key actor role may mean 
in decades to come. The Institute may become more of a laboratory for new innovations in doctoral education, 
or a hub of networks across disciplines or across Europe, in exchanging experiences and reform ideas. This may 
translate into a more dynamic approach internally at the EUI, as to how its doctoral programmes will continue 
their quest for excellence.

The need to take stock of developments elsewhere and of contemporary challenges facing doctoral education 
led the EUI to launch a process of rethinking the doctorate in social sciences. Instead of rushing to improvised 
internal reforms it decided first to proceed with an ‘external’ dimension of the overall project.  A small and 
distinguished Task Force of experts from across Europe was assembled to generate, develop, and assess examples 
and elements of good practice in the field of doctoral education in social sciences. 

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 1

The  work  of  the  Task  Force  was  greatly  facilitated  by  interactions,  including  a  full  day  of  consultation  with 
Brussels-based interlocutors that have vast experience of and great insight into doctoral education and related 
policy considerations. Warm thanks are extended to the Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and 
Culture at the European Commission, to the European Research Council Executive Agency and to the European 
University Association and its Council for Doctoral Education. Hopefully, these European-level key actors as 
well as a range of national authorities such as research councils and ministries for education or research will 
find this report useful. 

As EUI Dean and convener of the Task Force, I am much indebted to the willingness of the five external members 
to engage in a year-long process of information collection, brainstorming, and reflection. The external experts 
were  recruited  from  all  corners  of  Europe  and  the  disciplines  of  the  four  departments  at  the  EUI,  namely 
Professor Sandra Fachelli (social and political sciences, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain), Professor 
Gábor  Kézdi  (economics,  Central  European  University,  Hungary),  Professor  Sari  Lindblom-Ylänne  (higher 
education, University of Helsinki, Finland), Professor Linda Mulcahy (law, London School of Economics and 
Political  Science,  the  United  Kingdom),  and  Professor  Jean-Frédéric  Schaub  (history,    School  for  Advanced 
Studies in the Social Sciences, France). The Task Force has been not only a group of leading experts in the 
practice of doctoral education in social sciences, but also a ‘network of networks’ which has greatly served its 
aspirations to map good practices across Europe and to provide a good point of departure for further discussions 
within and between disciplines, and on national and European levels.

The Task Force members join me in thanking Dr Stefanie Rudig, who was recruited as a postdoctoral-level 
academic assistant to assist the Task Force and the Dean in the project. She collected and maintained a vast 
repository of materials that were made use of by the Task Force, prepared lists of discussion themes for each 
meeting and each ‘basket’, participated in the meetings with thorough knowledge and great insight but at the 
same time taking careful notes of the discussions, so that she then was able to produce draft versions of the 
various  chapters  of  this  report.  A  number  of  drafts  were  circulated  to  garner  comments  and  amendments 
towards what now can be found in this report as the consensus view of the Task Force members.

What follows below, is not a prescriptive list of reforms that would need to be implemented in doctoral education 
in social sciences across Europe. Hopefully, this report will prove to be something more important than what 
such a list ever could be, namely a comprehensive and well-informed stock-taking of good practices across 
Europe, based on the identification and analysis of the current situation and of contemporary challenges. As 
such, the present report provides evidence-based assessment of a range of solutions that have been or are being 
verified in practice as solutions that constitute improvements in the provision of doctoral education in social 
sciences. 

Florence, 10 February 2017,

Martin Scheinin
Professor, Dean of Graduate Studies
European University Institute

2 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

Executive Summary

This report responds to the changing nature of doctoral education and the need to engage in a reflection and 
reform process, especially during times of economic downturn when public university funding comes under 
increasing threat. It is based on a project that was initiated by the European University Institute (EUI) in late 
2015 to provide a neutral forum for discussion. A distinguished Task Force of eminent professors from across 
Europe carried out the mandate to identify ‘good practice’ in doctoral education. As general discussions on the 
doctorate tend to pay main attention to medicine and STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) 
subjects, this project was to focus specifically on doctoral education in the social sciences (broadly understood). 
This focus also distinguishes the present project from much important work that has been done by the European 
University Association (EUA), the largest representative body of higher education at a European level which 
seeks to promote European policies, networking opportunities, and the visibility of European universities more 
generally. The compilation of good practice in the present report has no regulatory function, as it was assessed 
and  collected  by  active  academics  and  not  policymakers;  but  it  is  expected  to  be  of  use  as  a  first  necessary 
mapping of good practice in doctoral education in social sciences.

The project relies on eight structural principles, each discussed in a chapter that seeks to identify good practice 
in the respective area:

1) The Thesis: We stress that the thesis is the key output of doctoral education and identify central 
elements, including academic quality, scope, an oral defence, grading systems etc.
2) Supervision: PhD supervision needs to be fully recognised as professional work and regulated by the 
university, which assumes collective responsibility.
3) Coursework: Structured doctoral programmes include research and taught phases; at least three years 
are spent on individual research under supervision and end in the completion of a high quality thesis.
4) Academic and Professional Components: Doctoral education prepares PhD graduates for a number 
of senior positions in both the public and private sectors. Core skills are developed through the 
doctorate as well as in additional professional skills training.
5) Technology: Universities exploit the potential of new technologies and online resources for modern 
and innovative doctoral education, providing digital literacy training.
6) Mobility and Internationalisation: Institutions recognise the added value of exposure to different 
(academic) cultures and new ways of thinking by promoting international collaboration and 
networking.
7) Funding: The funding of PhD programmes and individual PhD candidates needs to be transparent 
and sustainable. Doctoral researches are recognised as professionals who deserve proper remuneration, 
including health insurance, pension rights, and social security benefits.
8) The Job Market: Institutions need to be explicit about the set of skills gained through doctoral 
education and to disseminate relevant information on professional opportunities both within and 
outside academia.

In a concluding chapter, the points that the Task Force has identified as good practice are collected and organised 
according to their addressee.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 3

Introduction

The last two decades have seen major changes and challenges in the field of tertiary education. Institutional 
policymakers have been called upon to initiate fundamental reforms linked to the three-cycle degree structure of 
the Bologna Process. In 2000 in Lisbon, the European Council announced its strategic objective of transforming 
the European Union into “the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world” within a 
decade.1  To this end, the European Commission launched its flagship programmes for research and innovation, 
most recently Horizon 2020, which will run from 2014 to 2020 with a budget of nearly 70 billion euro. At the 
same time, the global financial crisis has added to the pressures universities are facing. Institutions of higher 
education are increasingly being questioned about the relevance and impact of their programmes, in particular 
with regard to the employability of their graduates. In this context, the third cycle, the education of doctoral 
researchers, has come under keen scrutiny. PhD candidates are acknowledged as drivers of change and innovation 
who contribute crucially to the production of knowledge. Recognising the importance of doctoral and post-
doctoral researchers in a knowledge-based society, many countries have implemented reforms to improve the 
conditions for doctoral education. Beyond that, we are witnessing the opening up of doctoral education, as the 
number of doctoral candidates has risen significantly in recent years. The OECD notes a 56 per cent increase 
across OECD countries at the beginning of the twenty-first century, from 158 000 new doctorates in 2000 to 247 
000 in 2012.2  These challenges have prompted initiatives to rethink doctoral education in and beyond Europe. 
Much of the attention in the general discussion has been paid to doctorates in medicine and the so-called STEM 
fields  (science,  technology,  engineering,  and  mathematics),  while  concerns  specifically  relating  to  the  social 
sciences and humanities have been obscured or have been only insufficiently addressed.

Against  this  backdrop,  the  European 
University  Institute  (EUI)  in  Florence, 
Italy,  has  decided  to  launch  a  project 
to  address  that  void  by  opening  up 
discussions on the future of the doctorate 
in  social  sciences  and  humanities.  The 
task  is  made  no  less  important  by  the 
fact  that  the  project  was  launched  at 
a  time  when  established  practices  in 
higher  education  systems  are  being 
called  into  question  by  the  current 
economic climate in Europe. 

As  a  non-national  institution  with  a 
multi-national  academic  community, 
the  EUI  provides  a  neutral  forum  for 
identifying  good  practice  in  doctoral 
sciences 
education 
the 
(broadly  understood).  Under 
the 
leadership of the EUI Dean of Graduate 

social 

in 

European University Institute

Established  in  1976,  the  European  University  Institute  (EUI) 
is  a  unique  international  institution  for  doctoral  and  post-
doctoral studies and research. It was born out of an atmosphere 
of  cooperation  in  recognition  of  the  need  to  study  Europe 
academically  and  to  foster  cultural  exchange  between  EU 
Member States and beyond. Hosting a culturally diverse academic 
community  of  more  than  a  thousand  scholars  from  over  sixty 
countries,  the  EUI  provides  structured  doctoral  programmes 
and supervision in its four departments: Economics, History and 
Civilisation, Law, and Political and Social Sciences. The EUI is also 
home to the Max Weber Programme for post-doctoral research 
and training as well as the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced 
Studies,  which  focuses  on  inter-disciplinary,  comparative,  and 
applied policy research.

www.eui.eu

1  
2  
holders in social sciences, business and law (21%); OECD (2014).

EP (2000).
Science PhDs accounted for the largest share of new doctoral graduates (24%), followed by new doctorate 

4 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

 
Studies,  a  small  and  distinguished  Task  Force  of  experts  from  across  Europe  was  assembled  to  generate, 
develop, and assess examples and elements of good practices. The five external members of the Task Force are 
eminent academics who were recruited for their expertise, experience, and insight in running and coordinating 
doctoral programmes. Each Task Force member is affiliated to a key European partner university in one of 
the disciplines represented at the EUI, with one additional member representing university pedagogy as an 
academic discipline. 

The Task Force

Martin Scheinin, EUI, project leader
Martin  Scheinin  is  Professor  of  International  Law  and  Human  Rights  and  (in  2016-2018)  Dean  of 
Graduate Studies at the EUI. He was appointed at the EUI in 2008 after fifteen years as professor in 
Finland,  first  at  the  University  of  Helsinki  where  he  also  obtained  his  doctorate  in  law  in  1991,  and 
subsequently at Åbo Akademi University in Turku where he also served as the Director of the Institute 
for Human Rights in 1998-2008. During that time he was the founder and leader of a national Doctoral 
School in human rights research as well as of a Nordic School in human rights research. From 1997 
to  2004  he  was  a  member  of  the  United  Nations  Human  Rights  Committee,  an  independent  expert 
body  assessing  states’  compliance  with  the  International  Covenant  on  Civil  and  Political  Rights.  He 
also served as the first United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, a 
position of trust he held from 2005 until 2011. 

Sandra Fachelli, UAB Barcelona, sociology 
Sandra Fachelli is a member of the Department of Sociology and the Research Group on Education and 
Work (GRET) at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB). She received her PhD in Sociology 
from the UAB in 2009. Her research focuses on higher education, social mobility, inequality and social 
stratification.  She  has  taught  at  universities  in  Argentina,  México,  as  well  as  at  Spanish  universities. 
She  is  Teacher  Coordinator  of  the  Master  in  Applied  Social  Research  Techniques  (TISA)  at  the  UB-
UAB. She plays an active role in promoting the realisation of International PhDs under the INCASI 
European Project (International Network for Comparative Analysis of Social Inequalities), a network 
of 19 universities (10 European and 9 Latin American) that addresses, among other issues, educational 
inequalities.

Gábor Kézdi, CEU Budapest, economics
Gábor  Kézdi  is  Professor  of  Economics  at  Central  European  University  (CEU)  and  Senior  Research 
Fellow at the Institute of Economics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (IE/HAS), both in Budapest. 
He received his PhD from the University of Michigan in 2003. His research interests include labour 
economics, the economics of education, and household behaviour. Some of his research investigates 
the intersection of poverty and ethnicity, with a special focus on the Roma minority of East-Central 
Europe. He teaches data analysis, econometrics, labour economics and programme evaluation.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 5

The Task Force (continued)

Sari Lindblom-Ylänne, Helsinki, university pedagogy
Sari Lindblom-Ylänne is Professor of Higher Education and Director of the Helsinki University Centre 
for University Teaching and Learning. She is also the Vice Dean of the Faculty of Educational Sciences, 
responsible  for  research  and  doctoral  education  as  well  as  the  director  of  the  doctoral  programme 
PsyCo  (Psychology,  Learning  and  Communication).  Lindblom-Ylänne  is  a  licensed  psychologist.  She 
was president of two international research associations: EARLI (European Association for Research on 
Learning and Instruction) from 2009 to 2011 and WERA (World Education Research Association) from 
2014  to  2016.  Sari  Lindblom-Ylänne  is  actively  involved  in  many  international  research  projects.  Her 
research focuses on student learning and teaching at university, for example, on approaches to learning 
and teaching, self-regulation, self-efficacy beliefs, motivation to studying, wellbeing and stress, assessment 
practices and quality enhancement in higher education.

Linda Mulcahy, LSE London, law
Linda Mulcahy is Professor of Law at the London School of Economics. Having gained qualifications in 
law, sociology and the history of art and architecture, Linda Mulcahy’s work has a strong interdisciplinary 
flavour. Her research focuses on disputes and their resolution and she has studied the socio-legal dynamics 
of disputes in a number of contexts including the car distribution industry, NHS, divorce, public sector 
complaints systems and judicial review. Her work often has an empirical focus and she has received a 
number of grants from the ESRC, AHRC, Department of Health, Nuffield Foundation and Lotteries Fund 
in support of her work. A former chair of the National Socio-Legal Studies Association Linda Mulcahy is 
the Director of the newly created PhD Academy and ESRC funded Doctoral Training Partnership at the 
London School of Economics and Political Science.

Jean-Frédéric Schaub, EHESS Paris, history
Jean-Frédéric  Schaub  is  Scientific  Director  at  the  School  for  Advanced  Studies  in  the  Social  Sciences 
(EHESS),  Paris,  and  Researcher  at  the  centre  Mondes  Américains  of  EHESS.  His  research  has  covered 
various fields, including the situation of the kingdom of Portugal within the Hispanic monarchy, the Jewish 
community in Oran under Spanish rule, the Spanish roots of French absolutism, the British presence in 
the Atlantic and its relationships with previous Iberian experiences and, recently, the historical shaping of 
racial categories in the West. He has served on the directing board at Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences 
Sociales, as assistant to the President (2000-2004) and senior assistant to the President (2004-2005).

Stefanie Rudig, EUI, project associate
Stefanie  Rudig  holds  master’s  degrees  in  modern  philologies  from  the  universities  of  Innsbruck  and 
Oxford. Her academic education included research stays in the UK, North America, Vietnam, and New 
Zealand. She worked as lecturer in English Literary and Cultural Studies at the University of Innsbruck, 
where she completed her PhD on nineteenth-century female migrants. She is currently employed as a 
postdoc-level Academic Assistant at the EUI, working with Martin Scheinin.

6 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

The  Task  Force  was  set  up  in  the  autumn  of  2015  for  a  period  of  eighteen  months.  In  2016,  it  met  four 
times, three of them at the EUI and once in Brussels to discuss doctoral education with key European-level 
stakeholders. Discussions were structured around what has been termed ‘baskets’ to give due consideration to 
the various interconnected aspects of modern doctoral education, spanning definitions of an excellent thesis 
to the exigencies of both the academic and non-academic labour market. The present report is conceived of 
as a catalogue of good practice in doctoral education in and beyond Europe, with a particular focus on social 
sciences. It is expected to have its own value as a first mapping of good practice in PhD education in social 
sciences. Various European, national and university-level actors are invited to make best possible use of it. For 
the EUI as the initiator of the process, this report is expected to constitute the ‘external dimension’ of a long-
term reflection and reform process that will be taking place internally at the EUI. As a result, while the EUI is 
obviously motivated by self-interest to debate the future of high-quality PhD education, this report is not just 
intended for internal usage, but for a much broader audience and application.

Eight  thematic  ‘baskets’  served  as  the  structural  principles  of  the  Task  Force  meetings.  The  present  report 
utilises this structure and is hence subdivided into the following chapters:

1)  The Thesis
Supervision
2) 
Coursework
3) 
Academic and Professional Components
4) 
Technology
5) 
Mobility and Internationalisation
6) 
Funding
7) 
8)  The Job Market

Each  chapter  will  discuss  the  principal  findings  the  Task  Force  has  agreed  on  and  will  be  supplemented  by 
information boxes containing relevant citations, statistics, or graphs. The final chapter Conclusions consolidates 
what the Task Force has identified as good practice in the text of the preceding chapters.

The notion of ‘good practice’ throughout this report carries three important connotations. Firstly, the Task Force has 
sought to conduct an inventory concerning actual practice in PhD education in social sciences, in various disciplines 
and in different parts of Europe. Identifying something as a good practice hence entails a claim that this something is 
already happening and that experiences therefore can be obtained and assessed. Secondly, the notion of good practice 
relates to what is, in at least one respect, characteristic or conducive of running a PhD programme in a successful 
way, without producing in any other respect negative side effects that would outweigh the benefits obtained. This low 
degree of normative assessment encapsulated in the notion of good practice also entails that in a specific issue there 
can be more than one good practice that on their own can be recommended as beneficial, so that the choice between 
them may be left to depend on other factors, such as synergies to be sought through combinations between different 
areas of good practice. And thirdly, using the term good practice throughout the report is related to the mandate of the 
Task Force: We are not policymakers and we do not have a mandate to select or even propose one model over others. 
We see ourselves as experienced practitioners in the field of running and designing PhD education in social sciences. 
Where we have been able to agree that something is a good idea, we have identified it as a good practice. Needless to 
say, the repository of good practice included in this report does not represent an institutional commitment either by 
the EUI or any of the institutions where the members of the Task Force are based.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 7

This report has no regulatory or normative function. The Task Force has no larger mandate than to respond to 
the request by the EUI to identify ‘good practice’ in PhD education in social sciences, in Europe and possibly 
beyond,  towards  eventual  reform  initiatives  that  will  need  to  be  launched  separately,  including  by  defining 
their aims and objectives. In this report, the notion of ‘good practice’ refers to existing or at least emerging 
experiences  and  solutions  that  have  proven  to  work  in  practice,  contributing  to  PhD  education  in  social 
sciences that represent academic excellence, contribute to improved motivation amongst PhD researchers and 
supervisors, promote academic literacy, interdisciplinarity and/or better integration between academia and the 
evolving labour market for social science PhDs, and are cost-efficient.

The European Charter for Researchers

This report touches on rights and obligations that are laid down in the European Charter for Researchers, 
published  by  the  European  Commission  in  2005  with  a  view  to  making  research  an  attractive  career. 
Instead of making repeated references to the Charter, we recommend the perusal of the whole document 
to researchers, employers, and funders.

The European Charter for Researchers is a set of general principles and requirements which specifies the 
roles, responsibilities and entitlements of researchers as well as of employers and/or funders of researchers. 
The aim of the Charter is to ensure that the nature of the relationship between researchers and employers 
or funders is conducive to successful performance in generating, transferring, sharing and disseminating 
knowledge and technological development, and to the career development of researchers. The Charter 
also recognises the value of all forms of mobility as a means for enhancing the professional development 
of researchers.

The entire Charter and Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers (EC 2005) can be found on: 
https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/jobs/charter

8 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

1. 
The  
Thesis

THE THESIS is the key output of doctoral education. The function of the thesis 
is the creation of a scholar who is equipped with the necessary skills to conduct 
original, rigorous, and independent research. In a successful doctoral programme 
the  researcher  will  be  provided  with  the  necessary  training  to  become  an 
independent and highly skilled researcher.

During  the  Bologna  Process,  over  300  participants  met  in  Salzburg  in  2005  to 
discuss and develop recommendations for doctoral education that would ensure 
the quality and competitiveness of this third cycle in the field of higher education. 
The  result  was  the  establishment  of  ten  basic  principles  known  as  the  Salzburg 
Principles.  The  first  of  these  contends  that  “[t]he  core  component  of  doctoral 
training  is  the  advancement  of  knowledge  through  original  research”  (cf.  the 
information box on the following page)3.  Doctoral theses are expected to furnish 
contributions to their field and to the creation of new knowledge or knowledge 
transfer. While it is thus clear that the thesis remains – and should remain – the 
central aspect of doctoral education, the first Salzburg Principle adds: “At the same 
time it is recognised that doctoral training must increasingly meet the needs of 
an employment market that is wider than academia.” This second aspect usually 
translates  into  methodological  and  transferable  skills  training,  which  has  been 
introduced as part of structured doctoral programmes.4  Such programmes often 
reflect an ambition that goes beyond the production of a PhD thesis that meets 
traditional academic requirements, and beyond the production of PhD students 
who are only destined to work in the academy.

What may be ignored when adding additional elements to PhD education is the 
professional dimension of research per se. Acquiring a PhD can be understood 
as  an  apprenticeship  in  research.  Policymakers  are  encouraged  to  reflect  on 
the  extent  to  which  a  doctoral  programme  can  be  burdened  with  further  skills 
training  without  compromising  the  quality  of  the  research  work.  Doctoral 
research  already  equips  PhD  candidates  with  a  set  of  valuable  skills,  notably 
creativity, problem solving, critical and analytical thinking, intellectual autonomy, 
and flexibility. The best PhD programmes will give PhD candidates the time and 
opportunity to focus on these skills. It is suggested that allocating 75 per cent of 
the time available to produce a thesis to these core tasks should be viewed as good 
practice.  Accordingly,  in  a  four-year  programme  three  years  would  be  devoted 
to undertaking research and writing the thesis, while coursework and individual 
activities,  such  as  international  collaboration,  would  best  be  limited  to  one  full 
academic year in total.

EUA (2005).
Depending on the (geographical) context, different terms are used in literature to refer 

3 
4  
to transferable skills, alternatively called professional, generic, or soft skills, to name the most 
frequent variants; cf. Pukelis and Pileicikiene (2009), p. 78. On skills training see also chapter four.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 9

The Salzburg Principles

1. The core component of doctoral training is the advancement of knowledge through original 
research. At the same time it is recognised that doctoral training must increasingly meet the needs 
of an employment market that is wider than academia.

2. Embedding in institutional strategies and policies: universities as institutions need to assume 
responsibility  for  ensuring  that  the  doctoral  programmes  and  research  training  they  offer  are 
designed  to  meet  new  challenges  and  include  appropriate  professional  career  development 
opportunities.

3. The importance of diversity: the rich diversity of doctoral programmes in Europe – including 
joint doctorates – is a strength which has to be underpinned by quality and sound practice.

4. Doctoral candidates as early stage researchers: should be recognised as professionals – with 
commensurate rights - who make a key contribution to the creation of new knowledge.

5. The crucial role of supervision and assessment: in respect of individual doctoral candidates, 
arrangements  for  supervision  and  assessment  should  be  based  on  a  transparent  contractual 
framework of shared responsibilities between doctoral candidates, supervisors and the institution 
(and where appropriate including other partners).

6. Achieving critical mass: Doctoral programmes should seek to achieve critical mass and should 
draw  on  different  types  of  innovative  practice  being  introduced  in  universities  across  Europe, 
bearing in mind that different solutions may be appropriate to different contexts and in particular 
across  larger  and  smaller  European  countries.  These  range  from  graduate  schools  in  major 
universities to international, national and regional collaboration between universities.

7. Duration:  doctoral  programmes  should  operate  within  appropriate  time  duration  (three  to 
four years full-time as a rule).

8. The promotion of innovative structures: to meet the challenge of interdisciplinary training and 
the development of transferable skills.

9. Increasing  mobility:  Doctoral  programmes  should  seek  to  offer  geographical  as  well  as 
interdisciplinary and intersectoral mobility and international collaboration within an integrated 
framework of cooperation between universities and other partners.

10.  Ensuring  appropriate  funding:  the  development  of  quality  doctoral  programmes  and  the 
successful completion by doctoral candidates requires appropriate and sustainable funding.

10 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

The  conditio  sine  qua  non  for  any  PhD  thesis  is  for  students  to  acquire  expertise  in  methodology.  Sound 
research practice is based on a clear articulation of the theories and methods that underpin one’s work and 
the justification for the choices made. This holds true regardless of the form a thesis may take, that is, either a 
monograph or a cumulative thesis (variably called thesis by publication). The choice for one format or the other 
is usually informed by discipline-specific and/or local practices.

In a cumulative thesis, that is, a thesis typically consisting of three to five published or publishable articles, 
the additional submission of an overall paper summarising the overall contribution to knowledge, the main 
research findings and the key ideas across the papers is critical. 

As far as the scope of a monographic dissertation is concerned, good practice does not necessarily translate 
into a certain number of words or pages and thesis length will vary according to local or national requirements 
and conventions. What these requirements have in common is that they stipulate the presentation of a coherent 
argument and a ‘reasonable’ length in relation to three or four years of full-time doctoral study. If limits are 
explicitly  stated,  they  most  frequently  fall  between  60,000  and  100,000  words  in  the  social  sciences.  Some 
universities  may  express  the  requirements  in  page  numbers,  e.g.  maximum  250  pages.  However,  where  a 
discipline favours or otherwise entertains the use of quantitative methods, such as economics, the volume of a 
PhD thesis can be significantly lower when expressed through a word count.

With regard to their future (academic) careers, PhD candidates need to be wary of the benefits and pitfalls of 
co-authorship. There is a huge variation between disciplines, as to the prevalence of single authorship or co-
authorship, as well as to the role of journal articles published or submitted for publication as building blocks of 
the PhD thesis. In the latter case it is often required that the doctoral candidate is the first (main) author of a 
defined number of articles. There need to be clear rules about authorship.

We regard the fully funded full-time PhD as the ideal, but recognise that part-time study may be more suitable 
for  those  without  funding  or  with  caring  responsibilities.  A  part-time  PhD  also  allows  doctoral  candidates 
to  adapt  themselves  to  the  labour  market.  Whatever  the  reasons  for  studying  part  time,  it  is  critical  that 
institutions offering a part-time option can support the needs of part-time students and adapt teaching and 
supervision timetables to ensure that the same experience of advanced research and training can be offered. Not 
all institutions will be equipped or able to do this. 

It is considered good practice that universities, faculties, or departments provide written guidelines of what 
is expected of a successful PhD thesis within the respective disciplines. It is also considered desirable to have 
exchange and dialogue about what constitutes good practice in different fields.

A number of expectations about the standard of PhDs are now recognised internationally. Most importantly 
these include the expectation an original contribution to knowledge, coupled with qualities such as coherence, 
clarity,  creativity,  and  an  engagement  with  existing  approaches  in  the  field.  The  Dublin  Descriptors  for  the 
doctoral level provide a systematic framework for the expected attributes.5  These were formulated as part of 
the  Bologna  Process,  first  published  through  the  Joint  Quality  Initiative  in  2002  for  bachelor’s  and  master’s 
degrees and in 2004 for the third cycle. When compared to the qualifications of successful master’s graduates, 
the third-cycle Dublin Descriptors stipulate not just familiarity of tools and methods in one’s field, but mastery. 
They further stress the attributes of autonomy and originality.

5 

For details see Hutchinson, Lawrence, and Filipović-Carter (2014), pp. 17-20 and pp. 253-57.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 11

Dublin Descriptors

The doctoral degree is awarded to candidates who
•  have demonstrated a systematic understanding of a field of study and mastery of the skills and 

methods of research associated with that field; 

•  have demonstrated the ability to conceive, design, implement and adapt a substantial process of 

research with scholarly integrity; 

•  have made a contribution through original research that extends the frontier of knowledge by 
developing a substantial body of work, some of which merits national or international refereed 
publication; 

• 

• 

• 

are capable of critical analysis, evaluation and synthesis of new and complex ideas; 

can communicate with their peers, the larger scholarly community and with society in general about 
their areas of expertise; 

can be expected to be able to promote, within academic and professional contexts, technological, 
social or cultural advancement in a knowledge-based society.

These characteristics of a PhD thesis are clearly well-suited when speaking about work produced within a specific 
discipline,  addressing  a  research  question  pertinent  in  that  context,  and  applying  methodologies  of  that  same 
discipline.  With  the  recognition  of  the  value  of  inter-  or  multidisciplinarity  in  academic  scholarship  the  general 
validity of the same criteria may sometimes be doubted. In particular, multidisciplinary problem-oriented fields of 
research may emerge and become so well established that a question arises whether traditional discipline-based PhD 
programmes should be complemented by multidisciplinary or thematic PhD programmes, including transdisciplinary 
methodological training. The theme of migration is often mentioned as an example where a whole range of different 
social science disciplines may contribute towards not only a multidisciplinary research environment, but also to 
creating added value so that it is possible to fully meet traditional academic standards but also to raise the level of 
ambition through the emergence of new questions, new methodologies and new original results. 

In  the  view  of  the  Task  Force  members,  carefully  designed  thematic  doctoral  programmes  may  represent  good 
practice, provided that the well-established quality standards for a PhD thesis are secured. A single PhD thesis may 
be multidisciplinary, but its quality stands and falls with a solid interconnectedness between a research question, a 
methodology (or a successful combination of methodologies), and an original outcome. In practice this means that 
there usually needs to be a main discipline that determines the (main) methodology of a thesis. As a consequence, 
also  a  central  dimension  of  supervision  will  therefore  be  stemming  from  that  discipline. This  does  not  however 
preclude that  PhD  programmes can be built on a thematic basis, i.e. as a multidisciplinary undertaking. Proper 
disciplinary focus for each emerging PhD thesis needs to be secured, and this of course requires the designation 
of a (main) supervisor from within the pertinent discipline. Hence, the principles presented earlier in this chapter, 
including the allocation of three years of work for research and thesis writing as a rule of thumb concerning the 
academic standards for a PhD thesis, will apply also for thematic doctorates in order not to compromise their level of 
academic ambition. That said, pursuing a PhD within a multidisciplinary research environment or a thematic PhD 
programme may often be particularly well-suited for emerging scholars whose career plans are outside academia, for 
instance in international organisations.

12 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

For a successful PhD experience a number of quality assurance mechanisms need to be in place, not just at the very 
end but throughout the doctoral journey. Every institution naturally wants to attract the best students. Selection 
procedures are frequently tied to national or supra-national funding provisions, however, which may impose certain 
restrictions. It is safe to say that an almost universal example of good practice is the compulsory submission of a 
research plan prior to the acceptance into a PhD programme; exceptions prove the rule, as is the typically the case 
in economics. Usually, the proposed research topic is formulated directly by the PhD candidate instead of being 
dictated by the (potential) supervisor(s). Requiring the applicant to demonstrate the ability to craft a solid PhD thesis 
proposal is often understood as a threshold condition for admission, and indeed this requirement can be identified 
as a form of good practice. Other good admissions practices which help to select the best candidates include the 
submission of an additional piece of written work and an interview. A good relationship between supervisors and 
PhD researchers is critical to the success of doctoral programmes and applicants should not be accepted unless the 
institution can be sure that the supervisor is able to provide expert guidance for a given topic and particular doctoral 
candidate. That said, it is not uncommon that, once admitted, PhD researchers then are expected to remain flexible 
about the focus of the thesis as they research it in more depth. Funding schemes where the supervisor (or principal 
investigator) presents a project plan that comprises also PhD theses, to be authored by researchers yet to be identified, 
may be problematic and should at a minimum allow for flexibility to secure that the PhD researchers will conduct 
independent and original research.

Given the high attrition rates for PhD researchers in many countries, it is necessary to have rigorous quality control 
checks before the end of the PhD, both in written and oral form. In the interest of everyone involved in the doctoral 
process, early quality assurance measures constitute good practice. Typically, doctoral candidates submit work which 
is reviewed by experts at the end of their first year if studying full time. This crucial threshold is sometimes referred 
to as the first-year upgrade or prospectus defence.

Further evaluations of progress once per year also constitute good practice. For practical reasons, any pre-submission 
defence or mock viva may want to exhaust internal resources first, before external examiners are invited. These rehearsal 
defences can provide valuable critical input and help doctoral candidates prepare for their final examination(s). Peers 
could be involved, but at least one professor in addition to the supervisor(s) should also be present to guarantee the 
efficiency of such a mock defence as a quality assurance measure.

The viva is an integral part of the doctoral process. It can take a number of forms including a final public defence, a 
private defence in front of externally appointed experts or a ceremonial formality after the academic examination of 
the quality of the thesis. While some countries, such as Australia, dispense with any final oral examination, it may be 
said that in the European context the public defence continues to constitute an important event, signalling the entry 
of a former research student into the ranks of the most highly trained scholars. In addition, the defence functions as 
the final and usually public check against plagiarism. The opportunity to present, defend, and discuss one’s thesis in 
depth also offers the chance to demonstrate acquired skills, to clarify or elaborate, and to receive new ideas or even 
publication advice. There are different models concerning the role of the supervisor(s) in the PhD defence. Despite 
this, the Task Force recommend that the thesis supervisor(s) should not take an active part in the defence. They may, 
for instance, be a member of the jury, but without a vote. It is vital that the defence does not turn into a discussion 
between the internal/external examiners and the supervisor(s). It is also suggested that good practice involves the 
inclusion of an independent chair in the PhD defence.

There are considerable variations across Europe as regards the grading of a thesis. Some countries use no grades at 
all, but only ‘pass’ or ‘fail’, while others differentiate between as many as seven different grades, and some delegate 
the matter to universities or even their internal units. Where formal grades are not used, a certain kind of distinction 

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 13

can take the form of a thesis being ‘approved with distinction’ or ‘recommended for publication’ by the jury. Some 
institutions also award annual prizes for the best thesis. A degree of flexibility with regard to grading appears useful. 
Not only would it be difficult, but it might also be counterproductive to eliminate local traditions in view of their 
link with the respective national job markets. In the academic job market, articles published in international, peer-
reviewed, and, ideally, highly-ranked journals or books published with leading publishers are the most prominent 
marker of quality.

14 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

2. 
Supervision

The  success  of  a  PhD  usually  stands  or  falls  by  the  quality  of  SUPERVISION. 
Strong research supervision is indispensable to the quality of a PhD programme 
and  its  provision  is  a  core  strategic  task  for  research  universities.  With  the 
transformation of doctoral education, the nature of supervision has also changed 
and  is  no  longer  solely  characterised  by  a  hierarchical  one-on-one  interaction 
between  the  supervisor  and  the  supervisee.  Firstly,  the  roles  of  supporters  and 
people  involved  during  the  PhD  journey  has  multiplied.  In  addition  to  the 
supervisor,  one  may  benefit  from  the  expertise  and  advice  of  one  or  more  co-
supervisors  or  even  a  larger  supervisory  team  including  external  members. 
Learning takes also place within one’s cohort, as doctoral candidates receive and 
offer peer support in their disciplines and even beyond. At university level, there 
may  be  services  or  centres  that  support  PhD  researchers  across  disciplines,  for 
instance in linguistic, computing or professional skills. On a formal level, the head 
of  department,  doctoral  programme  director,  or  dean  of  graduate  studies  can 
provide assistance, clarify regulations, and mediate if necessary. Secondly, these 
evolutions have impacted on the supervisory relationship. With the introduction 
of  doctoral  schools,  structured  programmes,  and  institutional  or  departmental 
codes of good practice, supervision has become more contractual in nature and 
includes rights and duties on both sides. In many contexts the doctoral experience 
may have developed into a more collegial way of learning and advising.

Doctoral  supervision  requires  experienced  academics  who  support  PhD 
candidates  to  become  autonomous  researchers  and  thus  prepare  them  for 
responsible, professional roles in academia, industry, and society. Good supervision 
encompasses subject-specific and methodological expertise in order to help the 
doctoral  candidate  complete  a  high-quality  thesis  within  a  reasonable  period 
of  time,  typically  between  three  to  five  years.  To  this  end,  effective  supervision 
monitors  the  supervisee’s  progress  with  a  view  to  ensuring  that  the  research 
advances and appropriate results are achieved. As the final product of a PhD is 
the mature researcher as well as the thesis, good supervisors further familiarise 
their  supervisees  with  good  scientific  practice,  cultivate  the  research  mindset 
of  doctoral  candidates  and  help  them  integrate  into  national  and  international 
academic communities. They are expected to offer further support by assessing 
the qualification and training needs of their supervisees. In many cases supervisors 
will be the primary points of contact for career guidance and will need to provide 
mentoring  about  professional  opportunities  either  themselves  or  by  referring 
doctoral candidates to a career service.6 

6 
Under the headline “How to Achieve Outstanding Quality in Research Supervision,” Hel-
mut Brentel (2016) lists other aspects that may also be considered elements of good practice (p. 10).

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 15

The Main Supervisor’s  
Responsibilities

The Doctoral Researcher’s  
Responsibilities

While  the  supervisory  team  is  a  key  resource 
in  the  conduct  of  a  doctorate,  ultimately  the 
responsibility  for  the  project  rests  with  the 
doctoral candidate. Their exact role is likely to be 
detailed in the university’s regulations. Typically 
the doctoral researcher is expected to:

• 

• 

take responsibility for finding 
out what is expected
take the initiative in alerting their 
supervisor to problems or difficulties 

•  meet the deadlines set for them
give serious consideration 
• 
to the advice received

•  discuss with the supervisory team how 

• 

to make guidance more effective
agree, organise, and attend mutually 
convenient meetings, contribute to 
their agenda and circulate work in 
advance; set realistic deadlines

•  undertake research training as agreed 

and where a need is identified
•  undertake recommended reading; 
ask when one does not understand 

•  produce written work as agreed 
• 

comply with reporting procedures 
and inform supervisors of the 
progress of the research 
tell supervisors about difficulties 
encountered in work 
arrange for informal sharing of 
information and practice 
generate one’s own ideas 

• 
•  plan when to submit the thesis and 

• 

• 

• 

ensure that it is submitted on time
ensure that the thesis complies 
with institutional regulations

Adapted from Vitae (2016).

The  exact  role  of  the  supervisor  will  differ 
depending on the university, discipline, the main 
supervisor’s  style  and  workload,  as  well  as  the 
role  that  the  rest  of  the  supervisory  team  play. 
However, typically supervisors should:

• 

ensure that supervisees understand 
what is expected of all parties 
involved in supervision
•  have regular supervisory 
meetings with supervisees

•  help supervisees formulate a research plan 
• 

ensure that supervisees are aware 
of how their research fits into any 
research groups or projects
•  help supervisees to co-ordinate 

• 

the supervisory team
give guidance about literature, 
training, ethics, research techniques 
and academic conventions 

•  help supervisees develop 
their critical thinking 

•  provide constructive feedback 

• 

• 

• 

on written work 
give feedback on supervisees’ 
overall progress 
advise on courses, both specialist and 
concerning professional development
facilitate access to advice on 
career development and the range 
of career opportunities 

• 

•  help set realistic deadlines and 
to submit the thesis on time 
advise doctoral candidates 
on where to present work, at 
conferences, and for publication
read and comment upon manuscripts 
and the whole of the final thesis.

• 

16 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

The supervisor performs a variety of key roles during a researcher’s doctoral trajectory, both in terms of the 
research results and the academic development of their supervisees.7  This rich performative diversity is also 
reflected in the different terms for the supervisor across Europe. Some translations into English include ‘tutor’, 
‘coach’, ‘advisor’, ‘father’ or ‘mother’ (German), ‘conductor’ (Finnish), ‘topic guide’ (Hungarian), ‘the one who 
shows you the way’ (Norwegian) or ‘the one who leads you by the hand’ (Swedish). Even the English term can 
be reimagined as ‘super-vision’. Given the complexity of the task, it is helpful to conceptualise supervision as 
a highly specialised form of teaching rather than as a mere add-on to research.8  Even if supervising activities 
typically fall under a senior academic’s official duties, it is an instance of good practice to explicitly recognise such 
engagement in PhD programmes. Adjusting teaching or administrative obligations in line with the supervisory 
workload is one important way of acknowledging the work performed by doctoral supervisors. Prizes or awards 
for excellent supervision can be further means to honour a professor’s commitment to doctoral education.

Role of Supervisor*

Director

Determining topic and method, providing ideas

Facilitator

Providing access to resources or expertise, arranging field-work

Advisor

Helping to resolve technical problems, suggesting alternatives

Teacher

Of research techniques

Guide

Suggesting  timetable for writing up, giving feedback on progress, identifying critical 
path for data collection

Critic

Of design of enquiry, of draft chapters, of interpretations or data

Freedom giver Authorises student to make decisions, supports student’s decisions

Supporter

Gives encouragement, shows interest, discusses student’s ideas 

Friend

Extends interest and concern to non-academic aspects of student’s life

Manager

Checks progress regularly, monitors study, gives systematic feedback, plans work

Examiner

Internal examiner, mock vivas, interim progress reports, supervisory board member

*from: LSE 2016, p. 4

7  
(2012).
8  

In this respect it may be useful to conceive of doctoral education as an academic “rite of passage”; cf. Amran and Ibrahim 

See Brown and Atkins (1988), p. 115.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 17

Good Practice Example from Norway

In  Norway  professors  have  an  annual  work  plan  which  includes  total  working  hours  and  a  defined 
supervision  quota  within  them  (e.g.  a  professor  spends  60  or  70  hours/year  per  PhD  supervisee).  For 
instance at UiT, The Arctic University of Norway, the total allocation of working by a professor to supervise 
a PhD thesis from beginning to completion is recognised as 280 working hours in the course of four years. 
This  practice  amounts  to  an  explicit  recognition  of  supervision  as  professorial  work,  thus  preventing 
professors from being burdened with additional duties and running the risk of having to work overtime 
and/or neglecting their supervisees. Furthermore, there is an annual assessment following the contract 
model. The assessment comprises an individual confidential part by the PhD candidate, but also another 
part produced jointly by the supervisor and the supervisee. Essentially, it is a report on the progress of 
supervision. While this has been identified as a good practice example in terms of monitoring and quality 
assurance, an online (or offline) supervision log can be used as an alternative, which would not formalise 
supervision to the same extent.

For the PhD contract used at UiT, see UiT (2015).

Recognising PhD supervision as an important part of professorial work helps to counter the misperception that PhD 
degrees would be a cost-free add-on into the functions of a university. The number and quality of PhD degrees is an 
important performance indicator of universities that may directly or indirectly have major effect on funding – even 
at private universities funded through tuition fees collected from students. Providing good PhD supervision requires 
considerable allocation of a university’s resources, be it primarily in the form of appropriate alleviation of the other 
workload of faculty members involved in it. Some universities have also moved to designating a category of research 
professors who do not participate in teaching or supervision for undergraduate or master’s students. 

On  a  formal  level,  a  combination  of  a  code  of  good  practice  and  an  individually  tailored  memorandum  of 
understanding  for  each  PhD  student  is  considered  good  practice.  The  former  needs  to  be  provided  by  the 
institution, while the latter is an agreement between supervisor and supervisee. Universities need to establish 
an appropriate and effective reporting and benchmarking system in order to monitor progress and respond to 
problems identified. Obligatory surveys for all PhD candidates, preferably on an annual basis, have become an 
integral part of many quality assurance systems. It is further good practice to use both teaching evaluations 
and supervision assessments as criteria when deciding on professorial promotions, without compromising the 
importance of excellence of research in such determinations.

With regard to the various models of PhD supervision, the Task Force discussed the pros and cons of single versus 
shared supervision. Whether one format or the other is more effective is highly individual and varies according 
to the context, yet current trends seem to point towards joint supervision. The shared responsibility, combined 
expertise, and scope for broader discussion and debate can be beneficial for both the supervisors and the doctoral 
candidate. In the case of single supervision problems may arise if the supervisor falls ill or if the supervision proves 
to be suboptimal. In addition, given that supervision does not only affect the thesis but also the individual, shared 
supervision may be more instructive from a pedagogical point of view. For example, demonstrating disagreement 
in front of doctoral candidates can help make them understand that they too will need to find their own path. The 
main risk of shared supervision arrangements is conflicting advice without a framework for resolving the conflict. 
Joint meetings with both/all supervisors at the same time are one solution.

18 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

There is no universal best practice across Europe in the issue of single versus shared supervision and different 
cultural sensitivities play  a  pivotal role in how the supervisory relationship is defined. While in some cases 
hierarchy  and  distance  may  be  beneficial  to  fostering  independence,  a  more  informal  working  relationship 
works  better  in  other  contexts.  International  co-supervision  may  provide  added  value,  yet  there  are  often 
considerable bureaucratic or financial difficulties, in particular when the task of external co-supervisor is an 
honorary one and there is no budget even for direct expenses.

For a long time supervisory training was only empirical (‘learning by doing’), but in recent years an increasing 
number of universities have introduced more formalised training for supervisors. Providing access to supervisor 
training  and  networking  is  good  practice.  Practice  varies  as  to  whether  this  is  optional  or  compulsory  and 
training may be offered in the form of peer discussion and induction courses for all new staff as well as annual 
refresher sessions for more experienced faculty.

Even  where  the  model  of  a  single  supervisor  remains  to  be  applied,  it  constitutes  good  practice  that  PhD 
supervision  is  also  seen  as  a  collective  responsibility  of  the  faculty  or  the  broader  academic  community. 
Particularly PhD researchers that seek to make use of diverse categories of sources or of multiple methodologies 
will need academic advice beyond what the main supervisor can provide. Hence, availability for and interest 
in PhD researchers should be seen as a responsibility of all members of the faculty. Further, the department, 
faculty  or  university  will  have  a  collective  responsibility  for  the  regular  evaluation  and  quality  assurance  of 
supervision and PhD programmes.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 19

3. 
Course-
work

There are two main models of doctoral training, largely distinguished from one 
another by the organisation of the COURSEWORK component in a given PhD 
programme. The first, commonly referred to as the apprenticeship model, is an 
individual programme based on a working relationship between the supervisor(s) 
and  supervisee  with  no  structured  coursework  phase.  The  second  programme 
model is typically organised within doctoral or graduate schools and characterised 
by two phases: a taught phase, comprising doctoral-level seminars and workshops, 
and  a  research  phase.  These  two  phases  usually  overlap  and  a  typical  structure 
would be 1+3, while the apprenticeship model may be accommodated within just 
three years.

While  the  harmonisation  envisioned  through  the  Bologna  process  relates 
to  doctoral  education,  this  third  tier  does  not  follow  the  same  route  as  in  first 
and second cycle degree programmes. Neither a specific structure nor a certain 
number of ECTS credits have been recommended. Instead, the objectives of the 
Bologna process are achieved within a common framework, as encapsulated by 
the Salzburg Principles. As a result, the organisation of doctoral education shows 
a  large  diversity  at  an  international  or  national  level  or  even  within  the  same 
university. 

In response to the rapid expansion of doctoral education in recent decades coupled 
with  an  increasingly  competitive  academic  and  non-academic  job  market  for 
newly graduated PhDs, universities across Europe have engaged in reflection and 
reform. Universities and departments are increasingly faced with the challenge of 
aligning their programmes with the learning needs of a large and diverse cohort 
of  doctoral  candidates  and  preparing  them  for  career  opportunities  inside  and 
outside the academy.

In practical terms, the redesign of doctoral education has tended to lead to the 
introduction  of  structured  PhD  programmes  across  European  universities  and 
countries. While the researcher’s individual project remains the core component 
on which the doctoral degree is awarded, a recommended 25 per cent of a doctoral 
programme (e.g. one out of four years) is often used for more structured training. 
The format, scope, and sequencing of this taught provision in a structured or semi-
structured programme may vary greatly and can also include non-course-based 
activities, such as internships. In order to secure the required academic quality of 
a PhD thesis, three years should continue to be allocated, but caution is needed 
in expanding the coursework or similar activities beyond what correspond to one 
academic year. While institutions vying for the best students are under considerable 
pressure to offer competitive programmes, a potential course overload will most 
likely be counterproductive.

Structured  PhD  programmes  offer  intensive  and  systematic  supervision, 
usually  by  a  team  of  supervisors  from  one  or  more  departments.  In  contrast 
to  individual  doctoral  study,  candidates  in  structured  programmes  do  not 
exclusively depend on the time and resources of one person, but receive advice, 

20 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

mentoring,  and  support  from  different  people  within  the  department  or  university.  An  integral  part  of  a 
structured  programme  is  the  inclusion  of  a  curriculum  of  doctoral-level  courses,  which  are  often  either 
methodological  or  interdisciplinary  in  focus,  promoting  the  acquisition  of  additional  expert  knowledge 
and qualifications. Taught courses on relevant subject matters and methodology as well as skills-oriented 
professional development training are geared towards enhancing the doctoral researchers’ employability in 
and outside academia.

As far as the pacing and amount of coursework is concerned it is, again, desirable to allow for some flexibility 
and  diversity.  While  some  training  is  best  sequenced  early  on  in  a  PhD  programme,  spreading  coursework 
evenly or restricting coursework to the first year may not be the best solution for everyone. For instance, it is 
sometimes only when one is confronted with a particular problem during one’s research that one realises what 
methodological training is needed. In such cases the possibility of undertaking further training beyond the first 
year is critical. Doctoral candidates will often require some guidance on what training is needed, as in some 
institutions this is undertaken as part of a formal training needs analysis by the supervisor(s) which is repeated 
every year. 

The best departments and faculties offer research-oriented seminars in which doctoral researchers are exposed 
to the ideas of other researchers and able to present their own work for comment. Where there is a large PhD 
programme at a university or collaborative PhD school between universities, it may also be possible to offer 
specific seminars for PhD students only. In some cases it will be necessary to accommodate advanced master’s 
students and PhD students in one of the same research seminar, with tailor-made modifications to accommodate 
the needs of each participant. The purpose of research-led seminars is that candidates will not only benefit from 
hearing the content of such presentations, but will also be given the opportunity of contemplating different 
approaches to a problem. To some extent, we also encourage the official recognition (in the form of credits or 
otherwise) of researcher-driven activities, such as working groups or reading groups, and of team-teaching, 
together with postdoctoral fellows, for example. 

In light of the changed nature of doctoral education it is recommended that the coursework component of 
a PhD programme encompasses methodological, subject-specific, and professional development training. 
It is argued that the acquisition of these skills can improve performance as a successful academic as well as 
being of value for those who choose not to enter academia. This training is best designed with a high degree 
of  flexibility.  Too  rigid  formal  training  without  a  well  internalised  individual  justification  concerning  its 
benefits may lead to frustration and may be seen as an unwanted deflection from a PhD candidate’s research 
project.

Even  though  a  PhD  degree  becomes  a  qualification  for  expert-level  jobs  outside  academia,  this  does  not 
necessarily mean that doctoral education should be less academic, less specialised, or more vocational. When 
there  is  a  demand  for  doctoral  degree  holders  outside  academia,  it  is  precisely  because  of  their  academic 
skills. For those who do not want to enter academia after their PhD, it is important that their various skills are 
recognised on the labour market, and that the years of advanced research during their doctoral education are 
acknowledged as work experience.

On the question of using or introducing ECTS credits in doctoral training, the Task Force does not believe that 
the advantage of transferability outweighs potential disadvantages. Among other limitations, a credit system 
might encourage a course selection on non-academic grounds and may result in inflexibility as to the proper 
extent  of  coursework  in  individual  cases  (some  may  need  less  than  a  year  as  optimal  complement  to  their 

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 21

Good Practice Elements in Doctoral Training

The League of European Research Universities (LERU) published an advice paper in 2014 on good practice 
in doctoral training. The paper documents good practice elements, subdividing them into four different 
categories:

Formal research training: The set of skills developed during a PhD comprises 

• 

• 

intellectual  skills  (including  the  ability  to  think  analytically  and  synthetically;  to  be  creative, 
inquisitive, and original; to take intellectual risks; to deploy specific technical research related tools 
and techniques),

academic and technical skills (including the ability to understand, test and advance complex theories 
or hypotheses and to deploy sophisticated concepts, methodologies and tools in the chosen subject 
to a very high level; to use critical judgment in an objective manner based on verifiable evidence; to 
manage a high degree of uncertainty both in method and ion outcomes; to transfer new knowledge to 
scholarly communities and communicate it to society), and

•  personal and professional management skills (including the ability to persist in achieving long-term 
goals; to manage projects with uncertain outcomes in diverse settings and organisations; to take a 
project through all its stages; to be self-motivated and autonomous; to work in a team; to speak and 
present effectively in public).

The paper stresses that these skills may be developed during the research phase, but can be further honed 
if specifically addressed in formal training.

Activities  driven  by  doctoral  candidates,  such  as  skills  awareness  and  self-assessment,  international 
research networks, candidate-led workshops, conferences, and other activities.

Career  development:  Disseminating  information  on  both  academic  and  non-academic  career 
opportunities.

Concepts and structures: Organising doctoral education into Graduate or Doctoral Schools and Centres, 
including mechanisms for interdisciplinary, national, and international cooperation.

See: LERU (January 2014).

22 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

PhD thesis, while some others may need more than a year, for instance when a PhD thesis applies multiple 
methodologies). Yet, according to the ECTS Users’ Guide, published by the European Commission in 2015:

Defining learning outcomes for specific milestones in the third cycle could in some cases 
allow candidates who interrupt their studies to have some certification of what they have 
achieved up to that point. It can also be valuable in demonstrating to future employers the 
achievement of specific high level generic and subject specific competences.9 

It is true that some official documentation of achievement may be beneficial, but this does not necessarily 
have to translate into ECTS credits. Apart from the fact that universities across Europe are far from systematic 
in allocating ECTS, there is the risk of even greater bureaucratisation through the use of ECTS. Furthermore, 
since ECTS credit points are meant to measure a certain amount of work load, their use seems restricted 
to the coursework component, as working hours spent on the thesis vary greatly and are highly individual. 
Flexibility is thus recommended, also with regard to the assessment of transferring courses. Ultimately, it is 
only at the receiving end, i.e. at the university where the PhD thesis is defended, that the added complementary 
value  of  courses  taken  elsewhere  can  be  assessed,  closely  involving  the  supervisor.  At  the  doctoral  level 
attendance may be a more constructive course requirement than formal examinations.

Judging from trends across Europe, one may conclude that the varying forms of structured doctoral programmes 
jointly  represent  the  future  of  doctoral  education.  There  are  also  critical  voices,  however,  who  fear  that  the 
requirement of taking mandatory courses might lead to a narrowing down of critical approaches to ‘successful’ 
and ‘popular’ ones.10  This does not have to be the case; quite to the contrary, good course leaders will aim 
at  fostering  their  students’  intellectual  autonomy.  Such  courses  will  broaden  and  not  restrict  a  researcher’s 
theoretical and conceptual repertoire.

Irrespective  of  the  forms  and  scope,  some  structured  taught  phase  provides  added  value.  At  the  very  least, 
courses bring together researchers physically and hence help to create a cohort identity or otherwise facilitate 
the organic emergence of arrangements for peer supervision and support. Doing social science is a social activity 
and weighing different arguments against each other among one’s peers helps nurture a research mindset. The 
social  isolation  that  doctoral  candidates  frequently  experience  is  directly  related  to  high  attrition  rates  and 
needs to be taken seriously.11  As has been pointed out in the article “Arguing for PhD Coursework” (2000): 
“The loneliness of PhD scholars should refer to their independence of thought as one questioner in a socially 
active community of scholars offering dialectic questions to each other[‘s] arguments.” 12

Teaching  skills  and  experience  also  appear  to  have  become  part  of  the  training  often  expected  in  a  PhD 
programme. It constitutes good practice that doctoral candidates are offered opportunities of teaching, either 
at the home institution or elsewhere as this prepares them for academic life and improves their presentation 
skills. Making resources and training in teaching available for interested PhD researchers and offering them 
a teaching certificate is good practice. Given that the majority of time during a PhD programme needs to be 
devoted to one’s individual research, additional activities such as teaching need to be organised in such a way 
so as not to interfere with one’s research schedule. If teaching activities are optional, those who do not aim at 
careers in higher education will appreciate the possibility of opting out of such training.

9 
10   
11 
12 

EC (2015), p. 27.
See for example, Pelger and Grottke (2015): pp. 122-23. 
Cf. Jones (2013): p. 84.
Metcalfe (2000): p. 56.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 23

ECTS Credit Points Allocation at the Doctoral Level (examples)

The most common structure for third-cycle degrees is 6 semesters and 180 ECTS, used for example in 
several universities in Austria, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, Sweden etc.

Below is an example of a typical three-year PhD programme structure, taken from the Center for Doctoral 
Studies in Social and Behavioral Sciences (CDSS) of the Graduate School of Economic and Social Sciences 
(GESS) at the University of Mannheim: 

See:  
gess.uni-mannheim.de/doctoral-programs/social-and-behavioral-sciences-cdss/cdss-programs.html

ETCS allocation varies greatly. The credit rating for a full-time structured PhD in social sciences at the 
National University of Ireland in Galway, for example, is twice as high, encompassing 360 ECTS for a four-
year programme.

Cf.:  http://www.nuigalway.ie/colleges-and-schools/arts-social-sciences-and-celtic-studies/phd-research-
degrees/structured-phd/

24 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

A modification of the 3+1 model, applied in Norway, is that a university may receive from the national research 
council full funding for the three years of a PhD candidate that correspond to the research for and writing of a 
PhD thesis. The university itself will then provide one year of funding, often by employing the PhD candidate 
in a position that includes teaching activities. The obvious advantages of this model are that it facilitates the 
acquisition of teaching skills, as well as the candidate’s integration into the life of the department or faculty. 
The main downside may be a risk of exploitation, as the university will need to be careful that the degree of 
teaching duties does not compromise either the course component of the PhD programme or the continuous 
progression of the PhD thesis.

Ideally,  research  seminars,  skills  workshops,  and  other  coursework  components  are  specifically  tailored  to 
the needs of doctoral candidates. However, as mentioned, depending on the institution and size of individual 
departments it will not always be possible to offer all the training at PhD level. In such cases, taking advanced 
master-level courses appears to be a good alternative. Masters-level training may further be appropriate where 
PhD researchers are new to a methodology or are doing interdisciplinary training. Most advanced courses are 
mixed for very good reasons.

It is further recommended that the professional development part of doctoral training is not devalued as an add-
on component. Neither is it helpful to impose many categories of compulsory training in generic or transferable 
skills. Rather, institutions are primarily advised to offer opportunities to hone skills. This can be done in a creative 
way that is entirely compatible with the completion of a high-quality PhD. In some institutions attendance at 
skills-oriented training is recorded in a portfolio or rewarded with a certificate, but training should be seen as 
having intrinsic value, so that doctoral candidates feel motivated to develop or enhance different skills, which 
will help with the completion of the PhD and beyond.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 25

4. 
Academic 
and  
Professional  
Components

In  response  to  the  changing  nature  of  the  PhD,  there  is  a  debate  in  the  critical 
literature  on  the  ideal  balance  between  ACADEMIC  AND  PROFESSIONAL 
COMPONENTS  in  doctoral  education.  Within  academia  there  may  exist  both 
legitimate  and  unfounded  concerns  that  some  policymakers  might  wish  to 
instrumentalise  doctoral  education  by  turning  it  into  job  market  training  and 
lowering  its  academic  ambitions.  There  are  scholars  who  speculate  that  the 
demand for a broader and less academically focused PhD degree will lead to more 
formal  and  structured  training  as  part  of  the  postdoc  period.13    Others  warn, 
however, against lowering standards in research training at the doctoral level in 
favour  of  more  industry-orientated  training.  Deferring  research  training  to  the 
postdoc  phase  cannot  be  considered  good  practice.  A  PhD  is  not  just  another 
master, but demands a completely different and more advanced set of writing and 
research skills.

The Task Force has identified as a good practice approach to include professional 
skills components in an academic PhD programme, rather than moving towards 
vocational or so-called professional doctorates as an alternative to a traditional 
academic doctorate. In order to have added value, the advanced-level professional 
skills that can be built into social science PhD programmes as optional or even 
mandatory elements will need to be grounded on the uncompromised academic 
standard of the PhD programme itself. More than anything else this relates to the 
quality requirements of a PhD thesis.

It is true that many skills components in a PhD programme may prove particularly 
useful for PhD graduates who will find their careers outside academia. But many of 
exactly the same skills, such as those related to CV writing, being interviewed, media 
relations, project proposal writing, publication strategies, or new technologies, are 
equally beneficial for those who will pursue a career within academia. Even more 
importantly,  the  most  important  “skill”  that  a  PhD  graduate  has  obtained  in  a 
PhD  programme  is  represented  in  the  PhD  thesis  itself,  as  a  demonstration  of 
one’s capacity, as an advanced professional, to conduct methodologically rigorous 
systematic research and to craft a complex but coherent line of argument. Hence, 
an academic PhD programme may, without any compromises, prove to be a gate 
opener for a number of senior positions in both the public and the private sectors. 
Of course, PhD programmes will need to be revised and redesigned in order to 
meet  changing  challenges,  and  this  relates  also  to  their  skills  components.  But 
there  is  no  justification  for  the  claim  that  a  move  of  emphasis  from  academic 
research to professional skills would be an adequate solution to the need to think 
of broader job markets beyond academia. It is however good practice that PhD 
programmes become more explicit in specifying what skills they offer and how 
they are relevant in various segments of the job market.

13 

See Melin and Janson (2006), p. 116; OECD (2012), p. 35.

26 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

Academic and professional development training that institutions frequently offer in the form of taught courses 
include the following:

•  Academic Writing Skills
•  Creative Academic Writing
•  Communication Skills
•  Using Social Media for Professional Purposes
•  Writing for Publication and Publication Strategies
•  Academic English
•  Foreign Language Training
• 
•  Time Management
•  Teaching in Higher Education
•  Grant Applications
•  Project Management
•  CV and Job Application Writing
•  Mock Interviews

(Academic) Presentation Skills

Crucially,  a  range  of  core  skills  are  acquired  in  the  course  of  the  supervisory  relationship  and  through  the 
studies at doctoral level; they are not necessarily tied to separate taught courses or workshops. 

In the United Kingdom, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Research Councils UK 
(RCUK) have identified some of the significant skills that are developed through the doctorate:

Self-motivation and -discipline
Specialist and generalist knowledge within the given field

•  The ability to work independently as well as working under supervision
• 
• 
•  Time, project and document management, ability to prioritise tasks
•  Critical thinking, analytical and writing skills
•  The ability to read and synthesise a range of documentation
•  Research skills
•  Developing initiative
•  Communication, presentation and interpersonal skills
•  Problem-solving, flexibility in the face of change and creative thinking
•  Networking
•  Professionalism and ethical practice
•  Team work (e.g. in scientific team-based studies, or as part of seminar groups, conference organising)
•  Computing and information searching skills
•  Teaching skills
•  Taking responsibility for one’s own learning and learning how to learn, seen to support lifelong 

learning for the future.14 

14 

Raddon and Sung (2009): p. 15. 

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 27

The completion of a multi-year project like the doctorate requires grit, determination, and resilience, which equip 
doctoral graduates better to meet professional and other challenges. Even employers who do not specifically 
target PhD holders for recruitment will value the set of skills gained through doctoral education. In particular, 
they value, according to a study on the impact of doctoral careers, “doctoral graduates’ deep specialist subject 
knowledge, excellent research and analytical skills, their capacity for critical thinking, as well as their ability to 
bring fresh perspectives to problems or the organisation.”15 

National funding bodies may tend to ask for doctoral research to have tangible impact and may criticise what they 
perceive as a lack of relevance of doctoral education. Expecting too broad a set of “skills” could dilute the depth and 
rigour, the very hallmarks of the PhD. The impact and value of knowledge cannot be gauged solely by an economic 
barometer or short-term influence either. Instead of tailoring PhD programmes to the uncertain exigencies of the 
labour market, universities and research institutions would benefit from a more explicit recognition of the skills 
gained from academic study which are relevant outside of higher education. The future is difficult to predict, but 
graduates with advanced qualifications are doing well and will benefit in the long run.

The social sciences are routinely subject to strong pressures of legitimation and can lead to defensive justifications 
of their existence. We will discuss issues related to the academic job market later on in this report. Here, in the 
context of “skills”, it is however pertinent to quote Gail Craswell (2007) for her criticism of the employability 
discourse:

The  employability  discourse  is  an  essentially  reductive  discourse  that  presents  no 
solid evidence to justify erection of a deficit model now being used to push workplace 
skills training for HDR [higher degree research] students. Although some training 
of this type is certainly in order, discriminating too closely what these skills might 
be  is  to  be  avoided  given  the  instability  in  the  KBE  [knowledge-based  economy] 
literature.  Furthermore,  whole  areas  of  HDR  knowledge  production  are  obscured 
in the employability discourse, thus undercutting and devaluing a diversity of ways 
of knowing, and skewing workplace skills training towards the perceived needs of 
science students.16 

Rather  than  succumbing  to  the  imperatives  of  the  employability  discourse,  academics  are  advised  to 
communicate more effectively the wide spectrum of skills that is already integrated into doctoral education, as 
mentioned above. The European Science Foundation (ESF) emphasises the value of skills that PhD candidates 
acquire as an integral part during their research training, defining them as transferable skills as follows:

Transferable skills are skills learned in one context (for example research) that are 
useful in another (for example future employment whether that is in research, business 
etc.). They  enable  subject-  and  research-related  skills  to  be  applied  and  developed 
effectively.  Transferable  skills  may  be  acquired  through  training  or  through  work 
experience.17 

To a large extent, the skills listed by the ESF are congruent with those articulated in the more detailed Researcher 
Development Framework (RDF), as designed by the UK-based Vitae organisation. The RDF offers a graphic 

15 
16 
17 

CFE Research (2014): p. 4.
Craswell (2007): p. 388.
ESF (2009), p. 47.

28 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

illustration  of  the  competencies  and  attributes  of  successful  researchers  (see  below).  While  it  constitutes 
a  useful  tool  for  evaluating  and  promoting  the  professional  development  of  researchers,  Vitae’s  RDF  is  also 
specifically targeted at employers “to provide an understanding of the blend of skills unique to researchers and 
their potential as employees.”18  Hence, the RDF demonstrates how professional skills build upon the academic 
quality of a PhD, rather than becoming an alternative to it.

18 

Vitae (2010).

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 29

Much can be gained from an awareness and full recognition of the set of skills gained naturally in the course 
of a well supervised doctoral degree. Being taught by good teachers facilitates teaching skills. Being involved in 
an externally funded project may teach a whole range of skills related to project planning and administration, 
grant  writing,  media  relations  etc.  Having  one’s  own  paper  critiqued  and  being  present  in  discussions 
concerning  papers  by  others  equally  provides  a  window  to  a  range  of  skills,  including  those  related  to  oral 
expression,  clear  argumentation  and  civil  discourse.  Others  specialist  skills  and  competences  may  need  to 
be  acquired  independently  of  the  supervisory  relationship,  e.g.  advanced  methodological  training,  teaching 
skills,  presentation  skills.  Where  this  is  the  case,  the  institution  should  ensure  that  they  provide  support  in 
the acquisition of those skills. It is further recommended that researchers can take control of their own skills 
development by choosing training in the form of workshops, internships, mobility programmes, or collaborate 
research  opportunities,  to  name  the  most  prevalent  formats.  The  extent  to  which  any  skills  need  to  be 
compulsory should depend on the experience and needs of the PhD candidate, which can be assessed during a 
training needs analysis. However, some institutions require compulsory training of certain skills, such as ethics 
or dealing with difficult situations when on fieldwork.

30 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

5. 
Technology

Technological advances and new tools for learning, writing, teaching, and research 
highlight the potential of TECHNOLOGY for modern and innovative doctoral edu-
cation. Social media, online learning opportunities, big data, and open research have 
changed the ways we research, learn, and collaborate. In 2016 the EUA published a 
new set of recommendations on doctoral education called “Taking Salzburg Forward 
–  Implementation  and  New  Challenges,”  in  which  technology  is  put  forward  as  a 
central issue. This document, building on the Salzburg Principles of 2005, identifies 
three key challenges, which have gained importance and which have been neglected 
in earlier recommendations: research ethics, digitalisation, and globalisation. Given 
the ubiquitous nature of technologies in our social and professional lives, it is worth-
while reflecting upon how educational reforms can address and exploit the potential 
of new information and communication technology (ICT).

The extent to which digitalisation has changed society and infiltrated our daily lives 
has led the OECD to talk about the “e-society.” In its recent overview Trends Shap-
ing Education 2016, the OECD notes how integral a part of life the digital world 
has become and how (mobile) internet use has increased across all OECD coun-
tries within the last decade.

The beginning of the twenty-first century is characterised by “a new culture of learning,” 
which is enhanced by technology and organised around active and collective learning 
experiences rather than passive consumption of content as delivered by someone else.19  
Possibilities of online teaching and learning are vast and may be increasingly linked to 
institutions’ pedagogy, sustainability, reputation, and branding. In this context, educa-
tional reformers need to evaluate whether students and doctoral researchers are being 
adequately equipped with the skills necessary to take advantage of the opportunities 
offered by new technologies. Academics may likewise require upskilling in order to 
effectively use relevant technology in their subject area. 

Universities will need to strategically decide the level of resources they want to in-
vest in developing and engaging with online platforms, opportunities for distance 
learning,  or  massive  open  online  courses  (MOOCs).  Depending  on  the  contex-
tual framework, online learning and MOOC-type education may often only be of 
marginal relevance at the doctoral level. More generally, a LERU advice paper on 
“Online Learning at Research-Intensive Universities” highlights:

A  major  risk  for  universities  is  that  they  become  strategically  led  by 
what digital technology can do, rather than requiring digital technolo-
gy to enhance their educational and research missions within a defined 
academic strategy. […] Online learning initiatives should be driven by 
a mission to open up and enhance education, to vitalise the blended 
learning  environment,  and  to  maximise  the  potential  for  distance 
learning,  OER  [Open  Educational  Resources],  and  crowd-sourcing 
initiatives.20 

19 
20 

See Thomas and Seely Brown (2011), p. 3; Lee and McLoughlin (2010), p. 49.
LERU (June 2014), p. 4, 16.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 31

Universities  follow  good  practice  if  they  stay  abreast  of  technological  developments,  so  as  not  to  miss  out  on 
opportunities for possible partnerships and collaboration in an increasingly networked and interconnected world.

Source: OECD (2016c), p. 102.

In  a  similar  vein,  doctoral  programmes  may  want  to  actively  encourage  researchers  to  engage  with  new 
technology  as  well  as  to  hone  their  critical  capacity  to  evaluate,  use,  and  also  contribute  to  the  wealth  of 
information that is available online. Universities are changing radically and technology is a major element of 
opening up new possibilities in applying data collection and analysis, disseminating research results, building 
networks, and facilitating access to resources, such as archives. While many PhD candidates may, in fact, be 
at the very forefront of developments in ICT, departments have a responsibility of providing researchers with 
appropriate training on digital tools and techniques in their respective disciplines as part of methodological 
training. In order to stay in touch with new developments, this part of methodological training will even more 
than in other areas be driven by the interest and input of the PhD researchers. The critical and proficient use of 
analytical online tools and the continuous updating of the tools in use can help them advance both as scholars 
and as potential future pedagogues.

At a time when the social sciences are called upon to explain their relevance and impact, an engagement with 
new media can contribute to increase academics’ visibility and outreach. This could translate into improved 
communication with policymakers and wider non-academic audiences, also countering the perennial ivory 
tower stereotype. In addition, online communication has led to new ways of dialogue and exchanges among peers 
in the global academic community. In an unprecedented way it enables academics, and also PhD researchers as 
emerging academics, to build their own global networks based on subject-matter, discipline, or methodology. 

Some skills training might be more efficiently delivered through online training, reserving face-to-face contact 
for more in-depth engagement with supervisors. PhD researchers could use the repository of academic films 
available  on  YouTube  to  improve  their  own  presentation  and  teaching  skills.  Learning  to  use  social  media 
effectively is another way that doctoral research can have impact outside of higher education. 

32 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

Recent years have produced a considerable amount of expert, and non-expert, literature on the integration of 
social media in learning environments. It is often contended that educational quality rather than the medium 
of instruction determines learning effectiveness.21  While it is true that social media can facilitate and enhance 
learning, its seeming ubiquity does not in itself warrant its use as an educational tool, which is why relevant 
training on the successful use of online resources is central. The added value of applying social media tools 
in doctoral education depends on individual use and on PhD candidates’ willingness to engage in this means 
of  communication  and  learning.  If  handled  well,  social  media  can  allow  for  informal  and  creative  ways  of 
knowledge  production  and  consumption,  such  as  blogs,  for  instance,  to  disseminate  research  findings  or 
address fieldwork problems.

Example of Using Twitter as a Learning Tool

A professor from the University of the West of Scotland tried the experiment of running a seminar in 
Twitter. The following pros and cons were discussed in a 2013 Guardian article:

Pros:

•  Opportunity to ask questions, post comments, receive individual replies
• 
•  Experience of public pedagogy first hand

Social media as a learning space that encourages reciprocity and instinctive thinking

Cons:
• 
•  Message in 140 characters can lead to oversimplifying complex debates

Students’ actual preparedness to engage in this method of communication

•  Expressing one’s views in a public domain carries potential risk

Adapted from Rich and Miah (2013).

Some PhD candidates are for privacy reasons reluctant to use certain social media platforms, such as Facebook, 
Twitter, or LinkedIn, because they do not feel at ease sharing too much data about themselves or their research. 
Others will feel comfortable with extending their online presence for professional purposes and with the public 
nature of Twitter and  its utilisation as their  virtual business card that represents their academic profile. We 
identify an active, innovative, and critical use of new technologies as good practice, while stressing the need to 
adequately inform doctoral candidates about the potential and the risks posed by new technologies in relevant 
areas.  Institutions  are  advised  to  protect  their  researchers,  who,  without  proper  guidance  and  support,  may 
fall into the trap of compromising their intellectual property rights in the virtual world. Certain challenges, 
such as those linked with copyright issues, are best addressed early in a researcher’s career. Furthermore, both 
early career and senior researchers need to be aware that with new technologies there are also new forms of 
plagiarism as well as new forms of its detection.

There are several instances where technology can be a useful complement, such as teleconferencing for distance 
supervision, at occasions when face-to-face communication is not possible. However, it is clear that there is no 
substitute for live contact. We identify as good practice that digital learning, distance supervision, or online 

21 

See, for example, Clark and Kwinn (2007), p. 30.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 33

classroom discussion are used as a supplement, in situations when they prove necessary or provide added value, 
rather than being a substitute to face-to-face interaction in doctoral education.

34 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

6. 
Mobility  
and Inter- 
nationalisation

The global scientific community is characterised by a high degree of MOBILITY 
AND  INTERNATIONALISATION.  In  order  to  exploit  the  potential  of  the 
transnational  flow  of  people,  perspectives,  and  ideas,  the  European  Union 
has  launched  several  schemes  to  facilitate  and  promote  mobility  between  EU 
countries, most notably the Erasmus programme. Mobility in higher education 
is  at  the  core  of  the  Bologna  Process.  International  experience  is  conceived  of 
as an opportunity for mutual learning, from which students reap benefits on an 
educational,  linguistic,  cultural,  and  personal  level.  The  transfer  of  people  goes 
hand in hand with the transfer of knowledge and can lead to enriching dialogue 
and cooperation between institutions across national borders.

Not only the number of doctoral candidates, but also the number of international 
doctoral  candidates  has  increased  significantly.  According  to  recent  statistics 
from  the  OECD,  international  researchers  represent  around  50  per  cent  of  the 
total PhD cohort in some countries, or even more than half, as in Luxembourg or 
Switzerland.

International students are those who have crossed borders for the purpose of study. The UNESCO 
Institute for Statistics, the OECD and Eurostat define international students as those who are 
not residents of their country of study or those who received their prior education in another 
country. When data on international students are not available, data on total foreign students 
(including immigrants who moved to the country for purposes other than study) are used instead. 
See: OECD (2016b): p. 2.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 35

In 2013, the EU Member States hosted a total of around 1.4 million tertiary-level students from abroad, that 
is, 7.5 per cent of all EU students in that year. This figure is far from the targeted EU average of 20 per cent 
of graduates in higher education that should have some international study experience according to the EU’s 
Strategic Framework for Education and Training 202022. 

In the majority of hosting countries, mobility in tertiary education is highest at the doctoral level. Inbound 
mobility  generally  reflects  the  attractiveness  of  a  country’s  higher  education  system  and  its  capacity  to 
accommodate international students. The OECD notes a correlation between countries’ R&D investment in 
tertiary educational institutions with the proportion of international doctoral researchers:23 

Historically, universities have followed a cyclical trajectory:

[F]rom  medieval  universities  that  were  centres  of  learning  that  functioned  in  the 
common  language,  Latin,  and  served  an  international  clientele  of  students,  to  the 
nation-state universities of the 19th and 20th centuries that pursued national interests, 
to once again, universities that are emerging as international centers of learning and 
scholarship, in addition to serving particularly regional interests.24

In light of the globalisation and increasing competitiveness of higher education, the doctoral degree has become 
a product that is expected to meet international standards of quality. Mobility provides added value, leading to a 
wider research experience and opening up a broader context of academic cooperation and networking.

22 
23 
24 

EC (2016).
OECD (2016b): p. 4.
Nerad (2010): p. 2. See also Nerad (2014): p. 111.

36 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

The internationalisation of higher education does not only bring benefits to individual students and researchers, 
but education has also become a valuable export commodity in several countries. In Australia, for instance, 
education exports in 2015/16 increased by eight per cent compared with the previous year, amounting to an 
all-time high of $20.3 billion, with universities and other tertiary education institutions generating over two 
thirds  of  that  income. This  makes  international  education  Australia’s  third  largest  export  after  iron  ore  and 
coal.25    For  hosting  countries  mobility  programmes  represent  a  significant  source  of  revenue,  whereas  for 
sending countries mobility scholarships and grants constitute a considerable investment. In a study of eleven 
non-Western countries, national development and human capacity building were cited as the most common 
motivations for countries to sponsor outward mobility. Countries invest an estimated US$ 35,000-40,000 per 
person annually in the majority of programmes, often requiring their scholarship recipients to return home 
to  work  for  a  certain  period  of  time.  According  to  this  study,  STEM  (science,  technology,  engineering,  and 
mathematics) fields are the most prevalent disciplines for which full or partial degree scholarships are granted.26  
The OECD (2016b) presents similar data, confirming that more than half of international doctoral researchers 
are enrolled in science, engineering, or agriculture programmes, as compared to most international students at 
the bachelor or master’s levels, who study social sciences, including humanities.

Research  and  study  experiences  abroad  are  instrumental  in  helping  researchers  become  more  independent, 
flexible,  and  open-minded.  The  European  Commission  has  conducted  an  Erasmus  Impact  Study,  which 
demonstrated  the  extent  to  which  students’  participation  in  the  Erasmus  programme  enhanced  their 
employability. In particular, their international experience strengthened highly valued professional skills, such 
as problem-solving and adaptability, equipped with which graduates fare better on the job market.

25 
26 
Egypt, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam.

Morgan (2016).
British Council and DAAD (2014), pp. 55-56. The report discusses findings from the following countries: Brazil, China, 

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 37

While exchange programmes and opportunities for international research cooperation, such as those facilitated by 
the Erasmus or Marie Curie programmes, clearly add value, including a compulsory mobility aspect within a PhD 
programme cannot as such be said to constitute good practice. For certain disciplines mobility is an integral part 
of what they do, when field work is required, for example. However, this is not the case in all disciplines where for 
instance proximity to a national archive may be more important. Caring responsibilities or other duties also mean 
that academic mobility should be voluntary and flexible. Indeed, a high degree of flexibility is desirable with regard 
to the length, funding, and potential credit transfer of doctoral research periods abroad.

Janette Ryan, Director of the UK Higher Education Academy’s Teaching 
International Students Project, on the Supervision of International PhD 
Researchers:

Supervisors can misinterpret [international doctoral students’] lack of English language proficiency as 
lack of ability; their initial lack of sophisticated language as lack of intellect; their quest to find the ‘correct’ 
answer  dependent  learning  rather  than  an  active  process  to  find  out  what  is  expected  of  them;  their 
reluctance to question as lacking criticality rather than modesty or respect for their supervisor; and their 
relative silence in supervision meetings as lack of connection with ideas rather than internal engagement. 
[…] Recognition of these issues by the supervisor can be a catalyst for engagement in mutual learning 
which  can  be  more  productive  for  the  supervisor  and  the  student.  Supervisors  can  help  international 
doctoral students to not just ‘bridge the gap’ but to meet on the bridge.

See: Ryan (2012), p. 58.

Exchange programmes and similar forms of mobility during a PhD programme represent an important form of 
European and international mobility. There are still countries in Europe which seem self-sufficient and do not see 
the benefits of international collaboration. Mobility is thus of particular value for countries or disciplines where 
PhD education still is strongly linked to one country and its academic environment. In such a context, exchange 
opportunities  during  the  PhD  programme  will  operate  as  the  main  source  of  European  and  international 
influences. When looking at PhD education in Europe as a whole, however, it must be noted that the scenario of 
mobility through exchange visits during the PhD programme is only one of the forms in which mobility occurs: 
PhD programmes themselves have become largely international or European, and not only when organised 
at a predominantly international environment (such as the EUI) but also at many national universities. PhD 
students exercise their mobility by moving to another country for the whole duration of their PhD studies, and 
often a large part of PhD students at a national university are non-nationals of the country concerned, having 
exercised mobility for the purpose of conducting their PhD studies, or earlier. Some European countries have 
redefined their doctoral programmes by introducing a special form of recognition for programmes that contain 
a high degree of internationalisation, such the “Doctorate with International Mention” established in Spain.27  
Furthermore,  mobility  and  its  beneficial  effects  need  to  be  addressed  by  looking  at  the  emerging  careers  of 
young researchers: They may exercise mobility during the PhD phase, but may also have done so in the course 
of their master’s studies or will do so at the postdoctoral phase or when entering the labour market.

The international mention for the doctoral diploma is regulated by the Royal decree 99/2011, art. 15 (2011), which stipulates 

27 
that the doctoral candidate has completed a minimum stay of three months abroad and written part of the thesis in a language differ-
ent from any of the official languages in Spain. In addition, at least two academic experts from research institutions outside Spain need 
to submit a report on the doctoral thesis and at least one expert must be a member of the thesis examination board.

38 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

Since the main objective of international research and researcher training collaboration between universities is 
to increase research quality, hosting institutions need to provide adequate structures and resources, such as full 
access to the library and appropriate supervision for doctoral researchers from abroad. While it is important 
that universities have the necessary logistical capacity to manage and administer diverse forms of mobility of 
researchers, it is vital also to involve faculty members in the development of international collaboration with a 
view to fostering institutional arrangements.28 

One inherent key challenge in academic mobility and the internationalisation of doctoral education is not just 
cultural (see e.g. information box above), but also linguistic diversity. Generally, institutions can guarantee 
their  competitive  edge  if  they  foster  an  inclusive  culture  of  plurality  and  in  this  context  offering  sufficient 
language support is essential. In order not to feel disempowered, non-native English speakers need access to 
resources and training, often including support in using a language for academic purposes or instruction in 
the construction of arguments and critique in other cultures. It is good practice that supervisors and language 
specialists actively encourage their supervisees to write in such a way that will allow them to publish with 
success, which mostly translates into publishing in English. A need of collaboration beyond national borders 
makes  linguistic  abilities  all  the  more  valuable,  which  means  that  monolingual  pedagogies  will  not  always 
represent the best solution. It may prove useful to address doctoral candidates’ linguistic competences at the 
admission stage of a doctoral programme.

28 

See also Stohl (2007): p. 360.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 39

7. 
Funding

FUNDING  is  one  of  the  most  critical  and  fundamental  elements  of  the 
infrastructure  for  doctoral  programmes,  be  they  organised  at  national  level, 
within  one  university,  or  otherwise.  When  seeking  to  identify  good  practice  in 
doctoral education, it is important to distinguish between two equally important 
types  of  funding:  the  funding  of  individual  PhD  candidates  (the  micro  level) 
and  the  funding  of  PhD  programmes  (the  macro  level).  While  some  doctoral 
candidates  are  willing  to  finance  their  own  studies,  this  is  not  an  adequate  or 
sufficient  expectation  on  which  the  launching  of  a  doctoral  programme  can 
be  based.  Funding  is  needed  for  running  a  doctoral  programme,  and  in  fully 
funded  programmes  also  as  scholarships  or  salaries  to  the  participants.  Even 
where  most  participants  are  paying  tuition,  some  funding  is  usually  offered  as 
scholarships to those doctoral researchers who will need it. The funding should 
be both sustainable and sufficiently attractive in order not to discourage talented 
individuals,  including  those  from  low  income  groups,  from  contemplating  a 
future academic career. Data from the 2002/03 Graduate Education Survey sheds 
some light on the relative importance of financial support when graduate students 
choose a doctoral programme. The survey asked over 10,000 US students to rank 
the following five factors:

•  Opportunity to work with particular faculty member
•  Reputation of the university or department
•  Financial support offered by the university or department
•  Location of the university
•  Programme characteristics

The majority of respondents cited the reputation of the university or department 
as the most influential factor in their choice of a specific PhD programme, while 
financial support and the opportunity to work with a particular scholar also were 
among  the  top  three  determining  factors.29  While  PhD  candidates  in  Europe 
are  usually  not  equally  burdened  by  graduate  school  debt,  their  motivations  in 
choosing a programme may not be very dissimilar. Fully-funded doctoral training 
does not only represent the ideal option from the researcher’s point of view, but 
funded PhDs also mean a recognition of doctoral research as professional work 
and thus a greater valorisation of the doctoral degree.

On  the  macro  level  of  PhD  programme  funding,  there  are  different  national 
and  European-level  schemes  of  funding.  In  most  countries,  funding  for  PhD 
programmes is not kept separate from the funding of universities. In some countries, 
however, universities can apply for additional earmarked public funds to establish 
PhD schools that may operate within a university or represent collaboration with 
other  universities,  with  special  funding  available  for  the  coordinating  university. 
Externally funded research projects may provide opportunities of employing PhD 
researchers in research projects. A number of countries also make separate funding 

29 

Ehrenberg, Zuckerman, Groen, and Brucker (2010), pp. 31, 115.

40 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

available for enriching PhD programmes with qualities that otherwise might be neglected. For example in the 
United Kingdom, the ESRC provides funds for inter-disciplinary training and requires all accredited institutions 
in the UK to open up some of their advanced training courses to students from other institutions. This allows 
resources to be shared across research active institutions. In the EU, the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA) 
constitute the major pre- and post-doctoral fellowship programme across all disciplines, fostering transnational, 
interdisciplinary, and cross-sectoral mobility. In the period to 2020, it will finance 25,000 PhD researchers.30  

The sustainability of doctoral research funding can be a challenge in times of economic deficits. The financial crisis 
has made itself felt, in some countries quite strongly, in the field of higher education. Even Nordic countries, which 
are widely reputed for their excellence in education, are faced with considerable austerity measures. In Finland, 
for example, Prime Minister Juha Sipilä announced in 2015 that basic university funding would be cut by around 
500 million euro during the four-year term of his government. The funding cuts introduced by the current and 
previous two governments have already had an impact on Finland’s 15 universities and 26 polytechnics, where 
5,200 posts have disappeared since 2012. Funding for bottom-up research by the Academy of Finland (equivalent 
to a national research council) has likewise dropped, namely by 16 per cent over five years, while applications have 
increased by 43 per cent. In Iceland, as a result of the economic crisis, universities also had to face government 
budget cuts of 20 per cent combined with a 20 per cent increase in the number of student enrolment. Nordic 
university  leaders  are  unanimous  in  their  insistence  on  investing  in  education  and  research,  because  this  will 
ensure future prosperity of the nation. Jukka Kola, rector of the University of Helsinki, stresses, “For a small-
population, export-reliant country, there are no other choices. We have only 5.5 million people. We don’t have any 
big natural resources, so it’s [about] education, knowledge, research [and] innovation.”31

Doctoral Education and Economic Growth
It is not uncommon for governments to refer explicitly to a relationship between doctoral awards made 
and  economic  growth.  […]  Brazil,  India  and  Thailand  talk  explicitly  about  expenditure  on  doctoral 
education and their economy. Canada, Denmark and Finland list it as an objective. South Africa states 
that in the context of the policy objective of increasing spending on research and development from 0.7 
to 1% of GDP, there is a need to increase spending on doctoral education by 3 or 4 times. 

See Eggins (2008), p. 3.

Governments have not collected data specifically with regard to the annual spending on doctoral education. 
A  2007  EUA  publication  cites  the  figure  of  374.8  million  euro  per  year  as  indicated  by  France  as  the  most 
comprehensive expenditure, comprising the financial support of doctoral candidates, doctoral schools as well 
as supervision and international co-supervision costs.32  The OECD has published aggregated data of annual 
tertiary education spending per student (see fig. below); corresponding data on PhD programmes only is not 
available.  According  to  the  OECD,  expenditure  per  student  on  R&D  accounts  for  over  a  third  of  the  total 
expenditure per student on average. In Denmark, Sweden, and Switzerland R&D accounts for over half of the 
total budget at tertiary level. In countries with lower spending on R&D a significant proportion of research 
activities may be performed in non-academic environments.33 

30 
31 
32 
33 

EC (2017).
Bothwell (2016 and 2017).
EUA (2007), p. 33.
OECD (2016a), p. 184.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 41

Sometimes voices are heard according to which PhD degrees would be “free” at a regular university, as PhD 
researchers largely organise their own work and for professors their supervision is just an add-on activity. This 
report has contested such perceptions and called for the full recognition of PhD supervision and training as 
highly qualified work by professors and other academics involved in it, in many cases with direct budgetary 
consequences for the university where the funding of universities is directly or indirectly based on the number 
of PhD students or PhD graduates. For any university, a PhD degree has a cost that in principle can be calculated. 
At the EUI there has been some discussion about how to calculate the financial cost of a PhD degree in social 
sciences. The following cost model was presented to the Task Force by EUI economics professor Andrea Ichino:

42 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

A tentative method to compute the cost of producing a PHD

In order to compute the cost of producing a PhD graduate in a given educational in-
stitution we ﬁrst have to decide which concept of cost should be used. The concept that
seems most appropriate is that of “operating cost” computed from the perspective of the
institution that provides the funding for the program and thus covers all costs. This can be
written as:

C =

sum of all the expenses sustained for a cohort of PhD students
number of students in the cohort that obtain a PhD

Note that this is the cost that a diﬀerent institution would have to cover if it wanted to
replicate exactly the PhD program under consideration.

More precisely, consider a cohort of students starting the PhD in some given year 0
and deﬁne the following parameters (yearly averages, are computed over the tenure of the
reference cohort):

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

T is the average number of years to complete a PhD

T (cid:31) is the number of cohorts enrolled contemporaneously in a given year and thus
ﬁnanced by the yearly budget.

W is the average yearly wage bill of all the personnel (professors, administrators, etc.)
working (part- or full-time) in the program.

G is the average yearly functioning cost of all the inputs that are partially or fully used
to run the PHD program.

B is the average yearly sum of the fellowships paid to students in the program.

N is the number of students in the reference cohort that complete the PhD.

ρ is the fraction of total expenditures that goes into research, which can be approxi-
mated as the fraction of time that professors dedicate to research.

u is the fraction of total expenditures that goes into undergraduate or post-doc pro-
grams (if present), which can be approximated as the fraction of time that professors
spend for other programs.

q is a parameter normalised to take values between 0 and 1, that deﬁnes the quality
of a PhD graduate. Such a parameter is obviously problematic, but could in principle
be constructed using information on alumni collected on the internet.

Then, the formula can be written as

C =

T [(W + G)(1

ρ
−
T (cid:31)N q

u) +B ]

−

were all the quantities on the right hand side should be measurable with standard data
available for any PhD program.

1

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 43

Across Europe there are substantial disparities in funding arrangements, and the sources for financing PhD education 
are diverse and diversifying, but mostly come from universities, government, or industry. As in many other areas of 
higher education, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for funding. However, the case of charging tuition fees and 
providing no financial assistance at all is at the very low end of the scale between bad and good practice. Researchers 
deserve proper remuneration, health insurance, as well as retirement and social security benefits right from the very 
beginning of their career, i.e. the PhD phase. If PhD candidates receive a salary, there, however, is a caveat concerning 
their status as employees, because in a standard hierarchical labour contract a manager would then have control over 
their time and thus their creative freedom might suffer. A scholarship-based model, even if less optimal from the 
perspectives of recognition and social security, has the benefit of symbolising the importance of academic freedom. 
When labour contracts are used, they will need to reflect the academic nature of the work and secure academic 
freedom. The European Charter for Researchers and Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers recognise 
the role of PhD candidates as early-stage researchers and express a preference for their remuneration through a salary 
and social security entitlements (cf. text box below).

Funding and Salaries

Employers and/or funders of researchers should ensure that researchers enjoy fair and attractive conditions 
of  funding  and/or  salaries  with  adequate  and  equitable  social  security  provisions  (including  sickness 
and parental benefits, pension rights and unemployment benefits) in accordance with existing national 
legislation and with national or sectoral collective bargaining agreements. This must include researchers 
at all career stages including early-stage researchers, commensurate with their legal status, performance 
and level of qualifications and/or responsibilities.

Cf. EC (2005), p. 18.

Alongside fully-funded PhD studies different options need to be considered, such as the possibility of employing 
doctoral candidates as research or teaching assistants (for a defined maximum, e.g. 5% of total working hours). 
When  teaching  duties  are  assigned,  they  need  to  respect  that  the  majority  of  the  PhD  candidate’s  time  has 
to be devoted to her or his own research. This does not negate the importance of teaching practice as a key 
experience, which is particularly valuable for those who aspire to academic careers.

Additionally, doctoral researchers need to be supported with fieldwork costs, especially in disciplines such as 
anthropology and international development, where locations can be distant and fieldwork extensive. In some 
cases research missions will also require researchers to learn a new language. Candidates may further incur 
expenses associated with equipment such as digital recorders and cameras. We consider it good practice for 
institutions to make funding available for visiting archives, conducting necessary fieldwork, language training, 
relevant equipment as well as for attendance at conferences.

There is no doubt that financial insecurity makes it very difficult for academics to deal with the intellectual 
uncertainty  and  risk  that  goes  hand  in  hand  with  research.  It  is  difficult  to  ignore  the  correlation  between 
funding,  completion  rates,  and  quality.  Funding  can  come  from  governments,  from  foundations  or  other 
private donors, or from the academic institutions themselves. Professors or other supervisors often need to 
be  encouraged  to  procure  external  grants,  which,  however,  may  have  the  downside  of  causing  distractions 
from the PhD project if there is then an expectation that the PhD researcher also produces project deliverables 

44 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

that do not directly benefit the PhD thesis. In addition, teaching can be used to generate funding for the PhD 
researcher,  but  everything  above  a  set  number  of  hours  ought  to  be  remunerated  extra  rather  than  used  in 
the  calculation  concerning  how  a  PhD  researcher  is  funded.  Given  that  the  majority  of  time  during  a  PhD 
programme needs to be devoted to one’s individual research, additional activities such as teaching need to be 
organised in such a way so as not to interfere with one’s schedule towards the thesis.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 45

8. 
The 
Job 
Market

A good indicator of the quality of PhD programmes is their graduates’ success on 
the JOB MARKET. Doctoral degree holders still fare fairly well on the job market 
and their unemployment rates remain low. However, the unprecedented surge in 
the number of doctorates awarded, coupled with the currently difficult economic 
situation in many European countries, poses a whole new set of challenges. If a 
career in academia constitutes the primary goal of the great majority of doctoral 
candidates, then there is a significant mismatch between supply and demand as 
well  as  between  career  expectations  of  aspirant  doctors  and  the  realities  of  the 
academic job market. The range of possible career outcomes needs to be validated 
without disparaging professional opportunities outside academia as a second-rate 
alternative.

Worldwide,  the  OECD  notes,  there  is  a  strong  link  between  educational 
attainment and economic growth, which also explains why countries, conceiving 
of themselves as knowledge-based societies, have invested willingly and heavily 
in (post-)doctoral education in recent years. For instance, Canada allocated CAD 
45 million from 2010 to 2015 to establish a competitive postdoctoral programme 
with a view to attract top-level talent. Australia has also expanded public funding 
for postgraduate education, doubling the number of postgraduate awards between 
2008 and 2012. With a view to doubling the number of PhD graduates, Ireland 
reorganised  PhD  education,  establishing  graduate  schools  and  structured  PhD 
programmes as well as implementing new governance structures and regulations.34  
Investments  seem  to  pay  off,  as  doctoral  degree  holders  benefit  from  higher 
employment rates than individuals with other university-level qualifications, on 

34 
2006-2013 (2005), pp. 29-30.

OECD (2014): p. 1. IUA (2004), p. 20. Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation, 

46 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

average 91% compared with 85% for bachelor and master graduates; in Greece, Spain, Hungary, and Estonia the 
difference even exceeds 10 percentage points.35 

Findings  from  a  UK  survey  on  the  employment  outcomes  of  graduates  underscore  not  only  the  greater 
employability (the unemployment rate was half of that of first degree holders), but also the increased geographical 
and sectoral mobility of PhD graduates compared to first degree graduates.36 In social science, more than half of 
the respondents in a UK survey from 2014 worked in higher education; other employment sectors, excluding 
higher education, of PhD graduates in social science are displayed in the graph below:37

Employment Sector (Social Sciences)

A study from the Netherlands further confirms the labour market advantages of doctoral recipients. In 2009, 
1.4% of PhD graduates were unemployed and 3.5% inactive, that is, neither employed nor seeking employment, 
according to Statistics Netherlands. Unemployment among individuals with advanced research qualifications 
has received little empirical attention, but data gathered about Dutch PhD graduates in 2008 and 2009 indicates 
certain common characteristics among job seekers with a doctoral degree. While neither the age, gender, nor 
quality of the PhD programme seemed to matter, the field of study as well as the academic performance during 
the PhD trajectory were determining factors. The authors of the study point out, “Doctoral candidates who 

35 
These figures are confirmed by a study of the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport which cites a general unem-
ployment rate of 26.1% in 2013, compared to 16.2% among BA and MA graduates, and only 5.0% among doctoral graduates (Ministe-
rio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (2015): p. 116).
Raddon and Sung (2009): p. 34.
36 
CFE Research (2014): pp. 23, 33.
37 

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 47

are unemployed and seeking a job at the time of the defence have a lower number of (co)authored conference 
papers, articles submitted for publication, and articles accepted for publication.”38  A study from Ireland on 
PhD  graduates  working  in  industry  further  shows  that  doctoral  degree  holders  are  chosen  for  more  senior 
positions: 46% of PhDs compared to 29% of other university graduates. It says that employers are interested in 
PhD graduates because of their skill profiles, which are broader and more diverse than the skill set of the other 
graduates surveyed.39

The academic job market has undergone profound changes in the last few decades and the number of tenured 
positions  has  been  dropping  steadily  across  different  disciplines.  For  instance,  55%  of  US  doctorates  in  the 
biological sciences secured tenure-track positions within six years after graduating compared to only 15% in 
2006.40  Academia cannot possibly absorb all the PhD graduates or all those eager to pursue an academic career. 
What  is  more,  those  who  continue  on  the  academic  track  often  find  themselves  in  precarious  employment 
conditions. In collaboration with five organisations the European Science Foundation conducted a pilot study 
on the careers of PhD graduates, Career Tracking of Doctorate Holders (2015). Over time periods of up to 
seven  years,  880  doctoral  recipients  were  contacted  with  a  response  rate  of  57%.  Findings  show  that  35% 
of  the  respondents  were  in  tenured  positions  and  only  27%  of  those  under  40  years  of  age  had  permanent 
full-time  contracts.  The  study  further  reveals  how  job  security  intersects  with  both  career  satisfaction  and 
productivity. Some 62% of temporary contract holders stated that they were “fairly” or “very dissatisfied” with 
their employment situation compared to 19% of those on permanent contracts.

The high level of uncertainty together with the dissatisfaction, frustration, and stress that temporary or insecure 
employment entails may bar many talented researchers from opting for an academic career. This problem needs 
to be recognised and adequately addressed by policymakers.

Another problem is the continuous gender bias in academia. The negative bias towards women, which frequently 
results in them being rated as less hireable than male candidates, may affect research productivity even long before 
the hiring process. In a study of nearly 10,000 economics PhD graduates the authors discovered:

High  unemployment  rates  at  the  time  of  entry  into  graduate  school  correlate 
negatively with female PhDs’ research productivity and positively with male PhDs’ 
productivity.  […]  A  possible  explanation  for  this  finding  might  be  that  men  and 
women react differently in risky situations. This could mean that rather more talented 
female candidates choose not to apply for graduate education during times of high 
unemployment,  or  alternatively  more  talented  female  graduates  do  not  choose  a 
research-active career after graduate education and opt for possibly more secure (and 
yet very well paying) jobs outside academia. 

Scholars  from  Cornell  University  have  identified  a  number  of  other  factors  which  put  women  de  facto  at  a 
disadvantage inside academia. Not only student evaluations, but also letters of recommendation are negatively 
biased against women, the latter mostly emphasising the wrong skills and attributes, by employing such qualities 
as  “helpful”  and  “kind”  instead  of  “confident”  and  “ambitious.”  Research  confirms  that  “women  are  seen  as 
competent or likable, but not both.”  Hiring staff and faculty need to be aware and might benefit from training 
to help eliminate implicit or explicit sexism in academia.

38 
39 
40 

Yerkes, van de Schoot, and Sonneveld (2012b): pp. 162-63.
O’Brien (2015).
Phillips and Heywood-Roos (2015).

48 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

As far as good practice in terms of labour market preparation is concerned, universities and doctoral schools 
ensure  appropriate  mentoring  and  orienting.  Often  universities  have  their  own  career  service  and  career 
adviser(s). They collect and disseminate relevant job market information and inform their doctoral candidates 
on the diverse careers within and beyond academia. The supervisor may also be a point of contact and offer 
valuable  advice.  However,  supervisors  may  not  necessarily  be  the  most  competent  individuals  in  providing 
up-to-date information on the range of professional opportunities. There is a shared responsibility to inform as 
well as to help doctoral researchers enhance their career prospects. It is vital, however, that PhD graduates who 
choose non-academic employment are not regarded as failures, especially not by their supervisor(s).

The  PhD  has  developed  into  something  more  than  an  apprenticeship  to  research.  Nowadays  the  increasing 
complexity of societal and economic problems demands an increasingly complex set of skills. A PhD programme 
does not aim at making up for a poor master-level education, but in many cases an MA may simply not offer 
enough preparation. Doctoral researchers learn how to handle today’s information overload, they know how 
to  develop  and  apply  theories  and  methodologies,  and,  very  importantly,  they  are  equipped  with  excellent 
writing  and  research  skills.  Within  EU  institutions,  international  organisations  and  national  governments 
there  are  already  many  senior,  expert  or  research  positions  where  a  PhD  degree  is  a  required  qualification 
or at least a recognised asset when applying for the job. Perhaps in the future a PhD degree becomes more 
broadly the required qualification and entry point for advanced level expert jobs, for example in policymaking 
in international organisations or EU agencies.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 49

Conclusions

The  following  compilation  of  bullet  points  consolidates  the  various  forms  of  good  practice  that  have  been 
identified as such by the Task Force in the earlier chapters. The points cover each of the eight baskets of this report 
and are arranged by addressee, that is, according to their relevance to policymakers, university administrators, 
and university departments and their academics.

Good practice points of relevance to policymakers:
The Thesis

•  There is continuous exchange and dialogue about good practice, both on a local and supra-national level.

Supervision

• 

Supervision is fully recognised as professors’ work and their other duties are adjusted in proportion to 
the supervisory load allocated by the university.

Coursework

• 

Structured doctoral programmes include both a research and a taught phase, which in most cases will 
in practice overlap.

Academic and Professional Components

•  Doctoral  education  focuses  on  academic  skills,  especially  excellent  writing  and  research  skills,  and 
thereby provides a solid foundation upon which additional professional skills training can be built.

Technology

•  Digital learning, distance supervision, or online classroom discussion are used as a supplement and not 

a substitute for face-to-face interaction.

Mobility and Internationalisation

•  The added value of exposure to different (academic) cultures, ways of thinking, and an international 

student body is recognised.

•  The main aim of exchange programmes and partnerships at the doctoral level is to increase research quality.
•  Mobility is not made into a compulsory aspect of any doctoral programme.

Funding

•  Funding for doctoral candidates covers the entire duration of the programme.
•  Financial support can take various forms, but it is appropriate and sufficient in recognition of doctoral 

training as professional work.

•  Financial support includes social security benefits.
•  Additional work, such as teaching activities, is remunerated separately, while recognising that acquiring 
teaching experience and teaching skills often is a key experience during PhD studies for those who will 
pursue an academic career.

The Job Market

•  Doctoral training is recognised as work experience.

50 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

Good practice points of relevance to university administrators:

The Thesis

•  A good programme is not overloaded, but allows for autonomy and flexibility; 75% of a PhD programme 
are entirely devoted to the thesis. Flexibility is vital, especially in the first year when doctoral candidates 
refine their research plan in collaboration with their supervisor(s).

•  Part-time options are offered for PhD candidates who need them, such as those with caring responsibilities.
•  Faculties/Departments provide written guidelines of the qualities of a good or excellent doctoral thesis.
•  Transparent and fair selection procedures are in place. The submission of a research plan is a threshold 

condition for admission.

•  Rigorous, systematic, and repeated quality control checks are carried out from early on, both in written 

and oral form.

•  Grading  systems  take  into  account  local/national  job  market  conventions  and  expectations  where  a 

high grade or a distinction may be relied on as proof of academic excellence.

Supervision

•  Universities are committed to doctoral education and ensure that every PhD candidate has at least one 

supervisor who is a full-time senior academic at that university.

•  Universities or departments provide a code of good practice in PhD supervision.
• 

Supervision is fully recognised as work and the supervisors’ other duties are adjusted in proportion to 
the supervisory load allocated by the university.

•  Annual supervision surveys and reports monitor the quality of supervision.
• 

Supervisors have access to optional, regular training.

Coursework

• 

75  %  of  a  (four-year)  doctoral  programme  are  devoted  to  the  individual  research  project,  while  the 
remaining 25 % are used for other training.

•  Possibilities for teaching and teacher training are provided, but obligatory participation is not required.
•  On successful completion of the coursework component, researchers receive some kind of certification 

or can produce a skills portfolio.
Academic and Professional Components

•  Formal skills training is offered in various formats, from which researchers can choose themselves.

Technology

•  PhD programmes offer digital literacy training.
•  Academic staff members are trained to stay informed on developments in ICT.
•  Universities weigh costs and benefits before acquiring and implementing new tools.

Mobility and Internationalisation

Institutions provide sufficient structures and resources to facilitate mobility.

• 
•  PhD  programmes  organise  mobility  schemes  in  a  flexible  way  and  support  individually  organised 

research stays abroad.
Institutions offer adequate language support and training for international researchers.

• 

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 51

Funding

•  Additional work, such as teaching activities, is remunerated separately, while recognising that acquiring 
teaching experience and teaching skills often is a key experience during PhD studies for those who will 
pursue an academic career.

The Job Market

•  Universities  have  a  career  service  and/or  career  adviser.  They  gather  and  disseminate  relevant 

information on professional opportunities.

•  Universities maintain contact with their alumni and keep track of their careers.

Good practice points of relevance to university departments and their academics:

The Thesis

•  The doctoral thesis remains the core aspect of doctoral education, constituting an original contribution 
to  the  field(s)  of  research  and  hence  to  knowledge.  It  incorporates  a  methodological  approach  and 
scholarly integrity.

•  The doctoral candidate is the first main author of a monographic thesis (of usually no more than 100,000 

words) or of, at the very least, one article of a cumulative thesis.

•  Rigorous, systematic, and repeated quality control checks are carried out from early on, both in written 

and oral form.

•  Doctoral candidates present their research on an annual basis.
•  The public thesis defence fulfils a final quality assurance purpose and provides opportunity for further 

debate.

•  The supervisor(s) can be members of the jury, which also includes an independent chair, but without 

a vote.

Supervision

•  The supervisor(s) and the supervisee agree of a written memorandum of understanding to decide on the 
nature of the supervisory relationship, including mutual expectations and the frequency of meetings.
Supervisors provide constructive feedback on written work and overall academic performance 
Supervisors  also  advise  on  learning  needs,  on  how  to  integrate  into  the  international  scientific 
community, and on professional opportunities.

• 
• 

Coursework

•  Good doctoral programmes offer methodological, subject-specific, and skills/professional development 

training as mandatory or optional elements.

•  The course design and assessment procedures allow for a high degree of flexibility and diversity.
•  The  format,  scope,  and  sequencing  of  coursework  are  organised  in  a  flexible  way.  Training  can  also 

include non-course-based activities, such as internships.

•  Training is partly compulsory and partly optional, tailored to the specific needs of doctoral candidates. 

When possible, courses are offered at the PhD level by senior faculty members.

52 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

Academic and Professional Components

•  Academics communicate with self-confidence the whole set of skills acquired in the course of a PhD 

programme.

•  Doctoral  candidates  are  given  opportunities  to  review,  evaluate,  and  promote  their  professional 

development.

Technology

• 

Instructors communicate the potential for collaboration, networking, and public engagement as well as 
the risks of online tools.

•  Researchers are advised on issues related to copyright and plagiarism.
•  The varying social media profiles and all levels of privacy concerns amongst PhD researchers are taken 

into account when offering elements of PhD education through social media.

Mobility and Internationalisation

•  Academic staff are involved in and actively promote international collaboration and networking.

Funding
• 

If doctoral candidates have the status of employees, they continue to have control over their working 
time.

The Job Market

• 

Supervisor(s) offer appropriate career guidance either themselves or direct doctoral candidates to an 
institutional career service.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 53

Bibliography

DAAD   

EC 

EP 

ESF 

EUA 

IUA 

LERU 

LSE 

OECD   

UiT 

Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst 
(German Academic Exchange Service)

European Commission

European Parliament

European Science Foundation

European University Association

Irish Universities Association

League of European Research Universities

London School of Economics and Political Science

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

University of Tromsø

Adhikari, Abhay (2011). “Universities Must Rethink their Approach to Student Digital Literacy.” The Guardian 
<https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/  higher-education-network-blog/2011/oct/10/
digital-literacy-collaboration>.

Ali,  Parveen  Azam,  Roger  Watson,  and  Katie  Dhingra  (2016).  “Postgraduate  Research  Students’  and  their 

Supervisors’ Attitudes towards Supervision.” International Journal of Doctoral Studies 11: pp. 227-41.

Anderson, Monika R., Jaqueline M. Ingram, Brandie J. Buford, Roslinda Rosli, Michelle L. Bledsoe, and Anthony 
J. Onwuegbuzie (2012). “Doctoral Students’ Perceptions of Characteristics of Effective College Teachers: A 
Mixed Analysis.” International Journal of Doctoral Studies 7: pp. 279-309.

Altbach, Philip G., and Jane Knight (2007). “The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations and 

Realities.” Journal of Studies in International Education 11.3/4: pp. 290-305.

Amran, Najah Nadia, and Rozita Ibrahim (2012). “Academic Rites of Passage: Reflection on a PhD Journey.” 

Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 59: pp. 528-34.

Borrell-Damian,  Lidia,  Timothy  Brown,  Andrew  Dearing,  Josep  Font,  Stephen  Hagen,  Janet  Metcalfe,  and 

54 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
John  Smith  (2010).  “Collaborative  Doctoral  Education:  University-Industry  Partnerships  for  Enhancing 
Knowledge Exchange.” Higher Education Policy 23: pp. 493-514.

Bothwell,  Ellie  (2016).  “Nordic  Higher  Education  in  Decline?  The  Region’s  Reputation  for  Excellence 
Could  be  Threatened  by  Funding  Cuts  and  Restructuring.”  Times  Higher  Education  <https://www.
timeshighereducation.com/features/is-nordic-higher-education-in-decline>.

Bothwell, Ellie (2017). “Finland Funding Cuts a ‘Catastrophe’ for Research.” <https://www.timeshighereducation.

com/news/finland-funding-cuts-catastrophe-research>.

Bowen,  Glenn  A.  (2005).  “Preparing  a  Qualitative  Research-Based  Dissertation:  Lessons  Learned.”  The 

Qualitative Report 10.2: 208-22.

Brentel, Helmut (2016). “Principles of Research Supervision: Concepts for Developing Supervisors Training 

and Doctoral Schools.” Brentel Consulting and Training.

Brightman, Harvey J. (2009). “The Need for Teaching Doctoral Students How to Teach.” International Journal 

of Doctoral Studies 4: pp. 1-11.

British Academy (2004). That Full Complements of Riches: The Contributions of the Arts, Humanities and Social 

Sciences to the Nation’s Wealth. London: British Academy.

British  Council  and  DAAD  (2014).  The  Rationale  for  Sponsoring  Students  to  Undertake  International  Study: 
An Assessment of National Student Mobility Scholarship Programmes <https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/
default/files/e002_outward_ mobility_study_final_v2_web.pdf>.

Brown, George, and Madeleine Atkins (1988). Effective Teaching in Higher Education. London: Methuen.

Carter, Susan (2009). “Volunteer Support of English as an Additional Language (EAL) for Doctoral Students.” 

International Journal of Doctoral Studies 4: pp. 13-25.

CFE  Research  (2014).  The  Impact  of  Doctoral  Careers.  Leicester:  CFE  <http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/

skills/timodcfullreport-pdf/>.

Clark,  Ruth  Colvin,  and  Ann  Kwinn  (2007).  The  New  Virtual  Classroom:  Evidence-Based  Guidelines  for 

Synchronous E-Learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Conley, John P., Ali Sina Önder, and Benno Togler (2016). “Are all Economics Graduate Cohorts Created Equal? 

Gender, Job Openings, and Research Productivity.” Scientometrics 108: 937-58.

Craswell, Gail (2007). “Deconstructing the Skills Training Debate in Doctoral Education.” Higher Education 

Research & Development 26.4: pp. 377-91.

Deuchar,  Ross  (2008).  “Facilitator,  Director  or  Critical  Friend?  Contradiction  and  Congruence  in  Doctoral 

Supervision Styles.” Teaching in Higher Education 13.4: pp. 489-500.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 55

EC  (2005).  The  European  Charter  for  Researchers;  The  Code  of  Conduct  for  the  Recruitment  of  Researchers. 

Brussels: Directorate-General for Research.

EC  (2014).  “Erasmus  Impact  Study  Confirms  EU  Student  Exchange  Scheme  Boosts  Employ-ability  and  Job 

Mobility.” <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1025_en.htm>.

EC (2015). ECTS Users’ Guide. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

EC (2016). “Europe 2020 Indicators – Education.” Eurostat Statistics Explained <http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/

statistics-explained/index.php/Europe_2020_indicators_-_education>.

EC (2017). “Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions – Overview.” <http://ec.europa.euresearch/ mariecurieactions/

about_en>.

Eggins, Heather (2008). “The UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge: Trends and 
Issues in Post Graduate Education – A Global Review.” <http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/files/55833/
12018845045EgginsREV.pdf/EgginsREV.pdf>.

Ehrenberg, Ronald G., Harriet Zuckerman, Jeffrey A. Groen, and Sharon M. Brucker (2010). Educating Scholars: 

Doctoral Education in the Humanities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Enders, Jürgen (2002). “The PhD on the Labour Market, the Everlasting Need of Inequality, and the Premature 

Death of Humboldt.” Higher Education 44.3/4: pp. 493-517.

EP (2000). “Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000: Presidency Conclusions.” <http://www.europarl.

europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm>.

ESF (2009). Research Careers in Europe: Landscapes and Horizons. Strasbourg: ESF.

ESF (2015). Career Tracking of Doctorate Holders. Strasbourg: Ireg.

EUA (2005). “Bologna Seminar: Doctoral Programmes for the European Knowledge Society.” <http://www.eua.

be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Salzburg_Report_final.1129817011146.pdf>.

EUA (2007). Europe’s Universities: Achievements and Challenges – Report Prepared for European Universities and 

Ministers of Higher Education. Brussels: EUA.

EUA (2015). Principles and Practices for International Doctoral Education. Brussels: EUA.

EUA (2016). Taking Salzburg Forward – Implementation and New Challenges. Brussels: EUA.

Gikas,  Joanne,  and  Michael  M.  Grant  (2013).  “Mobile  Computing  Devices  in  Higher  Education:  Student 
Perspectives on Learning with Cellphones, Smartphones & Social Media.” Internet and Higher Education 
19: pp. 18-16.

Greene, Melanie (2015). “Come Hell or High Water: Doctoral Students’ Perceptions on Support Services and 

56 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

Persistence.” International Journal of Doctoral Studies 10: pp. 501-18.

Halse,  Christine  (2011).  “‘Becoming  a  Supervisor’:  The  Impact  of  Doctoral  Supervision  on  Supervisors’ 

Learning.” Studies in Higher Education 36.5: pp. 557-70.

Halse, Christine, and Janne Malfroy (2010). “Retheorizing Doctoral Supervision as Professional Work.” Studies 

in Higher Education 35.1: pp. 79-92.

Holbrook, Allyson, Sid Bourke, Terence Lovat, and Kerry Dally (2004). “Investigating PhD Thesis Examination 

Reports.” International Journal of Educational Research 41: pp. 98-120.

Hutchinson,  Steve,  Helen  Lawrence,  and  Dave  Filipović-Carter  (2014).  Enhancing  the  Doctoral  Experience. 

Burlington: Gower.

IUA  (2004).  The  Future  of  the  Ph.D.  in  Ireland:  Attracting  &  Retaining  Postgraduate  Researchers  in  Irish 

Universities. Dublin: IUA.

Jones, Michael (2013). “Issues in Doctoral Studies – Forty Years of Journal Discussion: Where Have We Been 

and Where Are We Going?” International Journal of Doctoral Studies 8: pp. 83-104.

Kehm,  Barbara  M.  (2007).  “Quo  Vadis  Doctoral  Education?  New  European  Approaches  in  the  Context  of 

Global Changes.” European Journal of Education 42.3: pp. 307-19.

Kogan, Maurice, and Ulrich Teichler, eds. (2007). Key Challenges to the Academic Profession. Paris and Kassel: 

UNESCO Forum on Higher Education.

Kumar, Vijay, and Elke Stracke (2011). “Examiners’ Reports on Theses: Feedback or Assessment?” Journal of 

English for Academic Purposes 10: pp. 211-22.

Lee, Alison, Marie Brennan, and Bill Green (2009). “Re-Imagining Doctoral Education: Professional Doctorates 

and Beyond.” Higher Education Research & Development 28.3: pp. 275-87.

Lee,  Anne  (2008).  “How  Are  Doctoral  Students  Supervised?  Concepts  of  Doctoral  Research  Supervision.” 

Studies in Higher Education 33.3: pp. 267-81.

Lee, Mark J.W., and Catherine McLoughlin (2010). “Pedagogy 2.0: Critical Challenges and Responses to Web 
2.0 and Social Software in Tertiary Teaching.” In Web 2.0-Based E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for 
Tertiary Teaching, edited by Mark J.W. Lee and Catherine McLoughlin. New York: Hershey.

Leifer,  Cynthia  et  al.  (2015):  “Let’s  Face  It:  Gender  Bias  in  Academia  Is  for  Real.” The  Conversation  <http://

theconversation.com/lets-face-it-gender-bias-in-academia-is-for-real-44637>.

LERU (January 2014). Good Practice Elements in Doctoral Training. Advice Paper 15.

LERU (June 2014). Online Learning at Research-Intensive Universities. Advice Paper 16.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 57

LSE (2016). “PhD Supervision: Roles and Responsibilities.” <http://www.lse.ac.uk/intranet/ LSEServices/TLC/
Resources/Images%20and%20Resource%20documents/PhD-Supervision/PhD-supervision---roles-and-
responsibilities---FINAL.pdf>.

McAlpine, Lynn, and Judith Norton (2006). “Reframing our Approach to Doctoral Programs: An Integrative 

Framework for Action and Research.” Higher Education Research and Development 25.1: pp. 3-17.

Melin,  Göran,  and  Kerstin  Janson  (2006).  “What  Skills  and  Knowledge  Should  a  PhD  Have?  Changing 
Preconditions for PhD Education and Post Doc Work.” In The Formative Years of Scholars, edited by Ulrich 
Teichler. London: Portland Press. pp. 105-18.

Metcalfe, Mike (2000). “Arguing for PhD Coursework.” AJIS 7.2: pp. 52-59.

Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (2015). Datos y Cifras del Sistema Universitario Español – Curso 

2014-2015. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte.

Morgan, John (2016). “Australia’s Education Exports Hit Record Levels.” Times Higher Education <https://www.

timeshighereducation.com/news/australias-education-exports-hit-record-levels>.

National Board of Employment, Education and Training (1989). On Public Funding of Research: A Discussion 

Paper. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Press.

Nerad, Maresi (2010). “Globalization and the Internationalization of Graduate Education: A Macro and Micro 
View.” Canadian Journal of Higher Education/Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur 40.1: pp. 1-12.

Nerad, Maresi (2014). “Developing ‘Fit for Purpose’ Research Doctoral Graduates: Increased Standardization 
of Quality Measures in PhD Education Worldwide.” In Globalization and Its Impacts on the Quality of PhD 
Education: Forces and Forms in Doctoral Education Worldwide, edited by Maresi Nerad and Barbara Evans. 
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. pp. 111-27.

Neumann, Ruth (2005). “Doctoral Differences: Professional Doctorates and PhDs Compared.” Journal of Higher 

Education Policy and Management 27.2: pp. 173-88.

O’Brien, Diarmuid (2015). “Research Shows a Doubling of PhD Graduates Working in Industry between 2000 
and 2010.” Irish Times <http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ research-shows-a-doubling-of-phd-graduates-
working-in-industry-between-2000-and-2010-1.2056833>.

OECD (2012). Transferable Skills Training for Researchers: Supporting Career Development and Research. Paris: 

OECD Publishing.

OECD (2014). “Who Are the Doctorate Holders and Where Do Their Qualifications Lead Them?” Education 

Indicators in Focus 25. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2016a). Education at a Glance 2016: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2016b). “The Internationalisation of Doctoral and Master’s Studies.” Education Indicators in Focus 39. 

58 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2016c). Trends Shaping Education 2016. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Pelger, Christoph and Markus Grottke (2015). “What about the Future of the Academy? Some Remarks on the 

Looming Colonisation of Doctoral Education.” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 26: pp. 117-29.

Phelps,  Jennifer  M.  (2016).  “International  Doctoral  Students’  Navigations  of  Identity  and  Belonging  in  a 

Globalizing University.” International Journal of Doctoral Studies 11: pp. 1-14.

Phillips, Estelle M., and Derek S. Pugh (2015). How to Get a PhD: A Handbook for Students and Their Supervisors. 

6th ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Phillips, Siobhan, and Rhona Heywood-Roos (2015). “Job Security for Early Career Researchers Is a Significant 
Factor  in  Helping  Research  Make  an  Impact.”  <http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/06/30/
early-career-paths-of-doctorate-holders-esf-pilot/>.

Pukelis,  Kestutis,  and  Nora  Pileicikiene  (2009).  “Matching  of  Generic  Competencies  with  Labour  Market 
Needs: Important Factors of Quality of Study Programmes.” In Development of Competencies in the World of 
Work and Education, edited by Samo Pavlin and Adam Nigel Judge. Ljubljana: DECOWE. pp. 77-83.

Purcell, Kate, Sue Durbin, Stella Warren, Peter Elias, Heike Behle, and Rhys Davies. (2005). “The Employment of 
Social Science PhDs in Academic and Non-Academic Jobs: Research Skills and Postgraduate Training.” ESRC 
<https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/ soc/ier/publications/2005/final_draft_socsci_phds_06_june_2005.pdf>.

Raddon,  Arwen,  and  Johnny  Sung  (2009).  “The  Career  Choices  and  Impact  of  PhD  Graduates  in  the  UK: 
A  Synthesis  Review.”  <http://www.esrc.ac.uk/files/public-engagement/public-dialogues/full-report-phd-
graduates-career-choices/>.

Rich, Emma, and Andy Miah (13 March 2013). “Can Twitter Open Up a New Space for Learning, Teaching and 

Thinking?” The Guardian.

Ryan, Janette (2012). “Internationalisation of Doctoral Education.” Australian Universities’ Review 54.1: pp. 55-

63.

Sambrook, Sally, Jim Stewart, and Clair Roberts (2008). “Doctoral Supervision – A View from Above, Below 

and the Middle.” Journal of Further and Higher Education 32.1: pp. 71-84.

Schniederjans, Marc (2007). “A Proposed Ph.D. Student Bill of Rights.” International Journal of Doctoral Studies 

2: pp. 1-8.

Selwyn, Neil, and Keri Facer (2014). “The Sociology of Education and Digital Technology: Past, Present, and 

Future.” Oxford Review of Education 40.4: pp. 482-96.

Stohl, Michael (2007). “We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us: The Role of the Faculty in the Internationalization 
of Higher Education in the Coming Decade.” Journal of Studies in International Education 11.3/4: pp. 359-72.

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ■ 59

Strategy  for  Science,  Technology  and  Innovation,  2006-2013  (2005).  <http://www.hrb.ie/  fileadmin/Staging/

Documents/RSF/PEER/Policy_Docs/Relevant_reports/SSTI.pdf>.

Tess, Paul A. (2013). “The Role of Social Media in Higher Education Classes (Real and Virtual) – A Literature 

Review.” Computers in Human Behavior 29: pp. A60-A68.

Thomas, Douglas, and John Seely Brown (2011). A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a 

World of Constant Change. Lexington, CreateSpace.

UiT  (2015).  “Agreement  on  Admission  to  the  PhD  Programme  at  the  University  of  Tromsø  –  The  Arctic 

University of Norway.” <https://uit.no/Content/383899/Ph-d-Avtaleskjema_2014_engelsk.docx>.

Vitae  (2010).  “Introducing  the  Researcher  Development  Framework.”  Cambridge:  Careers  Research  and 
Advisory Centre <https://www.vitae.ac.uk/vitae-publications/rdf-related/introducing-the-vitae-researcher-
development-framework-rdf-to-employers-2011.pdf>.

Vitae  (2016).  “Supervision  and  Key  Relationships.”  Cambridge:  Careers  Research  and  Advisory  Centre 
<https://www.vitae.ac.uk/doing-research/doing-a-doctorate/starting-a-doctorate/supervision-and-key-
relationships#the-main-supervisor-s-role>.

Yerkes, Mara, Rens van de Schoot, and Hans Sonneveld (2012a). “The Employment Status of Doctoral Recipients: 

An Exploratory Study in the Netherlands.” International Journal of Doctoral Studies 7: pp. 331-48.

Yerkes,  Mara,  Rens  van  de  Schoot,  and  Hans  Sonneveld  (2012b).  “Who  Are  the  Job  Seekers?  Explaining 

Unemployment among Doctoral Recipients.” International Journal of Doctoral Studies 7: pp. 153-66.

60 ■ REFORMING THE DOCTORATE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

Q
M
-
0
1
-
1
7
-
1
1
1
-
E
N
N

-

ISBN: 978-92-9084-483-9

doi:10.2870/63600