Conference Agenda

Currently, doctoral education finds itself in a crucial situation, which requires intense scrutiny over its general purpose, its design and organizational structures and its contributions to the higher system in general (e.g. Cardoso, et al. 2021; Nature, 2024; Rathenau, 2024a).

The doctorate system, through the Bologna process (1992) considered as the third cycle in the bachelor, master, and PhD-system, is in transition along various dimensions. From a strictly academic issue, doctoral education has moved to a matter of international and national concern, which legitimises several political reforms and initiatives aimed at its regulation and reconfiguration (Cardoso, et al., 2022). We see a steady increase in numbers of PhD-candidates and graduations, and more variety of trajectories, such as the professional doctorate.

Because of the worldwide, prime importance of doctoral education, for our knowledge economy and as major contributor in the development of science and its (future) labour market, global debates on the best practices of delivering this education are ongoing (Yudkevich, Altbach, de Wit, 2021).

Whereas the PhD-system is increasingly studied, and publications concerning its various aspects are currently widely available, as well as information concerning facts, numbers and graduation rates (Rathenau 2024a, b, PNN, 2025) these generally focus on the individual level, whereas more profound discussions about how the system as a whole are lacking. It is my intention to provide a more fundamental basis and new structural impetus for these discussions.

Since the Berlin conference 2003 the PhD-trajectory has been acknowledged by the education Ministers of the Bologna countries. These ministers declared that “we need to ensure that the European higher education system acquires a world-wide degree of attraction equal to our extraordinary cultural and scientific traditions.”

More recently, internationalization, massification, the development of Artificial Intelligence (Bearman et al., 2022) and public management reform, encouraged by several initiatives such as the Bologna Process and the foundation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) had extensive impact on the doctorate system (e.g. Schäfer, 2021). EU agendas for higher education stimulated increased investment in research and development (European Commission, 2015; OECD, 2020, 2024), to ensure the future supply of research talent for the knowledge economy (Enders and de Weert, 2004; Neumann and Tan, 2011), which resulted in substantial rising numbers of PhD-candidates and graduates.

Main issues involve the misalignment with the labor market for professionals, with many PhD-graduates pursuing careers outside academia. Other issues involve structural inequities, for example considering gender, ethnicity and class disparities. Additional aspects involve the supervision and assessment of the PhDs trajectory.

Fresh, evidence-based insights are required to create an input for a novel, inclusive structuring of the doctoral system and post-PhD career perspectives that recognize and support diverse forms of knowledge and research outputs. Main subtopics involve the reconsideration and critical reflection of doctoral education, (post)PhD-careers and inequalities. How can we create a more sustainable system of doctoral education, inclusive and with a fit for the future labour market?

Diversity in the research workforce fuels creativity, brings new perspectives to science, and accelerates innovation (Hofstra et al.,2020). Key breakthroughs have emerged when individuals from a variety of backgrounds have contributed to the underpinning research (Díaz-García et al., 2013). However, diversity in the research workforce needs nurturing. This presentation presents the findings of an OECD Expert Group, bringing together experts from 18 different countries to examine diversity and excellence. Studies of national research systems have provided evidence of disparities in opportunities across all stages of research careers, highlighting gaps in career entry, advancement, pay, support and funding. These studies indicate that gaps are not due to differences in the quality of the individual candidate but can be explained by a set of interconnected relational, structural and systemic barriers (Ginther et al. 2011, Kozlowski et al., 2022; 2024; Larivière et al.,2013). Policymakers are taking action; research‑performing organisations are pivotal, yet bridging top‑down mandates and bottom‑up initiatives remains challenging. Guidance is needed to design interventions so that researchers, regardless of starting point or personal circumstances, can contribute to scientific progress. To this end, we draw on the concept of inclusive excellence in research, which affirms the necessity of public policy intervention to actively promote a diversity of perspectives and the participation of individuals from different backgrounds to accelerate the advancement of science. Inclusive excellence requires working conditions that make success equally probable regardless of differences in starting points and circumstances, thereby embedding equity and ensuring equal opportunities in research, education and training, career advancement and promotion, as well as in the allocation of resources. While recognising that the notion of “excellence” is socially constructed, we developed a framework to implement inclusive excellence in research with four pillars, each pillar including findings from the analysis of current practices in participating countries: · Pillar 1. Leveraging evidence to systematically identify and address barriers · Pillar 2. Supporting accessibility to research careers by addressing cost-barriers in the entry to research careers and inclusive curricula for research training · Pillar 3. Reducing the uncertainty of research careers in the public sector · Pillar 4. Ensuring equitable access to funding opportunities The presentation will include experts from multiple countries and researchers’ union representatives who will examine key issues for each pillar and highlight good practices.

Díaz-García et al. (2013), “Gender diversity within R&D teams: Its impact on radicalness of innovation”, Vol. 15/2, pp. 149-160, https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.5172/impp.2013.15.2.149. Ginther, D. et al. (2011), “Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards”, Science, Vol. 333/6045, pp. 1015-1019, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1196783 Hofstra, B. et al. (2020), “The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 117/17, pp. 9284-9291, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1915378117. Kozlowski, D. et al. (2022), “Intersectional inequalities in science”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 119/2, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2113067119. Kozlowski, D. et al. (2024), “The Howard‐Harvard effect: Institutional reproduction of intersectional inequalities”, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 75/8, pp. 869-882, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24931. Larivière, V. et al. (2013), “Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science”, Nature, Vol. 504/7479, pp. 211-213, https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a. 5. country/national perspective(s) OECD countries, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, South Korea

Sweden, like other European countries, has a long tradition of cooperation in development aid-funded doctoral programs with universities in Africa. The idea is that graduates of these programs will contribute to national development by way of establishing a knowledge society (Samoff, 2004). Nevertheless, there is a plethora of research that indicates African researchers with doctoral degrees struggle to contribute to global knowledge production and progress in research careers, both within and outside of academia (Bezzaoucha et al., 2014; Du Toit & Koorsen, 2022). Although challenges like insecure employment situations, underfunding, and structural inequalities are recognized, there remains limited systematic evidence of the conditions that contribute to the research career outcomes of doctoral holders in African countries. The question is “How do broader systems, institutional environments, and individual circumstances contribute to researchers’ career development in Africa?” We review existing research to identify the structural, institutional, and individual-level conditions that contribute to shaping research careers and to map the methodological approaches that have been used to study researcher career development in African contexts. To provide contextual depth to the findings of this literature review, we will also present preliminary results from a case study of four doctoral programs at an Ethiopian university that are supported by Swedish development aid. Our analytical starting point is Castells’ (2001) contribution to the sociology of universities in development. Castells (2001) indicated several organizational reasons to explain the underdevelopment of research and categorized these as structural conditions (e.g., limited national resources for university research, uneven global scientific development) and institutional conditions (e.g., difficulty in managing scientific activity with other university functions, research infrastructure, policies, mentorship). While Castells (2001) recognized that researchers who are integrated in global scientific networks are among the most needed resources for a university in development, his work did not focus on individuals. Considering the vast literature emphasizing individual conditions, like gender, motivation, discipline, researcher identity, collaboration and networks, and commitment to serving society, we included individual-level conditions in our analysis (Kay & Karmowska, 2025; Musiige & Maassen, 2015). The findings from the literature review and case study point to an emphasis on institutional and individual-level conditions contributing to research career development, while structural conditions have been emphasized to a lesser extent. This raises critical questions about how doctoral education, particularly programs embedded in development aid, are designed to support research career pathways after doctoral education and how they could be reformed.

Bezzaoucha A., Atif, M., Bouamra, A., El Kebboub, A., & Benzerga, M. (2014). Algerian medical teachers’ research output and its determinants during the 2000–2009 decade. Revue d'epidemiologie et de sante publique, 62(1), 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respe.2013.08.005 Castells, M. (2001). Universities as dynamic systems of contradictory functions. In J. Muller, N. Cloete, & S. Badat (Eds.), Challenges of Globalisation. South African Debates with Manuel Castells (pp. 206-224). Maskew Miller Longman. Du Toit, D. & Koorsen, G. (2022). How useful is post-graduate education in biochemistry for entry into the South African labour market?. Biochemisty and Molecular Biology Education, 50(4), 354-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21627 Kay, S. & Karmowska, J. (2025). Personal factors in the career development of early career researchers in Kenya and implications for models of mentoring practice. Higher Education, 90, 1105-1122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01368-x Musiige, G. & Maassen, P. (2015). Faculty perceptions of the factors that influence research productivity at Makerere University. In N. Cloete, P. Maassen, & T. Bailey (Eds.), Knowledge Production and Contradictory Functions in African Higher Education (pp. 109-127). African Minds. Samoff, J. & Carrol, B. (2004). The promise of partnership and continuities of dependence: external support to higher education in Africa. African Studies Review, 47(1), 67-199. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1514799

Doctoral education must bridge academia and society to address labour market misalignment and structural inequities, fostering inclusive (post)academic careers (Biesta, 2019; Jasanoff, 2004). Yet, traditional structures limit societal engagement, creating gaps in career preparation, supervision and diverse knowledge validation. This paper examines a Portuguese FCT-funded doctoral project linking university, municipalities and migrant communities, contributing to the symposium theme "Inclusiveness and future of the doctoral system". The project operates through FCT's non-academic environment line (550 grants awarded in 2025), placing doctoral researchers in boundary spaces where knowledge is co-produced with societal actors (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, 2025a, 2025b). Proximity between universities and public administration enhances innovation networks (Runiewicz-Wardyn, 2020), while Jasanoff's co-production framework reveals how scientific knowledge and governance mutually constitute each other in migration policy research. We address two research questions: 1. How does FCT funding enable co-construction of knowledge between academia and society in migration/language education? 2. How do municipal partnerships and co-development workshops reshape doctoral projects as boundary spaces for inclusive career futures? Methodologically, participatory design combines ethnographic fieldwork in schools/municipalities, documentary analysis of linguistic policies, and co-development workshops negotiating research questions and policy briefs with stakeholders. Institutional mobility across sites serves as an analytic lens. Expected findings reveal how boundary spaces support context-sensitive interventions and teacher training while exposing tensions in authorship, evaluation and career uncertainty. Municipal co-development workshops validate diverse knowledge forms, reconfiguring doctoral identities beyond academia. We propose a framework for inclusive doctoral education with four pillars: · Pillar 1: FCT funding structures enabling boundary spaces · Pillar 2: Co-development workshops as knowledge co-construction sites · Pillar 3: Municipal partnerships translating research into governance · Pillar 4: Career pathways recognising transdisciplinary doctoral work Publicly funded boundary spaces demonstrate how doctoral education can systematically nurture societal engagement, validating dialogic trajectories as legitimate career futures.

Biesta, G. J. J. (2019). Obstinate education: Reconnecting school and society. Brill Sense. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia. (2025a). FCT awards 1550 new studentships for doctorates. https://www.fct.pt/en/fct-atribui-1-550-novas-bolsas-de-investigacao-para-doutoramento/ Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia. (2025b). Specific line of application in a non-academic environment. https://www.fct.pt/en/concursos/concurso-bolsas-de-doutoramento-2025-linha-de-candidatura-especifica-em-ambiente-nao-academico Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge. Runiewicz-Wardyn, M. (2020). The role proximity plays in university-driven social

Amid accelerating technological developments, ideological tensions, and global crises such as climate and demographic change, educational research is increasingly marked by epistemic uncertainty—where the boundaries of knowledge, methodologies, and legitimacy are continually shifting (Biesta, 2010; Murris, 2022). This uncertainty is particularly evident in the experiences of international PhD students in Germany, whose doctoral work takes place within an expanding and internationalised higher education system. Their research trajectories are shaped by disciplinary traditions as well as by institutional ambiguities, supervisory arrangements, and the broader transformation of doctoral education. In this study, qualitative data including in-depth interviews and thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), reveal the strategies doctoral researchers employ to claim epistemic agency despite institutional constraints. Key findings indicate that mentorship, interdisciplinary exposure, and research autonomy are crucial factors in fostering agency, while institutional barriers—such as rigid disciplinary boundaries, bureaucratic obstacles, and unequal access to academic networks—can hinder students’ ability to fully assert themselves as knowledge producers. The findings show that doctoral students undergo identity reconstruction, balancing prior educational norms with Germany’s independent research culture (Boutiuc-Kaiser et al., 2025). Initial uncertainty related to institutional adjustment, language barriers, and unclear supervision echoes earlier research (Wu, 2017; Schneijderberg & Teichler, 2018). Over time, students develop coping strategies, build peer networks, and adapt their study habits, gaining broader academic perspectives and increased agency (Bilecen, 2013). As educational research seeks to address the uncertainties of the future, this study contributes to ongoing discussions about the inclusivity of higher education, the impact of mobility on academic careers, and the structural dynamics that shape educational trajectories. These insights contribute to transdisciplinary debates on inclusive and globally connected higher education, while critically examining how the inflation of academic titles further accentuates epistemic uncertainty.

Biesta, G. (2010). Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy. Routledge. Bilecen, B. (2013). International doctoral students as knowledge brokers: Reciprocity, trust and solidarity in transnational networks. Discussed in research on PhD adjustment and identity reconstruction. Boutiuc-Kaiser, A., & Symeonidis, V. (2025). Internationalising doctoral education: International PhD students’ experiences of academic mobility in Germany. Academia, 0(38), 25-48. doi: https://doi.org/10.26220/aca.5074 Murris, K. (2022). Navigating Epistemic Uncertainty in Educational Research: A Posthuman Perspective. Routledge. Schneijderberg, C. & Teichler, U. (2018). Doctoral education, supervision practices, and socialisation processes Wu, R., Pan, X., Huang, X., & Zhai, Y. (2025). The impact of international academic mobility on doctoral students’ research collaboration and publication output.