Globally, doctoral education has been in the throes of change throughout most of the 21^st century with massification, diversification, regulation, capitalisation and numerous other ‘ations. But relatively little is known about the ways in which these factors have impacted upon different higher education systems.

This became a topic for discussion with two colleagues,  Karri Holley of the University of Alabama and Margaret Kiley of the Australian National University, and we decided to try and investigate the question by inviting a group of distinguished researchers from a sample of countries to produce papers to form a basis for comparison. We were very fortunate that Gina Wisker, the editor of Innovations in Education and Teaching International, agreed to host the collection of papers in a special issue of the journal which was published in August 2023.

The issue on ‘The Changing Landscape of Doctoral Education’ starts with a paper by Stan Taylor setting out a potential framework for analysis based on his previous work on key issues in doctoral education. This article is open access and available at the bottom of this page. There then follows national studies of developments in Australia, Chile, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Russia, Turkiye, the UK (also available at the bottom of this page), and the US. In all, in 2017 these countries were responsible for 62% of doctoral enrolments and 70% of doctoral graduates.

The country studies are contributions in their own right to national doctoral education literatures and they also constitute a dataset for comparative analysis, which is undertaken by the editors in a concluding article. In reaching conclusions, the editors were aware that the 14 countries covered were a small sample of the 178 countries which provide doctoral programmes and that contributors were asked to comment on what they thought were the key developments for their countries and that the articles did not all cover the same ground. For these reasons, the conclusions can only be tentative.

That said, the study identified trends in the vast majority of cases in ‘McDonaldisation’ (cutting completion times and improving completion rates), increased regulation, institutional structuration,  massification and diversification, distance delivery, interdisciplinarity, and capitalisation (redefining the purpose of doctorate as producing researchers for the knowledge economy both within and increasingly outside academia).

But it also found considerable disparities in other areas, including commodification (shifting from a master-apprentice to a producer-consumer paradigm), collectivisation (single vs team supervision), obligation (institutional duties of care for candidate wellbeing), casualisation (shift from full to part-time study), and utilisation (shift from knowledge creation per se to producing ’useful’ knowledge). This left the question of why there had been different outcomes in particular cases, for which the editors considered that four explanatory variables could be identified. These were: the degree to which states prioritised doctoral education; the extent to which they controlled it; the relative mix of STEM and other disciplines in doctoral education provision; and differences in national labour markets in terms of the availability of academic and non-academic roles. The editors suggested that these explanatory variables could be usefully investigated in  future studies.

On Friday 24^th February 2023, the International Centre for the Comparative Study of Doctoral Education (ICCSDE) was officially launched. The ICCSDE aims to bring together scholars from across the globe with a research interest in a comparative education perspective on the doctorate, to encourage collaborative research in the field, and to disseminate it through symposia, conferences, and publications.  

The launch was marked by two presentations on doctoral research from three of our founding members: Emeritus Professor Michael Byram, Honorary Professor Stan Taylor, both from Durham University, and Professor Maria Stoicheva from the University of Sofia, Bulgaria. The launch and presentations took place in the School of Education, Durham University, and included founding members from Durham and the University of Sofia.

Stan Taylor’s presentation, entitled “How do doctoral examinations vary across the globe”, drew on research he had undertaken with an international team, and with editorial collaborators, Vijay Kumar, University of Otago, New Zealand, and Sharon Sharmini, University of Putra Malaysia. Mike Byram and Maria Stoicheva followed with another international study entitled “The experience of examining the PhD: An international comparative study of processes and standards of doctoral examination”. Both presentations drew from their recently published books.¹

Stan Taylor’s research aimed to compare and contrast the national contexts of doctoral examination; assessment during the course of the degree; policies, procedures, and processes associated with submission and examination; and examiners’ recommendations. The study investigated 20 countries, accounting for just under three-quarters of the global output of doctoral graduates. The outcomes showed that, while historically institutions were autonomous in their approach, there is now a high degree of standardisation linked to national frameworks within and among countries (e.g., the European Qualifications Framework in Europe [EQA]; and other national frameworks found in Australia, India, Kenya, Malaysia, New Zealand, Uganda, and the UK, which closely align to one another and the EQA). Outliers were Brazil and the US. The study also uncovered significant variations in how doctoral degrees are defined and examined. Taylor and his colleagues concluded that these variations potentially pose issues for the comparability of doctoral examinations across the globe.

Mike Byram and Maria Stoicheva’s research drew on in-depth interviews (four to six) from a convenience sample of 13 case studies (undertaken in 13 countries in Africa, Asia, South America and the West), and with a focus on the social sciences. The eventual publication also included transversal analyses of the 13 case studies to explore: standards and criteria, and whether there is a case for international comparability; the experience of examiners and examining; the final oral examination (roles and processes); and the role of languages in the doctoral examination. Like Stan Taylor’s presentation, the outcomes suggest that similarities exist among the different universities in terms of criteria and standards (both written and unwritten), for example, in the components of the final examination committee and in the goals of the examination (as mentioned by a number of interviewees). However, there are significant variations, for example, in the ways similar criteria are interpreted differently, that make generalisation across all contexts difficult, with the need to consider and analyse particularities tied to historical evolution and the traditions of the doctorate in each setting.  

Further details of these presentations (including the PowerPoint slides) can be found on our “Activities” page.

If you would like to know more about the ICCSDE and the research it is undertaking, or you would like to become a member of our international network, please email us at contactus@iccsde.com.

^1. Kumar, V., Taylor, S., & Sharmini, S. (Eds.) (2023). Doctoral examination: Exploring practice across the globe. Routledge.
Byram, M., & Stoicheva, M. (Eds) (2022). The experience of examining the PhD: An international comparative study of processes and standards of doctoral examination. Routledge.