Lin Qin
To cite this article: Lin Qin (2017) Structuralization of doctoral education in Germany: an
interdisciplinary comparison, European Journal of Higher Education, 7:3, 261-275, DOI:
10.1080/21568235.2017.1290876
Article views: 22
Introduction
In 1810, based on Wilhelm von Humboldt’s vision of a new type of university, the University
of Berlin was founded as the first research university in the world. Humboldt’s idea of a unit of
research and teaching became an essential characteristic of the German university and has
shaped its doctoral training in many ways. Until today, doctoral education in Germany still
largely follows the model established in the nineteenth century. Based on the ‘chair–insti-
tute–faculty’ structure of German university, professors (chair holders) take charge of
research and training and are given high authority and broad autonomy. A large proportion
of doctoral candidates in Germany are working as teaching and research assistants to pro-
fessors at universities and non-university research institutions, under employment contracts.
For those candidates who take this traditional, individual way to pursue doctorates, there is
usually no standard procedure or examination for admission, nor is coursework always
required. Doctoral supervisors not only guide candidates’ research, but also serve as the
chair on her/his dissertation committee. This model of doctoral training is described as the
‘Master-apprenticeship model’ (Janson, Schomburg, and Teichler 2008, 60).
Doctoral education has been much criticized in Germany since the 1980s. Among those
frequently mentioned problems are the isolation of doctoral candidates, lack of transpar-
ency, long durations, overspecialization, and inadequate advising (HRK 1996). Then in the
mid-1980s, funded by the Fritz Tyssen Foundation, Robert Bosch Foundation, Volkswa-
gen Foundation, and the German Research Foundation (DFG), ‘research training groups’
(Graduiertenkollegs) were set up in Germany to train doctoral candidates in a more struc-
tured, interdisciplinary, and cooperated way (DFG 2010, 6). Since the beginning of the
New Millennium, reform initiatives in doctoral education have been brought up to the
EU level to address the challenges of the emerging knowledge society, and to strengthen
European competitiveness for talents and research. After the 2003 Berlin Communiqué of
the Bologna Process, stating that doctoral education should be included in the process as
the third cycle, the 2005 Salzburg Principles of the European University Association
(EUA) issued clear guidelines for doctoral education, including institutional responsibil-
ities, the crucial role of supervision, innovative structures for interdisciplinary training,
and transferable skills development, quality assurance, etc. (2005). Under this framework,
more doctoral programmes, graduate schools, and doctoral centres have been set up in
Germany over the last decade.
Today in Germany, some 45 graduate schools have been established by the ‘Excellence
Initiative’ of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the DFG; 185 research train-
ing groups are currently funded by the DFG (as of 25 February 2016, the DFG listed on its
website); and there are many other doctoral schools and centres with various organizational
features and supported by different sponsors. Although different in their names and insti-
tutional structures, these schools/groups/centres all offer some kind of structured doctoral
programmes which usually have a selective admission process, a doctoral curriculum, and
certain procedures for quality control. International competitiveness and interdisciplinarity
are also highlighted in the profiles of many programmes. Parallel to the traditional individual
doctoral programme that is still widespread, these structured programmes represent a rela-
tively new but more and more common way to pursue a doctorate in Germany.
In this big picture of doctoral reform in Germany and Europe, more case studies are needed
to understand changes in doctoral training on the micro level. This paper takes Germany as an
example, and tries to connect two angles – disciplines/fields and country-specific context.
Each discipline or field, with its own epistemological and social/cultural characteristics,
shapes and regulates its doctoral training, respectively, determining not only the content of
doctoral training, but also its formats in many regards. Meanwhile, country-specific
context defines the institutional framework and pathway of reforms. Based on the qualitative
study of eight graduate schools/structured doctoral programmes in Germany from three
research fields, namely economics, life sciences, and literature–cultural studies, this paper
addresses the following questions: compared to the conventional model of research training,
what has indeed been changed in these structured doctoral programmes? What is the main
motivation of academic communities to establish structured doctoral programmes? Are aca-
demic communities in different disciplines or fields following the same pathway to reform
their doctoral education? How does knowledge production in specific academic fields
reshape doctoral education in the commonly changing policy context?
in many parts of the world. The linking of research with teaching and learning is widely con-
sidered a basic feature of modern higher education (Clark 1993), whereby research also
becomes an essential element of advanced study. Doctoral education in modern higher edu-
cation system is de facto research-orientated training and learning.1 Doctoral students are
taught not only advanced knowledge of a specific academic field, but also the paradigm, meth-
odology, and skills to conduct research in this field. They are ‘learning by doing,’ either parti-
cipating in cooperative research projects or conducting research on their own. Finally, to apply
for the degree, doctoral candidates must independently accomplish an original, creative scien-
tific work, namely the dissertation, as proof of their knowledge and research ability.
The intensified scientific inquiry of academics since the nineteenth century has been
accompanied by growing and multiplying of disciplines and specialties (Clark 1993) consti-
tuting the fundamental structure of modern science and higher education. Each academic
group (discipline or specialty) regulates its research and academic activities within its own
territory, with a set of theories, paradigms, and rules. Doctoral students who are apprentices
of academia also comply with this kind of regulation. The selecting of their research topics,
the organizing of their training, and the evaluation of their research work are all following
the constitution of the very academic group to which they belong.
In the past few decades, significant changes in science and research have been observed and
widely discussed by scholars in the sociology of science, higher education research, and public
policy study. Research projects in natural sciences have expanded enormously in scale, invol-
ving a great number of research staff, large and expensive laboratories, as well as big govern-
ment budgets, leading to an era of ‘Big Science’ (Price 1963). Research is becoming more and
more expensive, increasingly relying on third-party funding from both public and private
sponsors, and is therefore being defined as ‘Mandated Science’ (Salter 1988). The univer-
sity–industry–government relationship becomes more interdependent for innovation and
economic development (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 1995). Knowledge production is no
more an exclusive duty of universities and research institutions, but is diffusing among
many sectors and organizations, becoming more socially accountable. It is more context-
driven, problem-oriented, interdisciplinary, and diversified in terms of organizational struc-
ture, and is therefore described as Mode 2 knowledge production (Gibbons et al. 1994). Glo-
balization is also a factor in this changing context, drastically increasing mobility of knowledge
and knowledge workers around the world and drawing great concern in policy discussions.
There are some debates about whether a new mode of knowledge production has
indeed formed and whether it can be clearly distinguished from the ‘old’ mode (Hessels
and van Lente 2008). However, since the changes mentioned above are widely observed
and discussed, there is no doubt that these changes do represent some new trends in scien-
tific research, which could impact concepts and ways of research training. In current dis-
cussions about doctoral education, interdisciplinarity, global competence, social
accountability, efficiency, and transferable skills have been frequently mentioned, and con-
stitute the core values of many reform initiatives. In Germany, structured doctoral pro-
grammes in contrast to the traditional individual study is a good example to observe
how these new trends in knowledge production help reshaping doctoral training. Mean-
while, by looking into the practice of structured research training in specific research
fields, we can distinguish the values that each academic community appreciates from
reform discourses in policy discussion, and therefore understand the inner motivation
of academic community to reform their research training.
264 L. QIN
Methodology
This study takes a qualitative research approach involving interviews and case studies.
Eight graduate schools/doctoral programmes were selected in the three fields of econ-
omics, life sciences, and literature/cultural studies. To achieve a good degree of represen-
tativeness, this study follows the frequently cited ‘three culture’ (Kagan 2001) classification
of disciplines, namely natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities, in selecting the
three academic fields. The founders or cofounders of the eight graduate schools/doctoral
programmes belong to 11 universities in eastern, central, and western Germany. There are
two graduate schools in life science, two graduate schools and one doctoral programme in
economics, and two graduate schools along with one research training group in literature–
cultural studies. These cases are quite diversified in their history, the sizes of student and
faculty bodies, and their organizational structure and funding models. However, in con-
trast to the traditional master-apprenticeship model of doctoral training, all these struc-
tured doctoral programmes have a clear training concept, a programme plan, open and
competitive admission, teaching elements, and certain procedures of quality control.
For each case, text-based data such as regulations, programme introductions, and cur-
riculum plans were collected. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 pro-
fessors who are also directors or founders of their programmes and 14 doctoral
students. For each programme, at least one professor/director and one student were inter-
viewed. Questions for professors included the history of the programme/school, the
motivation in setting up the programme, procedures of enrolment, content and organiz-
ation of courses, style of supervising, evaluation of dissertations, as well as their experience
and reflection about changes in research training in their fields. Questions for students
mainly focus on their personal experience in each phase of study, from application to
applying the degree, especially those particular arrangements of structured programmes,
like course work, joint supervision, and annual research reports. The style of supervision
is also a key topic. Data from interviews have been coded and categorized. Factual descrip-
tions from interviews were analysed together with text-based data to construct a compre-
hensive picture of each programme, while subjective descriptions were categorized and
annotated for different subjects. Then, common features among programmes in the
same field were analysed for further comparison among different fields.
In the following sections, this paper will describe the key characteristics of structured
doctoral programmes in the three fields, one by one, and analyse the motivation and
pathway of each academic community to establish structured doctoral programmes,
with the focus on the interaction between knowledge production of the specific academic
field and its research training.
scores (if applicant is not a native English speaker or not graduated from an institution in
English-speaking countries), and two recommendation letters. These requirements are
also quite similar among doctoral programmes in most leading economics graduate
schools around the world.
Unlike traditional humanities and social sciences faculties at German universities,
where professors (chair holders) usually select doctoral apprentices ‘by hand,’ admission
to these structured programmes is more formal, transparent, and following strict criteria.
According to the professors interviewed, academic transcripts are the most important
reference for assessing applicants’ qualification, and only the top-ranking students are
considered to be competitive. Interviews with applicants are optional, and some students
in these programmes actually had no personal contact with their future supervisors until
they were enrolled. As the process, requirements, and even time plan of admission are
quite similar among different programmes in Germany and abroad, graduate schools
for economics at German universities are facing fierce competition globally for the best
candidates.
knowledge and be aware of what their peers are doing. Therefore, academic communi-
cation is considered to be essential for economists and becomes an important component
of structured doctoral programmes in this field. In the three cases, brownbag lectures and
doctoral colloquiums are held weekly. Students are required to present their research at
these occasions once in a while. More formal events include the gradate school’s annual
conferences and specific workshops held from time to time. Students are also very
active in attending regional and international conferences to present their working papers.
In contrast, the supervisor–student connection is relatively loose in these programmes.
After being admitted, some students do not have a supervisor at all until the third or fourth
semester. Some students even change their supervisors once or twice during their course of
study. They do not have daily contact with their supervisors as in the case of life science;
neither do they have very strong dependence on their supervisors as in literature–cultural
studies.
The dense academic communication and loose supervisor–student connection are two
sides of the same coin. In an open academic space that is filled with dense dialogues and
based on the formal knowledge and methods, doctoral students can get advising from
many academics, directly or indirectly. Then the dependence upon a single professor is
inevitably lessened.
internationally recognizable programmes to attract the best brains and to build brand and
reputation for their institutions. Therefore, there is a very strong motive from inside the
academic group to establish structured doctoral programmes and graduate schools.
One professor who is also the cofounder of the doctoral programme he works for used
to work as a guest professor at an overseas university 15 years earlier. According to him,
There were many excellent students at that university who were planning to do PhD and seek
opportunities in the US and west Europe. At that time I realized that I have no way to send
them to Germany. The only thing I could offer is an assistant position under my chair, but
they would have to teach courses in German. When I came back, I began to discuss with my
colleagues about establishing this program.
of a Ph.D. position opening in life science usually contains very detailed information about
knowledge and skills required to conduct a specific research project.
institutionalized the already existing multi-supervision and let it function as part of the
quality control.
research funds. Over the last two decades, public and private funding in the life sciences
increased significantly in Germany (CHE 2009, E-7).
Highly dependent on third-party funding, scientists in life sciences are very active in
bidding for all kinds of funding, and normally react rapidly to changes in funding
policy and directions. Scientists in the life sciences at the two universities have been
very active in applying for the research training groups’ programmes funded by DFG
and other private foundations since the 1980s. When the Excellence Initiative was
announced in 2005, they responded immediately that funding programmes focusing on
research training are considered as important as research funding, because they can
help with recruiting and training research staff. The issue is also connected to prestige,
for as the director of one school said,
our university considers itself a competitive and creative institution; we also need more
money for research. When the Excellence Initiative was launched, we wanted to enhance
our reputation. For our professors, it would be unimaginable if our graduate school was
not selected.
Based on this consensus, the two graduate schools in life sciences have already become
formal structures for doctoral education in the faculty of biology and for relevant subjects
in the faculties of chemistry and physics at their universities.
In summary, the structuralization of doctoral training in the life sciences responds to
the Mode 2 knowledge production, which is interdisciplinary, context-based, problem-
focused, highly depends on funding, and is heterogeneous in organization (Gibbons
et al. 1994) in many ways. Graduate school serves as a roof over the heterogeneous organ-
izational structure of knowledge production, helping research teams to recruit expected
early-stage researchers from worldwide, equip them with cutting-edge knowledge and
transferrable skills, and regulate research training through its formal arrangement of
admission, evaluation, and external control of supervising.
literature and cultural studies, students should demonstrate a certain connection in their
proposal between their own research interests, topics or theoretical perspectives and the
programme’s profile or the specific supervisor(s)’ research area. This can help them in
‘locating’ in a broad and divergent academic field. From an institutional perspective, start-
ing with a concrete research topic and a decent proposal is considered necessary for fin-
ishing the dissertation in a three-year duration, and for maximizing the academic support
that the student can get from the programme. Besides, when applying, an applicant should
have already found a supervisor and been ‘admitted’ by the supervisor who is usually a
faculty member of the programme.
Supervising style varies from person to person. Some students have more frequent inter-
action with their supervisors, while others are more isolated. Nonetheless, individual study
is valued very much in this field, and supervisor–student connection is considered as a key
factor.
The students interviewed also mentioned a ‘double identity’ – they are enrolled in an
interdisciplinary programme which requires courses participation and specific regulation.
Meanwhile, being closely connected with their supervisor who has her/his own institute
and apprentice circle, students are also required to participate in colloquium and other
academic activities at their supervisor’s institute. They are expected to conduct interdisci-
plinary research under the programme structure; but they are also embedded in a specific
subject/discipline. This double identity sometimes becomes a challenge in terms of how to
allocate working time and how to connect to the suitable peer group for academic
supporting.
Case studies show both commonalities and differences among structured programmes
in the three fields. Compared to the individual doctoral study, all these structured pro-
grammes have selected admission, a doctoral curriculum, room for academic communi-
cation, and formal procedure of quality control. However, each research field, based on
the characteristic of its knowledge production, has specific understanding about the
form and content of advanced study. Therefore, the concrete procedure and criteria for
admission, curriculum structure, supervising style, and quality control are diversified
among programmes in different fields. Although promoted by the same policy and
reform initiatives, each academic group follows its own motives to apply the structured
model, and each adopts its own pathway of approach.
Note
1. In this paper, doctoral education is referring to Ph.D. education, not including professional
doctoral programmes.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Funding
This work was supported by the Daimler und Benz Stiftung under the Ph.D. fellowship programme.
Notes on contributor
Lin Qin is a research associate at the Research Centre for International Comparative Education,
National Institute of Education Sciences (NIES), Beijing. Her research interests include higher edu-
cation policy, graduate education, and international students’ mobility from the perspective of
international comparison. She specifically focuses on higher education in Germany and has partici-
pated in several research projects of international comparison in science and higher education
policy. Before joining NIES, she studied as a visiting doctoral student at the Centre for Comparative
and International Education, Berlin Humboldt University for three years. Lin Qin received her
Ph.D. in Higher Education from Peking University.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 275
References
Becher, T., and P. R. Trowler. 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the
Culture of Disciplines. Milton Keynes: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open
University Press.
Clark, B. R. 1993. The Research Foundation of Graduate Education: Germany, Britain, France,
United States, Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press.
CHE (Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung). 2009. Das CHE-Forschungsranking deutscher
Universitäten 2009. Arbeitspapier Nr. 130. Gütersloh: CHE.
DFG (Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft). 2010. 20 Jahre Graduiertenkollegs. Bonn: DFG.
Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 1995. “The Triple Helix: University – Industry – Government
Relations: a Laboratory for Knowledge Based Economic Development.” EASST Review 14 (1):
14–19. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2480085.
EUA (European University Association). 2005. Doctoral Programmes for the European Knowledge
Society. Salzburg: EUA, 2005. http://eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Salzburg_Report_final.
1129817011146.pdf.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The New
Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies.
London: SAGE Publications.
Hessels, L., and H. van Lente. 2008. “Re-thinking New Knowledge Production: A Literature Review
and a Research Agenda.” Research Policy 37: 740–760. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.008.
HRK (Hochshculrektorenkonferenz). 1996. Doctoral Studies. Resolution of the 179th Plenary
Session of the Conference of Rectors and Presidents of Universities and Other Higher Education
Institutions in the Federal Republic of Germany. Bonn: HRK.
Janson, K., H. Schomburg, and U. Teichler. 2008. Wege zur Professur: Qualifizierung und
Beschäftigung an Hochschulen in Deutschland und den USA. Munster: Waxmann.
Kagan, J. 2001. The Three Cultures: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and the Humanities in the 21st
Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Price, D. J. 1963. Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press.
Salter, L. 1988. Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of Standards. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.