View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Adapting Doctoral Education to an Evolving Knowledge Landscape: Insights from Portugal

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Adapting Doctoral Education to an Evolving Knowledge Landscape: Insights from Portugal
Language: English
Authors: Sónia Cardoso (ORCID 0000-0001-6504-8468), Pedro Videira (ORCID 0000-0002-8595-9418)
Source: Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research. 2025 90(5):1387-1403.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Doctoral Programs, Educational Change, Public Colleges, Student Attitudes, Doctoral Students, Barriers
Geographic Terms: Portugal
DOI: 10.1007/s10734-024-01382-z
ISSN: 0018-1560
1573-174X
Abstract: In the dynamic landscape of knowledge production, a new era has emerged, characterised by increasing complexity, interdisciplinarity, and collaboration with a diverse range of stakeholders. This aims to foster relevant and impactful knowledge to address socially relevant challenges. These developments have significant implications for doctoral education, requiring adaptability in its foundations, objectives, methods, and expertise. This study investigates how Portuguese doctoral education is adapting to the expanding boundaries of knowledge creation. It draws on the analysis of qualitative data from 118 websites of doctoral programmes offered by 27 Portuguese universities, as well as focus groups and individual interviews with 31 doctoral candidates selected from 11 doctoral programmes across three public universities. Findings suggest that Portuguese doctoral education reflects the complexity of contemporary knowledge production. It appears to be evolving from a largely theoretical foundation to a more practical one. Furthermore, it emphasises a dual focus on applied and fundamental research objectives and underscores the significance of interdisciplinary approaches and collaborative expertise. However, the overarching trends unveiled by this study also reveal nuances, reflecting ongoing debates concerning the complexities and interdisciplinary nature of knowledge production, as well as the evolving roles of doctoral education in addressing these challenges.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1496654
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGtk1hrC9_sZKK152qABedQAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDhQWwRShcFcGVHHRwIBEICBmzSk33l3gT0hqXJUfGv8RVL35vtSCvHyoQGr5pY0EmDqkuPJFiRKvEw7oi3_Fyut45ytFzgDwYmsu9VrqNFPQWJlva0bXuTOuJRKJwy51MHOJeQwXsmCrRibl82BPZEbNsGQyMG3sH9-YUDZLrWz8WZJLm0utFXHjTxaPiezojsMwZxT2Q77TZQ589LchwP2WcyvmAcRQC5ow4Za
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0189682627;hie01nov.25;2025Dec02.05:51;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0189682627-1">Adapting doctoral education to an evolving knowledge landscape: insights from Portugal </title> <p>In the dynamic landscape of knowledge production, a new era has emerged, characterised by increasing complexity, interdisciplinarity, and collaboration with a diverse range of stakeholders. This aims to foster relevant and impactful knowledge to address socially relevant challenges. These developments have significant implications for doctoral education, requiring adaptability in its foundations, objectives, methods, and expertise. This study investigates how Portuguese doctoral education is adapting to the expanding boundaries of knowledge creation. It draws on the analysis of qualitative data from 118 websites of doctoral programmes offered by 27 Portuguese universities, as well as focus groups and individual interviews with 31 doctoral candidates selected from 11 doctoral programmes across three public universities. Findings suggest that Portuguese doctoral education reflects the complexity of contemporary knowledge production. It appears to be evolving from a largely theoretical foundation to a more practical one. Furthermore, it emphasises a dual focus on applied and fundamental research objectives and underscores the significance of interdisciplinary approaches and collaborative expertise. However, the overarching trends unveiled by this study also reveal nuances, reflecting ongoing debates concerning the complexities and interdisciplinary nature of knowledge production, as well as the evolving roles of doctoral education in addressing these challenges.</p> <p>Keywords: Knowledge production; Complexity; Interdisciplinarity; Collaborative expertise; Doctoral education</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0189682627-2">Introduction</hd> <p>In the ever-evolving landscape of knowledge production (Haeussler & Sauermann, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref1">25</reflink>]), traditional boundaries between academic disciplines have grown increasingly permeable, marking a new era of complexity and interdisciplinarity (Carayol et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref2">7</reflink>]; Cummings & Kiesler, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref3">17</reflink>]; Gibbons et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref4">24</reflink>]; Klein, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref5">36</reflink>]). Here, "complexity" refers to the need to engage diverse stakeholders, both within and beyond academia (Bonaccorsi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref6">5</reflink>]; Heimeriks & Leydesdorff, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref7">27</reflink>]; Jansen et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref8">34</reflink>]), to address socially relevant problems. "Interdisciplinarity" denotes blending disciplinary boundaries to solve complex societal issues, which often requires collaborative expertise—working across disciplinary and institutional boundaries while contributing to and learning from others' expertise.</p> <p>As knowledge grows increasingly complex and transcends disciplinary and institutional boundaries, it challenges traditional norms in doctoral education (DE), prompting a reconfiguration of its core aspects (Armsby et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref9">3</reflink>]; Holley, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref10">30</reflink>]). Recent decades reflect this shift, with DE placing greater emphasis on practical, multi-, trans-, or interdisciplinary knowledge, blending basic and applied research—now with greater focus on the latter—and on collaborative expertise beyond the individual candidate-supervisory framework (Cardoso et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref11">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>]). Cardoso et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref13">11</reflink>]) identify these shifts in DE's structural dimensions, including foundations, objectives, methods, and expertise. Foundations range from theory-driven to the practice-driven; objectives span fundamental to applied research; methods vary from disciplinary to multi-, trans-, or interdisciplinary knowledge; and expertise now derives from both candidate's individual work and collaborative efforts (e.g., with networks, groups, experts).</p> <p>The paper investigates how changes in knowledge production intersect with these specific dimensions of DE, presenting both opportunities and challenges for universities and doctoral programmes. It explores the following research questions: How are universities and doctoral programmes in Portugal adapting to these changes, preparing researchers for a world requiring complexity and interdisciplinary collaboration? How do doctoral candidates perceive these transformations? By addressing these questions, the paper contributes to the broader debate on DE's current and future evolution. Portugal offers an ideal case study due to recent growth in its higher education, DE, and scientific systems (Alves et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>]; Carvalho et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref15">14</reflink>]), linking universities and DE closely to knowledge production, innovation, and dissemination (Carvalho et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref16">14</reflink>]; Gama et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref17">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>The paper begins by examining the evolution of knowledge production toward greater complexity and interdisciplinarity, alongside shifts in its focus and locus. It then explores the changing nature of DE within the knowledge society, addressing associated trends, challenges, and implications. Next, it provides an overview of Portugal's higher education and scientific systems, briefly outlining their historical background, policy changes, and recent developments. The subsequent section presents an empirical study investigating how Portuguese universities and doctoral candidates perceive DE and transformations in its core dimensions, including those central for the paper's purpose: foundations, objectives, methods, and expertise. They reveal how these perceptions reflect DE's adaptation to shifts in knowledge production. Finally, the paper concludes by summarising key findings, noting main contributions and limitations, and suggesting avenues for future research.</p> <hd id="AN0189682627-3">Complexity, interdisciplinarity, and shifts in the focus and locus of contemporary knowledge...</hd> <p>The notion of knowledge as a key factor in shaping contemporary societies has gained prominence since the 1990s (Carvalho et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref18">13</reflink>]). Initially framed as the "information society" and the "network society" (Castells, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref19">16</reflink>]; Van Dijk, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref20">51</reflink>]), it evolved into the "knowledge society/economy", positioning knowledge as the transformative force in the twenty-first century (Castelfranchi, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref21">15</reflink>]). This perspective has been widely embraced globally, with policies at national and supranational levels strategically promoting research and development to boost economic growth and competitiveness and to address complex societal challenges (Carvalho et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>While certain enduring features of science as an institution remain (Storer, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref23">42</reflink>]), both in its epistemic foundation and social organisation (Whitley, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref24">52</reflink>]), scientific knowledge production is continually evolving (Haeussler & Sauermann, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref25">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>The heightened focus on economic development and addressing socially relevant problems, coupled with the dynamic nature of scientific systems, has significantly shifted the processes and loci of knowledge production. The blurring of traditional boundaries has ushered in an era of complexity and interdisciplinarity (Cummings and Kiesler, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref26">17</reflink>]; Gibbons et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref27">24</reflink>]; Klein, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref28">36</reflink>]). Various theoretical approaches, from the "Mode 1" and "Mode 2" models of knowledge production (Gibbons et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref29">24</reflink>]) to the "triple helix" model of university-industry-government relations (Etzkowizt & Leydesdorff, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref30">20</reflink>]) and its expanded N-Tuple helix model (Leydesdorff, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref31">38</reflink>]), have emerged to explain this shift. These frameworks highlight that contemporary scientific challenges benefit from integrating knowledge across disciplines (Hessels & Van Lente, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref32">29</reflink>]). The potential of interdisciplinary research to produce groundbreaking contributions (Carayol et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref33">7</reflink>]) and align with societal demands (Jacobs & Frickel, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref34">33</reflink>]), has spurred its popularity among researchers and policymakers, leading institutions to increasingly support interdisciplinary approaches and programmes (D'Este et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref35">18</reflink>]; Millar, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref36">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Knowledge production is increasingly influenced by a broader array of interests, involving diverse individuals, groups, and organisations. The need to meet social and economic demands has underscored the importance of co-production and knowledge transfer between universities, society, industry, and businesses (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref37">20</reflink>]; Leydesdorff, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref38">38</reflink>]), driving a shift toward applied research and problem-solving over purely fundamental and theoretical research (Jansen et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref39">34</reflink>]). Consequently, the locus of knowledge production is expanding beyond higher education institutions to include the state, industry, and other entities, forming complex networks. These networks rely on intricate, dynamic collaboration among varied stakeholders to generate impactful knowledge, creating new epistemological and ontological knowledge environments based on "innovative networks" and "knowledge clusters" (Santiago et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref40">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>While diversity within the scientific system leads to varied practices across disciplines, institutions, and countries (Hessels & Van Lente, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref41">29</reflink>]), research increasingly demands broader cognitive and institutional complementarities in knowledge production (Bonaccorsi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref42">5</reflink>]). This requires drawing on expertise from scientists across diverse institutions, resulting in most research being conducted by larger, more interdisciplinary teams (Haeussler & Sauermann, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref43">25</reflink>]; Wuchty et. al, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref44">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>The dominance of competitively funded research projects involving diverse teams can improve work division (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref45">20</reflink>]), but also redefines expertise. Paradoxically, as scientists become more specialised (e.g., 'data scientists'), they must also be adept at collaborating within larger, more diverse teams and across disciplines. This shift challenges younger scientists to balance specialisation within strategies to mitigate its potential downsides (Haeussler & Sauermann, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref46">25</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189682627-4">The evolving role of doctoral education in the knowledge society: trends, challenges, and imp...</hd> <p>Doctoral education (DE) makes well-documented contributions to doctoral candidates, science, and society. These include generating and disseminating innovative knowledge (Forfás, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref47">21</reflink>]) that fosters positive societal change (Boud et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref48">6</reflink>]), training skilled human resources (Kyvik & Olsen, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref49">37</reflink>]), enhancing university prestige and competitiveness (Alves et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref50">1</reflink>]), boosting economic outputs (Boud et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref51">6</reflink>]) and promoting collaboration with society and industry (Alves et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the knowledge society narrative, increasing the number of doctorate holders has become a strategic goal for countries and supranational decision-makers, as these specialists are seen as key to strengthening research, innovation, and economic competitiveness (Carvalho et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref53">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Alongside the massification of higher education, this has led to a rise in doctorates awarded and diversification in candidates and their paths beyond academia (McAlpine, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref54">41</reflink>]). However, this trend reflects not only employers' recognition of doctorate holders' value, but also growing uncertainty and dissatisfaction with academic career prospects (Boman et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref55">4</reflink>]); budget cuts have worsened academic employment conditions (Carvalho et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref56">13</reflink>]). Some argue that increasing doctorate holders may be unsustainable given current labour market conditions (Santos and Horta, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref57">48</reflink>]), the influence of private interests on DE (Frick et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref58">22</reflink>]), and pressures for productivity that may impact candidate mental health (Deem, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref59">19</reflink>]), despite the benefits of early publishing (Horta & Santos, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref60">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>The transformation of DE in recent decades is a global phenomenon that reflects trends toward massification and diversification in higher education, along with reforms by countries and supranational entities like the European Union (Cardoso et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref61">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref62">10</reflink>]). However, this shift is controversial, with some authors arguing that these entities promote a dominant innovation discourse, resulting in a monocultural and mono-epistemological academic context overly focused on meeting market needs (Magalhães & Veiga, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref63">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>The evolving nature of knowledge production is prompting a revaluation of the goals, methods, and outcomes of DE (Cardoso et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref64">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref65">10</reflink>]; Holley, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref66">30</reflink>]). Several developments illustrate this transformation (Cardoso, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref67">12</reflink>]; Cardoso et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref68">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref69">10</reflink>]; Kehm, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref70">35</reflink>]). As knowledge becomes more complex and transcends disciplinary boundaries, it challenges the established norms in DE, requiring adaptability, innovation, and a reimagining of the doctorate's essence. Traditional boundaries, defined by academic disciplinary rationality and specialised and localised knowledge, are fading, emphasising the importance of multi-, trans-, interdisciplinary knowledge to address contemporary challenges' complexity.</p> <p>Again, these trends present risks, particularly for younger researchers, as interdisciplinary researchers face additional barriers to obtaining positions and advancing their careers in academia, which remains primarily structured around traditional disciplinary departments (Millar, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref71">43</reflink>]). Several authors emphasise the importance of supporting hybrid disciplinary backgrounds, particularly for early-stage researchers (D'Este et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref72">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Nevertheless, DE increasingly integrates basic and applied research, with the latter gaining prominence (Cardoso, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref73">12</reflink>]; Cardoso et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref74">10</reflink>]; Prøitz & Wittek, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref75">44</reflink>]). This shift from a theoretical to a more practical foundation facilitates knowledge and innovation transfer and application, addressing social and economic demands while strengthening connections between universities, society, and business. Research indicates that doctoral candidates play a crucial role in collaborative knowledge production, acting as 'bridge builders' in university-industry relations and forming ties that enhance universities' research capability (Zinilli et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref76">54</reflink>]) both during their studies and after graduation (Borell-Damian et al., 2010).</p> <p>This shift is evident in the evolving concept and standards of expertise within DE (Cardoso, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref77">12</reflink>]; Cardoso et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref78">11</reflink>]). Becoming an expert increasingly depends on scientific interaction and collaboration across disciplinary boundaries and with a diverse array of institutions and actors (Thune, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref79">50</reflink>]). Doctoral programmes promote collaborative research environments both within and outside academia, often at the international level, during and after graduation (Reale et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref80">45</reflink>]). While these environments can enrich researcher's training experiences, they also require a broad, flexible, and transferable skill set (Cardoso, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref81">12</reflink>]) that depends on new training and socialisation modes for doctoral candidates (Thune, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref82">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this context, many universities are establishing interdisciplinary degree programmes and adopting policies to foster collaboration (Millar, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref83">43</reflink>]), such as industrial doctoral programmes that connect candidates with non-academic partners to address industry-specific challenges (Tavares et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref84">49</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189682627-5">The Portuguese context</hd> <p>Portugal has experienced significant growth and transformation in higher education (HE) and research in recent decades (Alves et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref85">2</reflink>]; Carvalho et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref86">13</reflink>]). The rapid massification of the HE system since 1970s, along with the inclusion of private universities and polytechnics, has democratised this educational level and increased the population's qualifications.</p> <p>Until the mid-1980s, the scientific system lacked critical mass in many fields, hindering domestic doctoral training (Santos & Horta, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref87">48</reflink>]). Consequently, governments implemented policies to promote it abroad, often leading to permanent brain drain (Rodrigues et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref88">46</reflink>]). From the 1990s onward, policies aimed at enhancing international mobility shifted focus to encouraging the return of doctorate holders trained abroad to bolster the development and internationalisation of the scientific system (Horta, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref89">32</reflink>]). As research capabilities improved, government policies began prioritising doctoral training within universities through various research grant programmes (Heitor et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref90">28</reflink>]). This resulted in a significant increase in doctoral grant programmes in Portugal, rising from 557 in 1994 to over 1700 in 2008 and 2009, before decreasing due to the financial crisis.</p> <p>The new millennium introduced a series of science and innovation policies under the Lisbon Strategy, aiming to foster the knowledge society. In this context, DE has undergone substantial changes. Doctoral enrolments surged from 2995 candidates in 2000 to 25,957 by 2024, accompanied by increased internationalisation of candidates and faculty (Cardoso & Sin, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref91">8</reflink>]). The number of doctoral programmes grew to 593 in 2023, with greater diversification often achieved through collaboration with industry and other sectors (Cardoso, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref92">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>Through their research centres and units, universities have expanded their roles beyond education and training to play a crucial role in knowledge production, innovation, and dissemination within the national scientific system, often collaborating with industry and business (Carvalho et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref93">14</reflink>]; Gama et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref94">23</reflink>]). Recent policy measures, such as the increased public financial support for doctoral candidates training in non-academic environments—which accounts for 450 of the 1050 scholarships awarded in 2024—and the authorisation of polytechnics (i.e., more vocational institutions) to offer the doctoral degree, aim to diversify doctoral training and strengthen collaboration with non-academic sectors, though the latter is not yet fully implemented.</p> <p>The growing connection between research to the economy, which has intensified in recent years (Gama et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref95">23</reflink>]), fosters new modes and loci of knowledge production (Carvalho et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref96">14</reflink>]). The establishment of structures such as collaborative laboratories and technological interface centres aimed at generating transferable knowledge with economic, social, and cultural impact, exemplifies this trend. Increased collaboration with other stakeholders is expected to enhance the impacts of DE and diversify employment opportunities for doctorate holders. This concern is pressing, as the rapid increase doctorate holders coincides with slower recruitment of academics and decreasing budgets for higher education and research due to successive economic crises, leading many to the seek alternatives in other sectors or abroad (Carvalho et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref97">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189682627-6">Methodology</hd> <p>Between 2020 and 2021, a study investigated the perceptions of DE among Portuguese universities and doctoral candidates, focusing on transformative changes across various dimensions, including foundations, objectives, methods, expertise, organisation, and process (Cardoso et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref98">9</reflink>]). This paper presents empirical findings related to four dimensions: foundations, objectives, methods, and expertise, aiming to understand how universities and candidates demonstrate the adaptation of DE to the evolving landscape of knowledge production.</p> <hd id="AN0189682627-7">Methods</hd> <p>The study employed two qualitative methods for data collection: content analysis of doctoral programme websites and focus groups interviews with doctoral candidates. Websites were used to reflect universities' formal perspectives on DE, while focus group offered insights into the lived experiences of candidates.</p> <p>Faculties and departments are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of website information, verified by the Portuguese higher education quality assurance system. This approach was preferred over surveys due to the large number of doctoral programmes in Portugal and the time constraints of consulting stakeholders involved in programme delivery.</p> <p>While websites provide valuable formal information, they offer only a partial view of doctoral programmes, missing the informal or 'hidden curriculum' aspects—such as unwritten expectations, peer interactions, and institutional culture—that significantly shape the doctoral experience. To address this limitation, focus groups were conducted with doctoral candidates to effectively capture their perspectives through collective discussion and reflection, exploring the informal dimensions and lived aspects of doctoral training.</p> <hd id="AN0189682627-8">Sample</hd> <p>The website analysis focused on a sample of 118 institutional websites, corresponding to doctoral programmes offered by the 27 Portuguese universities (15 public and 12 private). This sample represented 20% of the total number of programmes in the country (<emph>N</emph> = 593). To ensure a representative overview of the national DE landscape, the sample was carefully selected to encompass a diverse range of doctoral programmes offered by both public and private universities, covering various disciplinary areas.</p> <p>A sample of 55 candidates was intentionally selected from 11 doctoral programmes across three public universities, with each programme corresponding to one focus group in a specific disciplinary area to ensure diversity. Recruitment was conducted via email invitations and personal outreach to programme coordinators. However, despite these efforts, recruitment challenges resulted in focus groups being limited to first-year candidates and fewer participants than anticipated, both across universities and disciplinary areas.</p> <p>A total of 31 candidates were interviewed: 27 participated in seven focus groups, while four were interviewed individually. Many candidates failed to attend scheduled focus groups, leading to some being conducted with fewer attendees or replaced by individual interviews to ensure that all views were included. Most participants were from Social Sciences, Business, and Law (<emph>N</emph> = 11) and Engineering, Manufacturing, and Construction (<emph>N</emph> = 10). Other disciplinary areas were less represented: Sciences, Mathematics, and Computing (<emph>N</emph> = 5); Health and Social Protection (<emph>N</emph> = 4); and Arts and Humanities (<emph>N</emph> = 1). The predominance of candidates from applied fields (Social Sciences, Business, and Engineering) may have influenced the largely positive perceptions of DE transformation observed in the results.</p> <p>Data collection occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2021), significantly impacting higher education worldwide. Although efforts were made to recruit a diverse pool of candidates, the pandemic resulted in a smaller and narrower segment of doctoral candidates than anticipated. It likely influenced participants' responses, particularly regarding the doctoral experience (e.g., remote work, adjustments to training).</p> <hd id="AN0189682627-9">Data analysis</hd> <p>Information from doctoral programme websites was collected and organised into Word documents. Each programme was labelled "DP" (for doctoral programme) followed by a number from 1 to 118, corresponding to the programme's order in the sample (e.g., DP24).</p> <p>Focus groups and individual interviews followed a semi-structured interview guide addressing doctoral candidates' perspectives on DE, its dimensions, and transformation. Interviews were fully transcribed from audio recordings. Each focus group and candidate were assigned an identifier: for candidates, the letter "I" (for interviewee) followed by their number in the focus group, and for focus groups, the letter "P" (for the doctoral programme to which it corresponded), followed by the group's number in the sample (e.g., I13P3).</p> <p>Content from both the websites and interviews was systematically organised and coded using NVivo qualitative data analysis software. A category/thematic content analysis was conducted to extract the meanings attributed to DE, its dimensions and transformation by universities and doctoral candidates. This analysis followed a predefined grid, replicating that used by Cardoso et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref99">11</reflink>]) in their systematic literature review, which demonstrated robustness for the Portuguese case (Cardoso & Sin, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref100">8</reflink>]). Although there was openness to including new categories from the data, this proved unnecessary.</p> <p>The primary objective of this paper was to examine how universities, doctoral programmes, and candidates in Portugal reflect the intersection between changes in knowledge production and specific dimensions of DE. It aimed to provide a comprehensive discourse on this intersection. While prior research suggests that doctoral training experiences may vary across institutions and disciplines—based on alignment with knowledge economy agendas or a focus on theoretical and fundamental research—the paper does not address these differences.</p> <hd id="AN0189682627-10">Findings</hd> <p>This section provides an overview of the study's results, focusing on how the perspectives of Portuguese universities and doctoral candidates on the four specific dimensions of DE reflect current trends and challenges in knowledge production.</p> <hd id="AN0189682627-11">Foundations</hd> <p>Portuguese universities and doctoral candidates generally aligned with current trends emphasising the integration of theoretical and practical knowledge to address complex real-world challenges (Carvalho et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref101">13</reflink>]). They acknowledged the importance of developing theoretical knowledge alongside practical applications to meet the demands of interdisciplinarity and complex problem-solving. However, while universities primarily supported a practical orientation in DE, with secondary emphasis on both theory and practice, candidates showed a stronger preference for this hybrid approach.</p> <p>Although only 35 out of 118 doctoral programmes explicitly referenced the foundations of DE—often indirectly—their focus was predominantly on practical orientation. This included developing "specialised knowledge for problem-solving (DP55)", advancing "knowledge and effective solutions" (DP24), and addressing "new challenges" (DP79) in "scientific and technological" contexts (DP24). In some instances, this practical orientation was tailored to specific issues within the fields of study of the doctoral programmes. This limited reference to the foundations of DE on programme websites may not fully reflect the significance of theoretical orientations in actual academic environments, but rather stem from a strategic emphasis on practical applications that are more marketable or appealing.</p> <p>Conversely, while a purely theoretical orientation was less prominent, some doctoral programmes perceived DE as having a dual foundation in both theory and practice. This enabled them to tackle challenges across various domains, including "social, economic, cultural, environmental, political, and scientific-technological" (DP78). These programmes viewed DE as providing "a solid foundation" for research development by combining "theoretical and practical" elements (DP27), fostering the creation of "original research capable of" contributing significantly "to conceptual progress", and "generating empirical knowledge to address multifaceted issues" (DP78).</p> <p>This hybrid notion of DE's foundations, emphasising both theoretical and practical orientations, was predominant among doctoral candidates. They viewed DE as facilitating the production of theoretical knowledge with practical applications and problem-solving capabilities, while also generating theoretical contributions. Candidates' difficulties in endorsing a purely theoretical or practical perspective underscored their recognition of the complementarity of both approaches, emphasising their role in "better support" for doctoral research (I13P3, I2P1). This perspective remained consistent across various research objects, objectives, fields of study, and personal preferences.</p> <p>This preference for a hybrid model reflects ongoing academic debates about balancing theoretical and practical knowledge (Haeussler & Sauermann, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref102">25</reflink>]) and underscores the complexities of knowledge production, where different research contexts may demand different emphases (Hessels & Lente, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref103">29</reflink>]). However, the reasons behind candidates' preference for a hybrid model, along with its potential benefits and challenges, remain underexplored in the literature and may be influenced by the sample's overrepresentation of more applied fields.</p> <hd id="AN0189682627-12">Objectives</hd> <p>Universities and doctoral candidates stressed the value of integrating both applied and fundamental research in DE objectives. This hybrid approach was slightly more common among universities, suggesting a strategic effort to present well-rounded programmes appealing to diverse audiences. However, websites tend to highlight more marketable objectives, like applied research with immediate societal or economic impact, which may overshadow the focus on fundamental research, especially in fields where theoretical contributions are essential.</p> <p>Most doctoral programmes (85 out of 118) took a balanced approach to DE objectives, focusing on either applied research or a blend of applied and fundamental research. Universities generally endorsed DE centred on applied knowledge for drive products creation, technology development, and innovation. Some programmes highlighted the potential to "develop and apply models, devices, methodologies, and techniques" (DP4), "enhance research tools", "discover resources" of "economic value" (DP34), and "implement innovative solutions based on (...) applied research" (DP38). However, fundamental research also received attention, aimed at advancing "theoretical knowledge" (DP113, DP50) while being applied to "intervention contexts" (DP113).</p> <p>Candidates primarily prioritised applied research (14 interviewees), followed by a combination of applied and fundamental research (11 interviewees). This emphasis on applied objectives stemmed from a view of research as serving a utilitarian purpose, addressing "societal" and "job market needs" (I1P1, I7P1). Practical applications of knowledge were seen as validating doctoral research's value and "potential" (I6P1). This demand for an applied approach was especially evident in a focus group related to a public health programme, where candidates expressed interest in research that promoted "knowledge transfer," practical "application," and "innovation" (I5P1, I5P3).</p> <p>Some candidates acknowledged that focusing on applied research could be challenging, given a perceived emphasis on theoretical research and the difficulties in translating knowledge into practical applications and fostering innovation. Financial constraints further underscored the need for practical outcomes in doctoral research, with work lacking practical aims viewed as less feasible, especially with limited resources. Additionally, candidates saw fundamental research as having a longer timeline to yield returns or applications, often remaining "within academia" "without practical utility" (I9P1). These factors highlight the practical challenges of aligning DE objectives with fundamental research.</p> <p>Doctoral candidates favouring both fundamental and applied research objectives viewed them as "inseparable" (I14P1), essential for "understanding phenomena" (I11P1) and generating practical knowledge that validates theory's coherence and validity. This view highlighted the synergy between foundational insights and real-world applications as essential for innovation, where understanding phenomena is integral to solving complex problems.</p> <p>Overall, findings reflect a shared recognition of the importance of combining fundamental and applied research to address real-world challenges and drive innovation. They emphasise the role of applied research in meeting societal and labour market needs, reinforcing the practical relevance, applicability, and economic value of knowledge (Jansen et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref104">34</reflink>]; Prøitz & Wittek, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref105">44</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189682627-13">Methods</hd> <p>Universities and doctoral candidates alike emphasised the value of multi-, trans-, or interdisciplinary approaches in DE, recognising the importance of cross-disciplinary interactions. This reflects the increasing focus on interdisciplinary research (Cummings & Kiesler, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref106">17</reflink>]; Klein, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref107">36</reflink>]). The prominence of interdisciplinary themes in university website data, aligning with wider academic and funding trends, may signal a strategic effort to highlight these approaches in public profiles, potentially downplaying the ongoing relevance of traditional disciplinary frameworks in some fields.</p> <p>Universities, albeit with less detail than candidates, frequently referenced multi-, trans-, or interdisciplinary rationales for their doctoral programmes (87 out of 118), explicitly stating their commitment to "training" from these perspectives (DP26, DP29, DP98). Consequently, there was less focus on grounding DE solely within disciplinary boundaries, with only a few programmes emphasising a focus tailored specifically to their "scientific domain" or "area" (DP76, DP52).</p> <p>Most doctoral candidates (27 out of 31) also preferred a multi-, trans-, or interdisciplinary approach, grounded in a holistic view of knowledge where contributions come from "various fields of study" (I11P1), and disciplinary boundaries are fluid, with "many points of contact" (I13P1). They viewed these interdisciplinary interactions as fundamental, especially for shaping doctoral research. A "more comprehensive" exposure to various scientific fields was seen as essential for determining "the direction" of their research (I6P2), while a strictly disciplinary approach was perceived as limiting, undesirable, or even "dangerous" (I11P1). Embracing interdisciplinarity and engaging with diverse paradigms and methodologies were considered indispensable for DE and candidates' "growth" as researchers (I11P1). Even when working within narrower fields, candidates valued interdisciplinary engagement as crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the phenomena central to their doctoral research.</p> <p>A disciplinary rationale was rarely emphasised among doctoral candidates. Those few who supported it pointed to potential drawbacks of multi-, trans-, or interdisciplinarity, such as "knowledge dispersion" (I3P1) and loss of focus in doctoral research. They argued for the importance of concentrating on a specific scientific field rather than pursuing multiple, broad approaches and methods. Though less common, this perspective highlights ongoing debated on balancing interdisciplinary and disciplinary approaches in both research and early-career trajectories. It also reflects concerns that interdisciplinarity may introduce risks for young researchers, potentially affecting career prospects, finding suitable supervisors, and maintaining depth within their field (Carayol et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref108">7</reflink>]; Thune, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref109">50</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189682627-14">Expertise</hd> <p>Universities and candidates alike emphasised collaborative expertise in DE, aligning with broader trends toward team-based research where experts work together to tackle complex issues (Jansen et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref110">34</reflink>]). Universities may stress collaborative research, driven partly by global research agendas and funding priorities, potentially downplaying individual expertise still highly valued in some fields.</p> <p>Nevertheless, expertise was mentioned in only 56 out of 118 programmes and frequently framed as a product of collaborative work rather than individual endeavours. Doctoral research was often seen as an outcome of structured collaborations, with doctoral candidates integrated into national or international "research networks" (DC101), groups, "projects", or "units" (DP102). Informal collaboration, like candidates sharing their "knowledge through the publication of scientific articles" and "participation in conferences" (DP37), was also noted. Only one programme mentioned collaborative expertise alongside individual expertise, acknowledging doctoral candidates' "ability to conduct independent research" as supported even if "doctoral theses" were embedded in "supervisor's research projects" (DP78).</p> <p>Universities placed limited emphasis on individual expertise. When it did appear, the "individualisation of the research process" (DP11) was framed as a way to help candidates conduct "a research project" and "research activities" "independently and autonomously" (DP32, DP94).</p> <p>Among doctoral candidates, the dominant trend (22 out of 31 interviewees) was to value collaborative expertise, indicating that DE should extend beyond candidate individual work and efforts. Collaborative work was viewed as enriching doctoral research by bringing valuable input and insights from field experts who "guide" the research or "facilitate" specific aspects, such as "fieldwork" or "empirical components" (I12P2, I13P2). This preference for collaborative expertise may linked to the overrepresentation of more applied fields in the sample.</p> <p>Engagement within research groups and interactions with other researchers were common across these candidates' doctoral programmes. Although the responsibility for doctoral research remained with the individual candidate "guided" and assisted by the supervisor, interactions with other researchers, and "active participation" in their "groups", "projects", and "publications" (I14P1) were seen as essential for enhancing research. These collaborative experiences were further valued for expanding opportunities in scientific work, "skills development" (I6P3), and improving research outcomes. Additionally, they were perceived as beneficial for CV building, which could support candidates' professional integration and career prospects.</p> <p>Some candidates also emphasised the importance of preserving space for individual work and learning during their doctoral research, viewing it as essential for their training, "independence", and "maturity" as researchers (I12P2). Striking a balance between collaborative and individual work was necessary to avoid "overloading" candidates in terms of "time" and "dedication" (I13P3). Moreover, collaborative expertise was seen as contingent on specific conditions, particularly the candidates' "individual goals" and "interests" (I13P3), as well as the "support" available for such collaborative efforts, including "financial support" (I9P1).</p> <p>Only a few candidates regarded doctoral expertise as fundamentally "individual" (I6P1). They perceived doctoral research as the sole responsibility of candidates, representing their "personal and autonomous effort", albeit "mediated by the supervisory relationship" (I4P2). Although this perspective was less common, it highlights a tension between the value of collaborative and individual expertise in knowledge production (Haeussler & Sauermann, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref111">25</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189682627-15">Discussion and conclusions</hd> <p>The study offers a preliminary yet comprehensive understanding of how DE in Portugal is responding to evolving knowledge production dynamics and the accompanying challenges and opportunities. It demonstrates how this adaptation manifests in DE's foundations, objectives, methods, and expertise.</p> <p>DE appears to be shifting from a mostly theoretical foundation to a more practical one, with both fundamental and applied objectives. This transition reflects the hybrid nature of current knowledge production (Jansen et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref112">34</reflink>]; Prøitz & Wittek, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref113">44</reflink>]). Both universities and candidates recognise the significance of combining theoretical and practical knowledge in DE to address complex real-world challenges (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref114">20</reflink>]; Thune, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref115">50</reflink>]). This highlights the importance of balancing academic excellence with social relevance and practical utility (Carvalho et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref116">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>The findings indicate that Portuguese DE emphasises practical orientation and applied research to foster innovation, knowledge transfer, and responsiveness to societal concerns and labour market needs (Borell-Damian et al., 2010; Carvalho et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref117">13</reflink>]; Gibbons et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref118">24</reflink>]; Leydesdorff, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref119">38</reflink>]). This represents a shift from a more autonomous, academically focused approach to knowledge production to one that is more instrumental and aligned with society and stakeholders (Bonaccorsi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref120">5</reflink>]; Gibbons et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref121">24</reflink>]; Jansen et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref122">34</reflink>]; Leydesdorff, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref123">38</reflink>]). However, this responsiveness carries risks. Excessive emphasis on knowledge utility and application may lead to a monocultural and mono-epistemological academic that prioritises meeting market demands (Magalhães & Veiga, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref124">40</reflink>]), compromising research freedom and creativity (Frick et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref125">22</reflink>]) and undervaluing groundbreaking theoretical contributions.</p> <p>Nuanced perspectives emerge between universities and doctoral candidates. While universities typically prioritise a more practical foundation for DE, with a secondary emphasis on both theory and practice, candidates push for a more hybrid approach that values both aspects. The more practical approach may reflect universities' strategic emphasis on societal or economic outcomes desired by funding agencies, potentially overshadowing fundamental research. Candidates' hybrid perspective, in turn, likely reflects their recognition of the complementarity of theoretical and practical knowledge, indicating a nuanced understanding of the diverse demands of doctoral research and ongoing discussions about how to integrate these forms of knowledge (Prøitz & Wittek, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref126">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>In contrast, regarding DE's objectives, candidates tend to show a slightly stronger preference for applied research than universities, reflecting a more utilitarian view of knowledge production (Prøitz & Wittek, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref127">44</reflink>]). This perspective may arise from the assumption that engaging in applied research enhances future professional integration and career advancement outside academia, particularly considering the challenges of entering and progressing in the academic profession (Boman et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref128">4</reflink>]; Deem, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref129">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, the study reveals an emphasis on the importance of trans-, inter-, and multidisciplinary approaches, as well as collaborative expertise in DE. Both universities and candidates understand the value of cross-disciplinary interactions in producing novel and impactful scientific contributions (Carayol et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref130">7</reflink>]; D'Este et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref131">18</reflink>]). They highlight the significance of collaborative, team-based research in addressing complex issues (Wuchty et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref132">53</reflink>]). However, some candidates stress the need for individual learning and work or perceive doctoral expertise as intrinsically individual. This underscores a current paradox for researchers, particularly young ones, who must independently develop specialised knowledge while still contributing to collaborative knowledge production (Haeussler & Sauermann, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref133">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>Overall, these findings align with a broader trend in the research landscape that views knowledge production as a collaborative, cross-disciplinary endeavour within the scientific community (Gibbons et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref134">24</reflink>]; Hessels & Van Lente, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref135">29</reflink>]). This collaboration manifests in team-based research to tackle complex challenges (Haeussler & Sauermann, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref136">25</reflink>]). At the doctoral programme level, this trend is reflected in the adoption of interdisciplinary approaches and the promotion of collaborative doctoral research, enriched by interactions with experts and collaborative research environments, which are increasingly institutionalised. This resonates with the idea that contemporary complex scientific challenges are best addressed by integrating diverse disciplines and knowledge fields (Carayol et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref137">7</reflink>]; Hessels & Van Lente, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref138">29</reflink>]), requiring various combinations and complementarities at both institutional and cognitive levels (Bonaccorsi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref139">5</reflink>]; Haeussler & Sauermann, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref140">25</reflink>]; Jansen et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref141">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite some nuances, the results suggest that in Portugal, DE is adapting to the evolving characteristics, focus, and locus of knowledge production. This adaptation highlights the complexity and diversity of perspectives within DE and ongoing debates about the evolution of knowledge production (Haeussler & Sauermann, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref142">25</reflink>]; Leydesdorff, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref143">38</reflink>]). It also suggests that DE aligns with broader trends set by national and European policy in response to the knowledge society. However, an excessive emphasis on the knowledge application by funding agencies may contribute to the devaluation of novel theoretical contributions and diminished serendipity in research (Carvalho et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref144">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>The intersection of changes in knowledge production and specific dimensions of DE offer opportunities and challenges for universities and doctoral programmes as they prepare the next generation of researchers. Emphasising a foundation in both theory and practice suggests that including a more balanced mix of theoretical and practical elements into doctoral programmes may better prepare candidates for complex, real-world situations (Armsby et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref145">3</reflink>]). While this integration may create tensions, it has the potential to enhance candidates' professional capabilities and provide knowledge in a variety of contexts.</p> <p>Moreover, emphasising applied research objectives allows doctoral programmes to integrate research aims with practical demands, societal impact, and innovation. However, concerns about research funding and the application of practical knowledge underscore the importance of universities addressing constraints at this level (Hasgall et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref146">26</reflink>]). Institutional policies and support structures could be designed to foster applied research while preserving the value of fundamental research.</p> <p>Additionally, the emphasis on trans-, multi-, and interdisciplinary approaches underscores the need to facilitate interactions between scientific disciplines within doctoral programmes. Encouraging candidates to engage with multiple fields and collaborate across disciplinary boundaries fosters a holistic view of knowledge. While supporting interdisciplinary research environments, doctoral programmes should accommodate different candidate preferences for disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches, especially since universities often lack a consistent strategy for developing interdisciplinary research skills and knowledge (Lyall, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref147">39</reflink>]). These programmes may also present additional challenges to universities (Carayol et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref148">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>The importance of collaborative expertise in knowledge production necessitates structured collaboration among doctoral programmes, allowing candidates to actively engage in team-based research and interact with field experts. However, making room for individual work and learning is critical. Doctoral programmes should strike a balance between collaborative and individual research efforts to help candidates to develop as independent researchers. These implications underline the importance of flexibility, adaptability, and a nuanced approach to designing DE in Portugal to meet changing needs of knowledge production.</p> <p>While these insights offer valuable considerations for enhancing doctoral programmes, it is critical to recognise constraints that may affect the findings' robustness and generalisability. The reliance on qualitative data from programme websites and focus groups failed to capture key stakeholders' perspectives, including programme directors, supervisors, and faculty members. Although these methods produced important data, their quality and scope may have influenced the overall results. Moreover, the smaller-than-expected size of some focus groups may have influenced data comprehensiveness. A sample that is primarily composed of candidates from more applied fields (e.g., social sciences, business, engineering) and is underrepresented in theoretical fields may have biased impressions of DE transformations and downplayed resistances to interdisciplinarity and pedagogical changes. Additionally, the relatively small number of interviewees, particularly first-year candidates, may have limited the range of perspectives represented in the research, by overlooking views from candidates at various stages of their doctoral journeys.</p> <p>Finally, the study assumes that changes in knowledge production impact DE; however, it is critical to recognise that the scope and timing of this impact are neither geographically nor institutionally uniform. Additionally, certain aspects of DE remain fairly constant—such as core academic standards, a commitment to knowledge advancement, the importance of research ethics and integrity, or the critical role of supervision/supervisors—suggesting that universities and programmes retain considerable influence over these dimensions (Cardoso et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref149">10</reflink>]). Nevertheless, these continuities are not the object of this study. Other variables also have an impact on DE's foundations, objectives, methods, and expertise, notably the growing strategic importance of the doctorate for the knowledge society and economy (Kehm, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref150">35</reflink>]), which has contributed to its massification and, more crucially, professionalisation. This increased emphasis on professionalisation shifts the focus toward candidates' competencies, career development, and employability outside academia, prompting doctoral programmes to prioritise applied, practice-based, interdisciplinary and collaborative knowledge (Cardoso et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref151">10</reflink>]; McAlpine, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref152">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Acknowledging these limitations underscores the need for further research to address gaps and deepen our understanding of the complex relationship between changes in knowledge production and their effects in DE. Future research could explore the experiences of doctoral candidates in more theoretical fields to examine how interdisciplinarity and collaboration are perceived across disciplines. Longitudinal studies would offer insights into how candidates' perceptions of DE evolve over time. Engaging with various stakeholders, including programme directors, supervisors, and faculty members, may provide a more comprehensive understanding of DE dynamics. Comparative analyses of doctoral programmes in other countries may reveal similarities and differences in how programmes adjust to changes in knowledge production. Furthermore, research into doctoral programmes with a more interdisciplinary orientation may reveal whether they adapt differently to these changes. Finally, combining qualitative and quantitative analyses could yield a more nuanced picture of how knowledge production affects DE across different fields and stages of the doctoral journey.</p> <hd id="AN0189682627-16">Author contribution</hd> <p>All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Sónia Cardoso (based on the work framed within the project "Talking about doctoral education: The perspectives of Portuguese universities and doctoral students"). The first draft of the manuscript was written by Sónia Cardoso and Pedro Videira, and both authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0189682627-17">Funding</hd> <p>The research leading to these results (within the framework of the project "Talking about doctoral education: The perspectives of Portuguese universities and doctoral students") received funding from EDULOG, a Belmiro de Azevedo Foundation think tank focused on education, under Grant Agreement CIPES/EDULOG/2020/2022.</p> <hd id="AN0189682627-18">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189682627-19">Consent to participate</hd> <p>This study involved human participants who gave their informed consent for participating in the research.</p> <hd id="AN0189682627-20">Competing interests</hd> <p>The authors declare no competing interests.</p> <hd id="AN0189682627-21">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0189682627-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref50" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alves P, Lopes A, Menezes I, Kowalczuk-Walędziak M. The research-practice nexus in doctoral education: The voices of social and health sciences PhD candidates and graduates. Research in Post-Compulsory Education. 2021; 26; 3: 290-311. 10.1080/13596748.2021.1920260</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref14" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alves P, Lopes A, Cruz-Correia R, Menezes I. The value of doctoral education in the intersection of the multiple purposes of higher education. European Educational Research Journal. 2023. 10.1177/14749041231206197</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref9" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Armsby P, Costley C, Cranfield S. The design of doctorate curricula for practising professionals. Studies in Higher Education. 2018; 43; 12: 2226-2237. 10.1080/03075079.2017.1318365</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref55" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Boman, J, Beeson, H, Sanchez Barrioluengo, M, & Rusitoru, M. (2021, December 6). What comes after a PhD? Findings from the DocEnhance Survey of doctorate holders on their employment situation, skills match, and the value of the doctorate. European Science Foundation (ESF). https://zenodo.org/record/7188085#.Y07YpUzMJPZ</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref6" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bonaccorsi A. Search regimes and the industrial dynamics of science. Minerva. 2008; 46; 3: 285-315. 10.1007/s11024-008-9101-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref48" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Boud D, Costley C, Marshall S, Sutton B. Impacts of a professional practice doctorate: A collaborative enquiry. Higher Education Research & Development. 2021; 40; 3: 431-445. 10.1080/07294360.2020.1765744</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref2" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Carayol N, Lahatte A, Llopis O. The right job and the job right: Novelty, impact and journal stratification in science. SSRN Papers. 2018. 10.2139/ssrn.3347326</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref91" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cardoso S, Sin C. The internationalisation of doctoral education and the strategies to achieve it: The perspectives of Portuguese universities and doctoral students. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education. 2023; 14; 3: 399-414. 10.1108/SGPE-12-2022-0078</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref98" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cardoso S, Santos S, Diogo S, Soares D, Carvalho T. The transformation of doctoral education: A systematic literature review. Higher Education. 2022; 84; 4: 885-908. 10.1007/s10734-021-00805-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cardoso S, Amaral A, Carvalho T. The changing concept of doctoral education: An insight from Portuguese universities. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2024; 48; 2: 255-268. 10.1080/0309877X.2024.2302035</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cardoso, S, Carvalho, T, Diogo, S, Santos, S. & Dias, D. (2022b). Talking about doctoral education: The perspectives of Portuguese universities and doctoral students. Final Report [translated title]. EDULOG. https://<ulink href="http://www.edulog.pt/storage/app/uploads/public/632/454/f93/632454f932db8027121423.pdf">www.edulog.pt/storage/app/uploads/public/632/454/f93/632454f932db8027121423.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cardoso, S. (2024). The transformation of doctoral education: Responding to the needs and expectations of society and candidates. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2024.2306255</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carvalho T, Diogo S, Vilhena B. Invisible researchers in the knowledge society – The uberisation of scientific work in Portugal. European Journal of Higher Education. 2022; 12; 4: 393-414. 10.1080/21568235.2022.2105371</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carvalho, T, Diogo, S, & Santiago, R. (2021). A Portuguese tale on knowledge-based society: Narrowing bonds between higher education and the innovation system. In T. Aarrevaara, M. Finkelstein, G.A. Jones & J. Jung (Eds.), Universities in the knowledge society. The changing academy – The changing academic profession in international comparative perspective, 22, 257–276. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castelfranchi C. Six critical remarks on science and the construction of the knowledge society. Journal of Science Communication. 2007; 6; 4: C03. 10.22323/2.06040303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castells M. The information age: Economy, society and culture. 3 vols, Blackwell. Countries: An analysis of the Portuguese higher education system. Higher Education Policy. 1996; 23: 63-81. 10.1057/hep.2009.20</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cummings JN, Kiesler S. Organization theory and the changing nature of science. Journal of Organization Design. 2014; 3; 3: 1-16. 10.7146/jod.18596</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> D'Este P, Llopis O, Rentocchini F, Yegros A. The relationship between interdisciplinarity and distinct modes of university-industry interaction. Research Policy. 2019; 48; 9: 103799. 10.1016/j.respol.2019.05.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deem RCardoso S, Tavares O, Sin C, Carvalho T. Rethinking doctoral education: University purposes, academic cultures, mental health and the public good. Structural and institutional transformations in doctoral education: Social, political and student expectations. 2020; Springer Nature: 13-42. 10.1007/978-3-030-38046-5_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy. 2000; 29; 2: 109-123. 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forfás, I. (2009). The role of PhDs in the smart economy. <ulink href="http://edepositireland.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/70619/asc091215%5frole%5fof%5fphds.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y">http://edepositireland.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/70619/asc091215%5frole%5fof%5fphds.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frick L, McKenna S, Muthama E. Death of the PhD: When industry partners determine doctoral outcomes. Higher Education Research & Development. 2017; 36; 2: 444-447. 10.1080/07294360.2017.1263467</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gama R, Barros C, Fernandes R. Science policy, R&D and knowledge in Portugal: An application of social network analysis. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. 2018; 9: 329-358. 10.1007/s13132-017-0447-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibbons, M, Limoges, C, Scott, P, Schwartzman, S. & Nowotny, H. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary Societies. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haeussler C, Sauermann H. Division of labor in collaborative knowledge production: The role of team size and interdisciplinarity. Research Policy. 2020; 49; 6: 103987. 10.1016/j.respol.2020.103987</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hasgall, A, Saenen, B, Borrell-Damian, L, Van Deynze, F, Seeber, M. & Huisman, J. (2019). Doctoral education in Europe today: Approaches and institutional structures – Survey. EUA-CDE. https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/online%20eua%20cde%20survey%2016.01.2019.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heimeriks G, Leydesdorff L. Emerging search regimes: Measuring co-evolutions among research, science, and society. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 2012; 24; 1: 51-67. 10.1080/09537325.2012.643562</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heitor M, Horta H, Mendonça J. Developing human capital and research capacity: Science policies promoting brain gain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2014; 82: 6-22. 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.07.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hessels L, van Lente H. Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy. 2008; 37; 4: 740-760. 10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holley KAWeidman JC, DeAngelo L. Interdisciplinarity and doctoral education: Socialization, process, and outcomes. Socialization in higher education and the early career: Theory, research and application. 2020; Springer: 269-284. 10.1007/978-3-030-33350-8_15</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horta H, Santos JM. The impact of publishing during PhD studies on career research publication, visibility, and collaborations. Research in Higher Education. 2016; 57: 28-50. 10.1007/s11162-015-9380-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horta, H. (2010). The role of the state in the internationalization of universities in catching-up countries: An analysis of the Portuguese higher education system. Higher Education Policy, 23, 6381. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2009.20</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobs JA, Frickel S. Interdisciplinarity: A critical assessment. Annual Review of Sociology. 2009; 35: 43-65. 10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115954</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jansen D, von Görtz R, Heidler R. Knowledge production and the structure of collaboration networks in two scientific fields. Scientometrics. 2010; 83; 1: 219-241. 10.1007/s11192-009-0022-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kehm BCardoso S, Tavares O, Sin C, Carvalho T. Reforms of doctoral education in Europe and diversification of types. Structural and institutional transformations in doctoral education: Social, political and student expectations. 2020; Springer Nature: 85-104. 10.1007/978-3-030-38046-5_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein JT. Interdisciplinarity and complexity: An evolving relationship. Structure. 2004; 6; 1–2: 2-10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyvik S, Olsen TB. The relevance of doctoral training in different labour markets. Journal of Education and Work. 2012; 25; 2: 205-224. 10.1080/13639080.2010.538376</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leydesdorff L. The triple helix, quadruple helix,..., and an N-tuple of helices: Explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy?. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. 2012; 3: 25-35. 10.1007/s13132-011-0049-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyall C. Being an interdisciplinary academic: How institutions shape university careers. Palgrave. 2019. 10.1007/978-3-030-18659-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magalhães, A, & Veiga, A. (2022). European governance and doctoral education: What is "higher" in higher education? In Guilherme. M. (Ed.), A framework for critical transnational research: Advancing plurilingual, intercultural, and inter-epistemic collaboration in the academy (pp. 21–34). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003225812</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McAlpine LCardoso S, Tavares O, Sin C, Carvalho T. Views on the usefulness of the PhD outside academia: What do we know and need to know?. Structural and institutional transformations in doctoral education: Social, political and student expectations. 2020; Springer Nature: 241-274. 10.1007/978-3-030-38046-5_9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Storer, N. (Ed.). (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Millar M. Interdisciplinary research and the early career: The effect of interdisciplinary dissertation research on career placement and publication productivity of doctoral graduates in the sciences. Research Policy. 2013; 42; 5: 1152-1164. 10.1016/j.respol.2013.02.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prøitz TS, Wittek L. New directions in doctoral programmes: Bridging tensions between theory and practice?. Teaching in Higher Education. 2020; 25; 5: 560-578. 10.1080/13562517.2019.1577813</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reale E, Morettini L, Zinilli A. Moving, remaining, and returning: International mobility of doctorate holders in the social sciences and humanities. Higher Education. 2019; 78: 17-32. 10.1007/s10734-018-0328-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodrigues, M.L, Heitor, M. V, & Patrício, M. T. (Eds.). (2015). 40 anos de políticas de ciência e de ensino superior. Almedina.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santiago R, Carvalho T, Ferreira A. Changing knowledge and academics profession. Higher Education Quarterly. 2015; 69; 1: 79-100. 10.1111/hequ.12037</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santos J, Horta H. The generational gap of science: A dynamic cluster analysis of doctorates in an evolving scientific system. Scientometrics. 2015; 104: 381-406. 10.1007/s11192-015-1558-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tavares O, Soares D, Sin C. Industry–university collaboration in industrial doctorates: A trouble-free marriage?. Industry and Higher Education. 2020; 34; 5: 312-320. 10.1177/0950422219900155</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thune T. The training of "triple helix workers"? Doctoral students in university–industry-government collaborations. Minerva. 2010; 48: 463-483. 10.1007/s11024-010-9158-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Dijk J. The network society. 2020; Sage. 10.4135/9781529739114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitley R. The intellectual and social organization of sciences. 2000; Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199240531.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science. 2007; 316; 5827: 1036-1039. 10.1126/science.1136099</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zinilli A, Pierucci E, Reale E. Organizational factors affecting higher education collaboration networks: Evidence from Europe. Higher Education. 2024; 88: 119-160. 10.1007/s10734-023-01109-6</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Sónia Cardoso and Pedro Videira</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref147"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1496654
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Adapting Doctoral Education to an Evolving Knowledge Landscape: Insights from Portugal
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sónia+Cardoso%22">Sónia Cardoso</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6504-8468">0000-0001-6504-8468</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pedro+Videira%22">Pedro Videira</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8595-9418">0000-0002-8595-9418</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Higher+Education%3A+The+International+Journal+of+Higher+Education+Research%22"><i>Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research</i></searchLink>. 2025 90(5):1387-1403.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Doctoral+Programs%22">Doctoral Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Colleges%22">Public Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Doctoral+Students%22">Doctoral Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Portugal%22">Portugal</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10734-024-01382-z
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0018-1560<br />1573-174X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In the dynamic landscape of knowledge production, a new era has emerged, characterised by increasing complexity, interdisciplinarity, and collaboration with a diverse range of stakeholders. This aims to foster relevant and impactful knowledge to address socially relevant challenges. These developments have significant implications for doctoral education, requiring adaptability in its foundations, objectives, methods, and expertise. This study investigates how Portuguese doctoral education is adapting to the expanding boundaries of knowledge creation. It draws on the analysis of qualitative data from 118 websites of doctoral programmes offered by 27 Portuguese universities, as well as focus groups and individual interviews with 31 doctoral candidates selected from 11 doctoral programmes across three public universities. Findings suggest that Portuguese doctoral education reflects the complexity of contemporary knowledge production. It appears to be evolving from a largely theoretical foundation to a more practical one. Furthermore, it emphasises a dual focus on applied and fundamental research objectives and underscores the significance of interdisciplinary approaches and collaborative expertise. However, the overarching trends unveiled by this study also reveal nuances, reflecting ongoing debates concerning the complexities and interdisciplinary nature of knowledge production, as well as the evolving roles of doctoral education in addressing these challenges.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1496654
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1496654
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10734-024-01382-z
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 1387
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Doctoral Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Public Colleges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Doctoral Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Portugal
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Adapting Doctoral Education to an Evolving Knowledge Landscape: Insights from Portugal
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sónia Cardoso
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pedro Videira
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0018-1560
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-174X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 90
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1