Doctoral Education and Training in METEOR Countries

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PhD PROGRAMMES ACROSS COUNTRIES

Comparative analysis across ten countries shows both convergence and persistent variation in European doctoral education. All systems prioritise research excellence, but approaches to supervision and skills development differ markedly. The strongest approaches balance academic rigour with practical relevance, individual mentorship with systematic support, and national standards with institutional innovation. Where outcomes are positive, countries typically invest in supervisor training, structured skills development, strong links with employers, and adequate resources.

Across the ten countries, doctoral programmes share a fundamental disconnect: they mainly train students for academic careers that many will not pursue. Most PhD graduates work outside academia, yet training often remains focused on traditional academic pathways. This mismatch affects graduates, employers, and society’s ability to translate research into real-world impact. The analysis identifies key challenges and promising practices across three critical areas: skills training, supervision, and societal impact.

 

TRANSVERSAL SKILLS TRAINING

Universities face the challenge of equipping PhD candidates with transversal skills for diverse career paths, while maintaining academic excellence. All countries studied offer some transversal skills training, yet doctoral students repeatedly report insufficient preparation for non-academic careers. Transversal skills gaps are diverse and multi-layered: while some deficiencies are common across countries, others depend on context, stakeholder perspectives, or student experience. The most frequently cited deficits relate to entrepreneurship and commercialisation, communication with different audiences, industry integration, and knowledge translation. Graduates can struggle to turn their analytical strengths into practice because they lack project management, grant-writing, and stakeholder-engagement skills needed for leadership roles in business, politics, and the public sector. This gap leaves highly qualified researchers less able to navigate organisational dynamics or promote cross-sector cooperation.

Successful programmes increasingly recognise the value of student-centred approaches that reflect diverse career aspirations and individual learning needs, such as peer-led initiatives and seminars. Some also offer flexible pathways that allow students to tailor training to their career goals, improving adaptability in a changing research and employment landscape.

Doctoral students have diverse career aspirations that require different skill emphases and support structures. Addressing frustrations about career preparation demands proactive, systematic career guidance that starts early and goes beyond traditional academic pathways. This includes structured opportunities to connect candidates with employers and other professional communities, and support to help students articulate their transferable skills effectively. The most effective models combine reliable institutional support with flexible, student-centred approaches, creating a comprehensive development ecosystem. Training in adaptability and continuous learning is essential, as employers consistently seek graduates who can master emerging technologies, navigate interdisciplinary challenges, and contribute effectively to diverse teams.

 

SUPERVISION: MOVING BEYOND THE MASTER-APPRENTICE MODEL

The foundation of a successful doctoral programme is effective supervision and robust institutional support. Analysis of research, regulations, and interview data reveals a wide spectrum of practices across countries. A recurring tension is between traditional, often informal, supervision models and the modern demand for structured, accountable, and career-oriented support. Across Europe, there is a clear shift away from the traditional single-supervisor “master-student” model toward more structured, collaborative approaches. Where this shift has not occurred, supervision quality varies widely and often depends on individual supervisors’ initiative and engagement.

The balance between national-level regulation (e.g., setting minimum standards) and institutional autonomy (e.g., designing programme details) shapes supervision models. More centralised systems can produce greater uniformity but less flexibility, while more autonomous systems enable diverse and innovative approaches. Many countries are moving toward hybrid models that combine individual supervision with committee-based elements to improve support quality.

These differences may also reflect funding. Lower-resourced systems often cannot support more flexible or labour-intensive supervision arrangements.

Doctoral candidates’ status also affects supervision dynamics. Systems that recognise PhD candidates as employees or “doctoral researchers” tend to encourage a more professional, collaborative relationship and earlier independence. In some contexts, supervisor training also addresses student wellbeing and role-modelling a healthy work-life balance, reflecting a more holistic approach to mentorship.

Doctoral students and early career researchers across the ten countries report strikingly similar challenges, regardless of their institutional or national context. Systemic issues often show up as personal difficulties in the academic journey. A common friction point is mismatched expectations: students may seek structured guidance, regular feedback, and clear milestones, while some supervisors assume the doctorate is a test of self-direction that requires minimal intervention.

Supervisors, meanwhile, face time constraints from multiple responsibilities. Long completion times and insufficient protected research time can disrupt supervision continuity. Conflict-resolution mechanisms are often weak or absent, leaving problematic dynamics unresolved. Many institutions lack structured mentoring and career guidance. While some countries implement tracking systems or formal agreements, support remains inconsistent across departments and institutions.

To address these systemic and individual challenges in doctoral education, the analysis proposes solutions that strengthen both institutional frameworks and supervisory relationships, drawing on successful models and feedback from students, supervisors, and administrators.

SOCIETAL IMPACT: BRIDGING THE RESEARCH-PRACTICE DIVIDE

Universities’ third mission of societal engagement requires PhD education to prepare graduates for meaningful contribution beyond academia. This includes both traditional knowledge dissemination and collaborative knowledge creation with societal partners. Across the ten countries, approaches vary widely: some remain rooted in traditional academic training, while others are evolving toward collaborative, interdisciplinary methods that address complex societal challenges.

Students need structured preparation to bridge the gap between research findings and practical application. This requires exposure to real implementation environments and training in knowledge translation – understanding how evidence is received, interpreted, and applied in different organisational contexts. It also requires impact communication skills that can influence policy and practice. Industry and community placements work best when they go beyond simple exposure and include structured reflection, competency development activities, and mentored practice in translating research insights into actionable recommendations for diverse professional contexts.

Conclusion

Closing the gap between PhD training and career reality requires coordinated change: flexible curricula, supervision that explicitly supports the wellbeing of doctoral students and academics, and authentic partnerships with non-academic sectors. Countries that invest in all three dimensions see graduates who thrive across diverse career paths – proving the traditional model can evolve without sacrificing academic excellence.

Note: This article is based on Deliverable D2.2 of the METEOR project.

Author: Ketevan Gurchiani, Nino Javakhishvili, Marika Kapanadze, Tamar Bregvadze