Higher Education

, Volume 63, Issue 5, pp 631–644 | Cite as

The biomedical doctorate in the contemporary university: education or training and why it matters

  • Matthew W. Kemp
  • John P. Newnham
  • Elaine Chapman


The form and function(s) of doctoral education continue to be a subject of much debate by stakeholders internal and external to the university. Notable concerns driving this debate derive from a seemingly discursive array of factors including increasing student numbers, increased understanding of the economic value of doctoral graduates, capitalisation of the academic market and a focus on allocating funding using ostensibly narrow, arbitrary measures of ‘program success’ such as completion rates/time to completion, all framed by a wider debate regarding precisely what constitutes valid knowledge in contemporary society. Within the university, the biomedical sciences are one area of scholarship undergoing rapid change in this respect. One of the salient outcomes of these internal and external dialogues is the apparent transition of biomedical doctoral education towards a ‘training model’ that places increasing emphasis on rapid completion and the generation of ‘industry ready graduates’; a transition that is, potentially, occurring at the expense of the edifying and transformative aspects of biomedical doctoral education. Focusing on the effects of academic capitalisation, this paper draws on data from Australia and Europe to examine the drivers and potential effect(s) of this shift on contemporary doctoral education in the biomedical sciences. This paper acknowledges the potential benefit of contemporary developments whilst simultaneously concluding that by progressing too far towards a quantitatively assessed, industry-driven training model we risk eliminating the intellectual and societal transforming aspects of biomedical doctoral education that make graduates increasingly valuable to our economy and, just as importantly, to our society as a whole.


Education Learning Training doctoral PhD 



MWK wishes to acknowledge the support of the Women and Infant Research Foundation (Western Australia). The authors wish to thank C. Trevitt for stimulating discussions in the course of editing this paper.


  1. Asteris, M. (2006). British Universities: The “coal exporters” of the 21st century. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes, D. E., & Bero, L. A. (1998). Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(19), 1566–1570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett, R. (2000a). Supercomplexity and the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett, R. (2000b). University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. Higher Education, 40(4), 409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnett, R. (2009). Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 34(4), 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnett, R. (2011). Learning about learning: A conundrum and a possible resolution. London Review of Education, 9(1), 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., & Gross, C. P. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289(4), 454–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandt, A. M. (1978). Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. The Hastings Center report, 8(6), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breimer, L. H., & Mikhailidis, D. P. (1993). Towards a doctoral thesis through published works. Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy, 47(9), 403–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bridges, D. (2006). The practice of higher education: in pursuit of excellence and of equity. Educational Theory, 56(4), 371–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brien, D. L. (2008). Publish or Perish?: Investigating the doctorate by publication in writing. Retrieved 20 June, 2011, from
  12. Callaghan, J. (1976). A rational debate based on the facts. Retrieved 20 June, 2011, from
  13. Campbell, T., & Slaughter, S. (1999). Faculty and administrators attitudes toward potential conflicts of interest, commitment, and equity in university–industry relationships. Journal of Higher Education, 70(3), 309–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Check, E. (2007). More biologists but tenure stays static. Nature, 448(7156), 848–849.Google Scholar
  15. Coggeshall, P. E., Norvell, J. C., Bogorad, L., & Bock, R. M. (1978). Changing postdoctoral career patterns for biomedical scientists. Science, 202(4367), 487–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cumming, J. (2009). The doctoral experience in science: Challenging the current orthodoxy. British Educational Research Journal, 35(6), 877–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dobson, I. R. (2001). How has massification changed the shape of Australian universities? Tertiary Education and Management, 7(4), 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dobson, I. R. (2006). Science at the crossroads? The decline of science in Australian higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 12(2), 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Downie, J., & Herder, M. (2007). Reflections on the commercialisation of Research conducted in public institutions in Canada. McGill Health Law Publication, 23–44.Google Scholar
  20. Edwards, D., & Smith, T. F. (2010). Supply issues for science academics in Australia: Now and in the future. Higher Education, 60(1), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Entwistle, N. (2008). Taking stock: Teaching and learning research in higher education. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Teaching and Learning Research in Higher Education.Google Scholar
  22. Gatfield, T. (2005). An investigation into PhD supervisory management styles: Development of a dynamic conceptual model and its managerial implications. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(3), 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gumport, P. J. (2002). The future of the city of intellect. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Guri-Rosenblit, S., Sebkova, H., & Teichler, U. (2007). Massification and diversity of higher education systems: Interplay of complex dimensions. Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 373–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hakala, J. (2009a). The future of the academic calling? Junior researchers in the entrepreneurial university. Higher Education, 57(2), 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hakala, J. (2009b). Socialization of junior researchers in new academic research environments: Two case studies from Finland. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 501–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Halse, C., & Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harman, K. (2004). Producing ‘industry-ready’ doctorates: Australian cooperative research centre approaches to doctoral education. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(3), 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hegel, G. W. F. (2008). Outlines of the philosophy of right. Oxford: Oxford University Pres.Google Scholar
  30. Holley, K. (2009). Animal research practices and doctoral student identity development in a scientific community. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 577–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holligan, C. (2005). Fact and fiction: A case history of doctoral supervision. Educational Research, 47(3), 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hopwood, N. (2010). A sociocultural view of doctoral students’ relationships and agency. Studies in Continuing Education, 32(2), 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Howell, L. P., Chen, C. Y., Joad, J. P., Green, R., Callahan, E. J., & Bonham, A. C. (2010). Issues and challenges of non-tenure-track research faculty: The UC Davis school of medicine experience. Academic Medicine, 85(6), 1041–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hugo, G. (2005). Some emerging demographic issues on Australia’s teaching academic workforce. Higher Education Policy, 18(3), 207–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Insight Economics. (2006). Economic impact study of the CRC programme. Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  36. Jaspers, K. (1953). The idea of The Unviersity. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kemp, D. A. (1999). Knowledge and innovation: A policy statement on research and research training. Retrieved 2011, from
  38. Kwan, B. S. C. (2009). An investigation of instruction in research publishing offered in doctoral programs: The Hong Kong case. Higher Education, 59(1), 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee, A., & Kamler, B. (2008). Bringing pedagogy to doctoral publishing. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(5), 511–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leonard, D., Metcalfe, J., Becker, R., & Evans, J. (2006). Review of literature on the impact of working context and support on the postgraduate research student learning experience. York, UK: The Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
  41. Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 326(7400), 1167–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10(2), 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marton, F., & Svensson, L. (1979). Conceptions of research in student learning. Higher Education, 8(4), 471–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2004). The communist manifesto. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  45. McLean, M. (2006). Pedagogy and the university: Critical theory and practice. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  46. Mendoza, P. (2007). Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization: A case study. Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mill, J. S. (2008). On liberty and other essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 135–146.Google Scholar
  49. Neumann, R. (2007). Policy and practice in doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 459–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Neumann, R., & Guthrie, J. (2002). The corporatization of research in Australian higher education. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(5–6), 721–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Newman, A., & Jones, R. (2006). Authorship of research papers: Ethical and professional issues for short-term researchers. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(7), 420–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ngok, K. (2008). Massification, bureaucratization and questing for “world-class” status: Higher education in China since the mid-1990s. International Journal of Educational Management, 22(6), 547–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41(3), 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Park, C. (2006). The end of the secret garden: Reframing postgraduate supervision. Retrieved June 17, 2011, from
  55. Park, C. (2007). Redefining the doctorate. York, UK: The Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
  56. Prosser, M., Martin, E., Trigwell, K., Ramsden, P., & Middleton, H. (2008). University academics’ experience of research and its relationship to their experience of teaching. Instructional Science, 36(1), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Prosser, M., Ramsden, P., Trigwell, K., & Martin, E. (2003). Dissonance in experience of teaching and its relation to the quality of student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 28(1), 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics’ conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4(3), 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roberts, P. (1999). The future of the university: Reflections from New Zealand. International Review of Education, 45(1), 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Robins, L., & Kanowski, P. (2008). PhD by publication: A student’s perspective. Journal of Research Practice, 4(2), 1–20.Google Scholar
  61. Säljo, R. (1979). Learning about learning. Higher Education, 8(4), 443–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sinclair, M. (2004). The pedagogy of ‘Good’ PhD supervision: A national cross-disciplinary investigation of PhD supervision. Retrieved from Accessed June 2011.
  63. The Australian Federal Government. (2009). Award course completion 2009: Selected higher education statistics. Retrieved 2011, from
  64. The Australian National University. (2009). PhD by publication. Retrieved 20 June, 2011, from
  65. The National Health and Medical Research Council. (2011a). NHMRC 2010 project grant round highlights. Canberra, Australia: The National Health and Medical Research Council.Google Scholar
  66. The National Health and Medical Research Council. (2011b). NHMRC Project grants funding policy for funding commencing in 2012. Canberra, Australia: The National Health and Medical Research Council.Google Scholar
  67. The National Health and Medical Research Council. (2011c). Scholarships. Retrieved March, 2011, from
  68. The New Zealand Government. (2010). Student loan scheme bill. Retrieved from
  69. The University of Melbourne. (2011). PhD thesis. Retrieved March, 2011, from
  70. The University of Oxford. (2008). Education committee. Policy and guidance on research degrees. Retrieved March 2011, from
  71. The University of Sydney. (2008). Postgraduate: Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Retrieved March, 2011, from
  72. The University of Western Australia. (2010a). Higher degrees by research (by thesis). Retrieved March 2011, from
  73. The University of Western Australia. (2010b). Thesis as a series of papers. Retrieved 20 June, 2011, from
  74. The Wellcome Trust. (2000a). Review of Wellcome Trust PhD research training: The student perspective. London, UK: Wellcome Trust.Google Scholar
  75. The Wellcome Trust. (2000b). Review of Wellcome Trust PhD training: The supervisor perspective. London, UK: Wellcome Trust.Google Scholar
  76. Thune, T. (2009). Doctoral students on the university-industry interface: A review of the literature. Higher Education, 58, 637–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Trigwell, K. (2005). Teaching-research relations, cross-disciplinary collegiality and student learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ulku-Steiner, B., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Kinlaw, C. R. (2000). Doctoral student experiences in gender-balanced and male-dominated graduate programs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 296–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. University College London. (2011). Academic regulations and guidelines for research degree students. Retrieved March 2011, from
  81. Williams, P. J. (2007). Valid knowledge: The economy and the academy. Higher Education, 54(4), 511–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew W. Kemp
    • 1
    • 2
  • John P. Newnham
    • 1
  • Elaine Chapman
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Women’s and Infants’ Health, M550The University of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Graduate School of EducationThe University of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations