Advertisement

Minerva

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 59–83 | Cite as

Projectification of Doctoral Training? How Research Fields Respond to a New Funding Regime

  • Marc Torka
Article

Abstract

Funding is an important mechanism for exercising influence over ever more parts of academic systems. In order to do so, funding agencies attempt to export their functional and normative prerequisites for financing to new fields. One essential requirement for fundees is then to construct research processes in the form of a project beforehand, one that is limited in time, scope and content. This article demonstrates how the public funding of doctoral programs expands this model of project research from experienced academics to the socialization process for the new academic generation. This process of “projectification” underlies funding-driven institutional changes in doctoral training. A multi-level comparative study of German policies, funding mechanisms and organizational frameworks for doctoral training demonstrates the emergence of a specific model of predefined PhD projects. The investigation of doctoral training practices reveals that socio-epistemic preconditions regulate whether research fields adopted or rejected this demanding model. This result contradicts widespread claims about a radical change in doctoral training and suggests focusing on the actual practices of field-specific doctoral research.

Keywords

Funding Institutional change Doctoral training Projectification Research fields 

References

  1. Baldauf, Beate. 1998. Doctoral Education and Research Training in Germany: Towards a More Structured and Efficient Approach? European Journal of Education 33(2): 161–182.Google Scholar
  2. Besio, Cristina. 2009. Forschungsprojekte. Zum Organisationswandel in der Wissenschaft. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  3. BUWIN. 2013. Bundesbericht Wissenschaftlicher Nachwuchs 2013. Statistische Daten und Forschungsbefunde zu Promovierenden und Promovierten in Deutschland. Bielefeld: WBV.Google Scholar
  4. BUWIN. 2017. Bundesbericht Wissenschaftlicher Nachwuchs. Statistische Daten und Forschungsbefunde zu Promovierenden und Promovierten in Deutschland. Bielefeld: WBV.Google Scholar
  5. Byrne, Joanne, Thomas Jørgensen, and Tia Loukkola. 2013. Quality Assurance in Doctoral Education—Results of the ARDE Project. Brussels: European University Association.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, Burton R. 1983. The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Connell, Raewyn, and Catherine Manathunga. 2012. On Doctoral Education: How to Supervise a PhD, 1985–2011. Australian Universities’ Review 54(1): 5–9.Google Scholar
  8. Deuchar, Ross. 2008. Facilitator, Director or Critical Friend?: Contradiction and Congruence in Doctoral Supervision Styles. Teaching in Higher Education 13(4): 489–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Devos, Christelle, Gentiane Boudrenghien, Nicolas Van der Linden, Assaad Azzi, Mariane Frenay, Benoit Galand, and Olivier Klein. 2017. Doctoral Students’ Experiences Leading to Completion or Attrition: A Matter of Sense, Progress and Distress. European Journal of Psychology of Education 32(1): 61–77.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0290-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DFG. 2010. 20 Years of Research Training Groups. Matrix for New Doctoral Cultures: Innovative, Interactive, International. Bonn: German Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  11. Dodds, H.W. 1954. Project Research. American Scientist 42(1): 128–130.Google Scholar
  12. Enders, Jürgen. 2001. A Chair System in Transition: Appointments, Promotions, and Gate-Keeping in German Higher Education. Higher Education 41(1–2): 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Enders, Jürgen, and Andrea Kottmann. 2009. Neue Ausbildungsformen—andere Werdegänge? Ausbildungs-und Berufsverläufe von Absolventinnen und Absolventen der Graduiertenkollegs der DFG. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.Google Scholar
  14. Felt, Ulrike. 2017. Of Timescapes and Knowledge Scapes: Re-timing Research and Higher Education. In New Languages and Landscapes of Higher Education, eds. Peter Scott, Jim Gallacher, and Gareth Parry, 129–148. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fochler, Maximilian, Ulrike Felt, and Ruth Müller. 2016. Unsustainable Growth, Hyper-Competition, and Worth in Life Science Research: Narrowing Evaluative Repertoires in Doctoral and Postdoctoral Scientists’ Work and Lives. Minerva 54(2): 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Franke, Anita, and Barbro Arvidsson. 2011. Research Supervisors’ Different Ways of Experiencing Supervision of Doctoral Students. Studies in Higher Education 36(1): 7–19.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903402151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fujimura, J.H. 1987. Constructing ‘Do-able’ Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating Aligment. Social Studies of Science 17(2): 257–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gardner, Susan K. 2008. “What’s Too Much and What’s Too Little?”: The Process of Becoming an Independent Researcher in Doctoral Education. The Journal of Higher Education 79(3): 326–350.  https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gardner, Susan K. 2009. Student and Faculty Attributions of Attrition in High and Low-Completing Doctoral Programs in the United States. Higher Education 58(1): 97–112.  https://doi.org/10.2307/40269170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gläser, Jochen, Jana Bielick, Robert Jungmann, Grit Laudel, Eric Lettkemann, Grit Petschick, and Ulla Tschida. 2015. Research Cultures as an Explanatory Factor. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 40(3): 327–346.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11614-015-0177-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gläser, Jochen, Stefan Lange, Grit Laudel, and Uwe Schimank. 2010. The Limits of Universality: How Field-Specific Epistemic Conditions Affect Authority Relations and their Consequences. In Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and Their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, eds. Richard Whitley, Jochen Gläser, and Lars Engwall, 291–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gläser, Jochen, and Grit Laudel. 2014. Beyond Breakthrough Research: Epistemic Properties of Research and Their Consequences for Research Funding. Research Policy 43(7): 1204–1216.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grant, Barbara M. 2010. Improvising Together: The Play of Dialogue in Humanities Supervision. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 9(3): 271–288.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022210379376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Green, H., and S. Powell. 2005. Doctoral Study in Contemporary Higher Education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Green, Pam, and Robin Usher. 2003. Fast Supervision: Changing Supervisory Practice in Changing Times. Studies in Continuing Education 25(1): 37–50.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370309281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. HRK, Hochschulrektorenkonferenz. 1996. Zum Promotionsstudium. Dokumente zur Hochschulreform 113. Bonn.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, Lesley, Alison Lee, and Bill Green. 2000. The PhD and the Autonomous Self: Gender, Rationality and Postgraduate Pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education 25(2): 135–147.  https://doi.org/10.1080/713696141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kehm, Barbara M. 2009. Doctoral Education: Pressures for Change and Modernisation. In The Changing Face of Academic Life: Analytical and Comparative Perspectives, eds. Jürgen Enders and Egbert de Weert, 155–170. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Knoblauch, Hubert. 2005. Focused Ethnography. Forum Qualitative Social Research 6(3).  https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.3.20.
  30. Kuhn, Thomas Samuel. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Laudel, Grit. 2006. The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions. Science and Public Policy 33(7): 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Laudel, Grit, and Jochen Gläser. 2008. From Apprentice to Colleague: The Metamorphosis of Early Career Researchers. Higher Education 55(3): 387–406.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9063-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee, Alison, and David Boud. 2009. Framing Doctoral Education as Practice. In Changing Practices of Doctoral Education, eds. David Boud and Alison Lee, 10–26. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Lee, Anne. 2008. How are Doctoral Students Supervised? Concepts of Doctoral Research Supervision. Studies in Higher Education 33(3): 267–281.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Louvel, Séverine. 2012. The ‘Industrialization’ of Doctoral Training? A Study of the Experiences of Doctoral Students and Supervisors in the French Life Sciences. Science & Technology Studies 25(2): 23–45.Google Scholar
  36. Maiwald, Kai-Olaf. 2005. Competence and Praxis. Sequential Analysis in German Sociology. Forum Qualitative Social Research 6(3).  https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.3.21
  37. Müller, Ruth. 2014. Postdoctoral Life Scientists and Supervision Work in the Contemporary University: A Case Study of Changes in the Cultural Norms of Science. Minerva 52(3): 329–349.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-014-9257-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Münch, Richard. 2014. Academic Capitalism: Universities in the Global Struggle for Excellence. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Nerad, M., and M. Heggelund. 2011. Toward a Global PhD?: Forces and Forms in Doctoral Education Worldwide. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  40. Nerad, Maresi. 2010. Globalization and the Internationalization of Graduate Education: A Macro and Micro View. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education 40(1): 1–12.Google Scholar
  41. Nerad, Maresi. 2012. Conceptual Approaches to Doctoral Education: A Community of Practice. Alternation 19(2): 57–72.Google Scholar
  42. Neumann, Ruth. 2007. Policy and Practice in Doctoral Education. Studies in Higher Education 32(4): 459–473.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701476134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. NSF. 2017. Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities 2015. Arlington: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  44. Ruberti, Antonio. 2001. The Role and Position of Research and Doctoral Training in the European Union. In Higher Education and the Nation State, eds. Jeroen Huisman, Peter Maassen, and Guy Neave, 107–120. Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  45. Schimank, Uwe. 2005. ‘New Public Management’ and the Academic Profession: Reflections on the German Situation. Minerva 43(4): 361–376.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-005-2472-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scott, Richard W. 2001. Institutions and Organizations, 2nd ed. London; New Dehli: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Streeck, Wolfgang, and Kathleen Ann Thelen. 2005. Introduction: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. In Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies, eds. Wolfgang Streeck and Kathleen Ann Thelen, 3–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Torka, Marc. 2009. Die Projektförmigkeit der Forschung. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Torka, Marc. 2012. Neue Arbeitsweisen: Projekte und Vernetzungen. In Handbuch Wissenschaftssoziologie, eds. Sabine Maasen, Mario Kaiser, Martin Reinhart, and Barbara Sutter, 329–340. Munich: Springer Fachmedien.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vermeulen, N. 2009. Supersizing Science: On Building Large-Scale Research Projects in Biology. Irvine: Universal Publishers.Google Scholar
  51. Vilkinas, Tricia. 2002. The PhD process: The supervisor as manager. Education & Training 44(2/3): 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wernet, Andreas. 2014. Hermeneutics and Objective Hermeneutics. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, ed. Uwe Flick, 234–246. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. White, Julie. 2013. Doctoral Education and New Managerialism. In Discourse, Power, and Resistance Down Under, eds. Mark Vicars and Tarquam McKenna, 187–194. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Whitley, Richard. 1984. The Intellectual and Social Organisation of the Sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  55. Whitley, Richard, and Jochen Gläser. 2014. Editors’ Introduction. In Organizational Transformation and Scientific Change: The Impact of Institutional Restructuring on Universities and Intellectual Innovation, eds. Richard Whitley and Jochen Gläser, 1–15. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  56. Wichmann-Hansen, Gitte, and Kim Jesper Herrmann. 2017. Does External Funding Push Doctoral Supervisors to be More Directive? A large-scale Danish study. Higher Education 74(2): 357–376.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0052-6.Google Scholar
  57. Wissenschaftsrat. 1995. Empfehlungen zur Neustrukturierung der Doktorandenausbildung und -förderung. Köln: Wissenschaftsrat.Google Scholar
  58. Wissenschaftsrat. 1997. Empfehlungen zur Doktorandenausbildung und zur Förderung des Hochschullehrernachwuchses. Köln: Wissenschaftsrat.Google Scholar
  59. Wissenschaftsrat. 2002. Empfehlungen zur Doktorandenausbildung. Köln: Wissenschaftsrat.Google Scholar
  60. Wissenschaftsrat. 2011. Anforderungen an die Qualitätssicherung der Promotion. Positionspapier. Köln: Wissenschaftsrat.Google Scholar
  61. Ylijoki, Oili-Helena. 2015. Conquered by Project Time? Conflicting Temporalities in University Research. In Universities in the Flux of Time: An Exploration of Time and Temporality in University Life, eds. Paul Gibbs, Oili-Helena Ylijoki, Carolina Guzmán-Valenzuela, and Ronald Barnett, 94–107. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Ylijoki, Oili-Helena. 2016. Projectification and Conflicting Temporalities in Academic Knowledge Production. Theory of Science 38(1): 7–26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.WZB Berlin Social Science CenterBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Social ResearchFrankfurt UniversityFrankfurtGermany
  3. 3.Department of SociologyMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations