1 EUGENE Line A
A1 To identify institutions where doctoral schools with structured PhD programmes have been introduced and to establish the influence they have on the level, quality and employability of PhD graduates.
Coordinated by J. Berlamont
Objective
The number of PhD’s awarded by Technical Universities or Engineering Faculties of
comprehensive universities in Europe has increased dramatically over the last 20 years. Unlike in earlier times, most PhD’s do not stay anymore at a university or a research institute, but (have to) go to industry.
In the light of the Lisbon strategy (for growth and jobs) it is expected that these trained
researchers will bring innovation, more effectiveness and creativity into European industry and companies. European enterprises should become more internationally oriented and fully use scientific and technological developments and research to enhance European competitiveness with respect to the U.S.A., Japan and the BRIC countries.
Because PhD’s are no longer almost exclusively expected to stay in a university or research environment, but instead to take leading roles in industry, many European HEI’s have established in recent years doctoral schools and offer PhD programmes.
In the past, PhD training consisted exclusively of individual research (“training through
research”). Although the individual research is and remains the core and the main constituent of PhD work, one considers that during the PhD study period, students should be better prepared to their future key role in industry and therefore acquire more and better skills that can be used in their future industrial career. They should be (more) exposed to an international research and industrial environment. As a consequence, PhD’s will have more attractive career prospects which will enable the universities to attract the brightest and most ambitious young academics. Now, trainings are organised, (advanced) courses are offered to PhD students, who also
participate in projects with industry etc. The proportion of these activities with respect to the individual research effort varies. In many places there exists already some experience with structured PhD programmes and activities of doctoral schools.
2 A PhD programme in engineering should:
• Support individual research work
• Broaden the intellectual horizon of the PhD candidate, bring him in contact with relevant future collaborators
• Provide the candidate with additional technical, scientific and social skills, or improve on them, so that the PhD holder becomes more valuable for industry and more prone to innovation
There is a wide variety of doctoral programmes - It may be compulsory or not:
- It may consist of technical/ scientific advanced courses (“deepening of knowledge”); - It may consist of seminars, courses, lectures supporting the PhD process and the research
(e.g. scientific tools, technology platforms, publication, vulgarization of knowledge, patent rights, engineering or industrial ethics…) (“widening of knowledge”);
- It may consists in training of skills or attitudes (e.g. entrepreneurship, information and publication skills, interpersonal skills, communication skills in different languages, strategic skills (e.g. time management), career management, strategic thinking, leadership, …);
- It may consist of participation in industrial projects, or projects with and for industry, a training period in industry. In some cases the PhD work can be done entirely in a company (under supervision of an academic advisor of course);
- …
Although the objectives of the doctoral programmes are clear, and although they are becoming widely implemented, it is actually not known whether these PhD training programmes are effective indeed, reach their double objectives and “produce” PhD’s who are better fit for a leading position in industry and who have a better employability and more attractive career prospects. If they are effective, it would be most interesting and instructive to know which type of PhD training is most effective.
It is therefore the purpose of EUGENE A1 to “measure” the efficiency and effectiveness of different PhD programmes.
If we look at the efficiency of PhD work, we of course look from an academic point of view: the output in terms of publications, citations, and the benefits obtained by more research contracts, better funding of the department … The survey that we would like to carry out should clarify the experience of the PhD’s themselves as employed in industry and of the employers of PhD students. This will not be an easy task, be it because of the relative small numbers and their dispersion in many companies.
3 Methodology
The different types of doctoral programmes are known (TREE)
We should carry out a number of interviews with, or send a questionnaire to - Staff responsible for doctoral schools
- Doctoral students in the end phase of the PhD, who went through the doctoral programme - Doctorate holders (with PhD programmes) employed in industry
- Employers of doctors (with and without PhD training) - …
We should try to reach a number of PhD alumni and their employers through our own records, the records of the faculty/ school, through alumni associations and professional organizations.
4 Members of (sub) working group
Almstedt Alf-Erik, Chalmers University Sweden Avdelas Aris, Aristotle University Greece
Berlamont Jean, K.U. Leuven and CESAER Belgium, chair Ferrari Antonio, University of Aveiro Portugal
Georgilas Vasilis, BEST
Grakovski Alexander, Transport and Telecommunication Institute, Latvia Hoeffer Ruediger, Ruhr-University Bochum
Kaps Tiit, Tallinn University of Technology Estonia
Kopitovs Jevgenijs, Transport and Telecommunication Institute (Rigа, Latvia) Kuraz Vaclav, CTU in Prague Czech Republic
Lacarbonara Walter, Università di Roma La Sapienza –Facoltà di Ingegneria Italy Latinopoulos Pericles, EUCEET Association
Maffioli Francesco, Politecnico di Milano Italy Pokorny Michal, University of Zilina Slovakia
Stachowichz Feliks, Rzeszow University of Technology Poland Szpytko Janusz, AGH University of Science and Technology Poland Wieringa Peter, Delft University of Technology Netherlands
5
Interviews/ questionnaires
PhD employees/ PhD employers
Siemens (Slovakia, Michal Pokorny) 7 PhD 1 research manager IMEC (Belgium, Jean Berlamont) 27 PhD 14 research managers UMICORE (Belgium, Jean Berlamont) 4 PhD 4 research coaches Mott Macdonald (Czech republic, Vaclav Kuraz) 5 PhD 1 employer
Metrostav (Czech republic, Vaclav Kuraz) 4 PhD 1 employer (Estonia, Tiitt Kaps) 22 PhD 20 employers Bekaert (Belgium, Jean Berlamont) 1 senior research manager
6 The opinion of the employers
Most PhD holders in industry work in a research and development division. Therefore their direct supervisors are often the research managers.
What do you expect from a PhD holder as compared to a Master in Engineering? What is the added value of a PhD?
First of all, PhD students should acquire independently a thorough, deep knowledge of their subject. The PhD study should be as profound and focused as possible. By doing such (cutting edge) research, a PhD student acquires scientific competences and skills. These should not be too specific but rather generic: ask the right research questions, ask other related questions; formulate new research themes, be critical for your own work and results; think “out of the box”, take initiative e.g. in experimental work, persevere: don’t give up, cope with failures, find ways out; build an international knowledge network.
Having time to study in depth one subject, to read papers, search and study background information, is the real advantage and added value of a PhD project. This is a once in a lifetime experience/ opportunity.
(Self) management: work in a structured and systematic way, be responsible for your own results, organize your own work (e.g. experiments): have the logistics in place on time;
Communicate in a correct scientific way: scientific writing skills.
Phd is a training through research, therefore the actual subject of the research is not so important but the scientific competences that are acquired by doing research are important. If the subject, and thus the knowledge and scientific competences acquired are “useful” for their (future?) job in a company, it is considered as a “bonus”.
In some countries/ companies on the contrary, acquiring very specific and specialized knowledge is considered as the main asset of a PhD alumnus and the main reason for hiring them to perform specific and specialized tasks.
A PhD’s in close collaboration with industry may be a plus (e.g. mixed scholarships for which the company pays between 30 to 50% of the scholarship). Skills acquired by working in a company: social skills, planning, … ! But, at a university one has more time to go in depth and e.g. for literature study.
An international exchange with another (top) research centre may yield huge benefits. If you can work in a Project competence centre, it may allow you to progress very fast (3 to 6 months).
7 PhD alumni are expected to be able to work independently, even on a subject which is not strictly within their field. They should be able to start a new research project in a systematic way. They must be able to do research independently, not only from a scientific point of view, but also from a research- and people management point of view (social skills, organization, logistics e.g. for the experiments).
They should be able to find by themselves the scientific and technical knowledge that they may lack and work on it individually and independently by self-study, finding the necessary contacts, etc. Therefore it is almost a contradiction to organize “specialized” or “advanced” taught courses during the PhD programme!
Additional remark:
The difference between a MSc thesis and a PhD is that during the master thesis research there is not enough time to go in depth, and (therefore) everything is organized for you. You don’t work independently.
What is your experience: do they come up to your expectations? Do you see any difference between relatively young PhD’s (with doctoral programmes) and less young PhD’s (without)? Is there any difference as a function of the country where they got their PhD? Engineers (MSc) with 4 years experience in industry may have reached the same maturity as a PhD alumnus and have acquired social and managerial skills, but usually they did not have the opportunity to reach the same depth (e.g. by studying literature). They become the (line) managers, and, because they will bear more responsibilities, they will often move faster in the company hierarchy than the doctor!
A PhD alumnus will probably come up faster with an own vision and develop faster. Doctors are usually more creative than 2nd cycle alumni. A MSc engineer will search for which knowledge is available, whilst PhD’s will rather develop theories and technologies by themselves, which occasionally can turn out to be counterproductive (“re-invent the wheel”)!
Since much depends on the personality and the character of the individual, there will be a certain overlap between PhD and non PhD if one should compares PhD’s + 4 years industrial experience with MSc’s with 8 years industrial experience. The individual career development is not depending on the diploma in the first place, but on (inter)personal skills. Some PhD alumni grow into management and business while others go on with research for another 10 years.
Most companies are happy with the quality of their PhD’s, although they fear that the level is lowering slightly and slowly, which is attributed to the fact that the duration of the PhD research
8 is gradually reduced and that there is a growing tendency to reduce the required depth of knowledge of (the basic) sciences in the first cycle.
Most often, hardly any difference is found between the PhD from the “old” system and the ones from the “new system” with more structured doctoral programmes. They are hardly more innovative, more effective, more inventive or taking more initiatives than their predecessors. Maybe there is not enough experience with the “new” doctors yet? Maybe the doctoral programmes are ineffective? Or does it not make any difference because other issues, personal qualities and character are more relevant?
Sometimes, depending on the nature of the 2nd cycle education, it is found that the PhD’s, who benefited from the doctoral programmes in the doctoral school
do have a better ability for international communication, to build international networks;
often have experience with working abroad, they have better languages skills. have a broader view and improved analytical skills
What is needed to facilitate the doctoral process? Formal structured doctoral programmes? What should they contain?
Although the most important quality of a PhD is that he/ she can work independently, it should not mean that they should work on their own. They should be integrated in a research group and widen their views. The research environment is very important. As in clinical training, a research group should be able to prove that it can support PhD students with enough equipment, supervision, industrial and international contacts, etc.
A PhD has two dimensions: one vertical dimension: study the own subject deeply, and a horizontal dimension: widen one’s view to other topics and other skills.
The relative weight of both may differ: there are different types of PhD students, with different interests, different plans for the future, different 2nd cycle education, and therefore the PhD training should be flexible and adjustable.
Therefore, a number of activities can be requested from a PhD student up to a certain time expenditure (estimated at 30 ECTS) but the choice should be free, depending on
The past 2nd
cycle education: In some universities/ countries Ma students have had already introduction to economy, IP, etc. or are proficient in foreign languages. In other countries they haven’t. Then such non technical courses/ seminars may be offered The future plans of the candidate (e.g. academic carreer (IP?), start a spin off (a course on entrepreneurship?)
9 A lectures series on “innovation” would be most helpfull! Should be taught by people from industry as e.g. at TU Vienna (http://www.tu-wu-innovation.at/); taught by the CEO of AUDI.
Dr. School should support doctoral students and provide them with a research methodology!
These activities can be seminars, workshops; no formal courses with exams, after so many years at university, students should be able to study by themselves what they need.
One should not waste precious time during the PhD to develop (inter) personal skills, which can always been acquired or improved later if the student has the natural disposition for it. Some will never become leaders, others have always been, some will be good communicators, others will not.
Courses or trainings on leadership, team management and finance are not needed. If the company feels these are important, they will organize them by themselves. Doctoral students should keep the focus on their research. What is very useful is the participation of doctoral students in teaching and other didactical activities.
They have to learn project management, work in a team, delegate tasks. It would be ideal to organize doctoral research in such a way that cooperation is needed between different people from different disciplines (e.g. someone else does the experiments, experiments are carried out somewhere else, make doctorate in a team, doctorate together with an economist) or partly in industry.
Doctoral students are in a protected environment whilst engineers in industry are confronted with social, economical, ... issues and therefore probably have more maturity at Master + 8; Doctoral students should acquire the same experience e.g. by a placement or an assignment in a company, by being involved in a project for industry, joining European projects,... in brief: contact with “the real world”!
Also, performing part of the doctoral work in different university than the one where one got his masters degree would be very helpful (E.U. Marie Curie scholarships). The international dimension of research is important. Do new things; together with other researchers in other (foreign) competence centers. Doctoral (and Master) students should be allowed (and willing) to use top (research tools available in companies. Research capacity is often idle (weekends, during the night; look at Asia!)
Real innovation is multidisciplinary (sustainability). Not do more of the same, think out of the box, and make a quantum leap!
10 The opinion of the PhD alumni
Why did you go for a PhD degree?
Students engage in a PhD project because they want to do research, to continue to be involved with science, to study a subject in more depth than was possible during the Master project. In the Masters project there is not enough room for research, the “project” is too short (sometimes only 3 months) to go really through all phases of research and thus must be very strickly guided and, sometimes, the research activities are completely prescribed; it is not really research. There is no place for independent work, in many places no contact with industry. When doing a PhD you do the research entirely by yourself. Therefore, you start to ask the right questions. You have to look yourself for what you need.
A doctor has learnt to work independently on subjects related to projects and therefore, has more self confidence and an added value when going to industry (for research!). This is especially true if the PhD research is carried out in close relation with a company. The cultural shock when moving from the University to industry is then much less. A doctorate provides one with recognition and (in some countries) better or different career opportunities. A PhD has more credibility for example when proposing or defending a project.
What is the “added value” of having a PhD?
Unless in some specific cases, the knowledge acquired during the doctoral research is not important; the process is important. In most cases the subject is indeed not relevant for the later job in industry, but the scientific or science related skills gained during and by the doctoral research are the added value.
A PhD is a learning process. When doing a PhD one gets time to build up competences in a particular field, to build a solid scientific basis. In industry you never get such opportunity. During the Masters thesis, because of the short time available, everything is prepared and presented. As a PhD student one has to find out everything by oneself (not only the scientific issues but also the practical issues, incl. logistics and budget): it’s an open-ended project, not comparable to the Master’s assignments, which often is a closed-end project. One learns to ask the right questions to get the right answers, to solve a problem independently; break down a problem into small manageable pieces, to think critically, to learn to learn. As a Master student one thinks to understand a subject, but one does not know what one does not know.
11 One learns most from his peers. The research environment and daily supervision is of key importance. Informal talks with the advisor, the fellow researchers, partners in other research institutes, departments, industry create osmosis of ideas. In many research groups PhD students discuss their work every so many months with all the professors and researchers in the same field! The receive input and suggestions from different viewpoints and backgrounds.
Going very deep into a subject forces one to look aside and to widen one’s view (e.g. when in an exploratory phase specifying the research question) by going through literature, looking for similar problems, other methods, … A PhD study must indeed be two-dimensional: a vertical (deepening) and a horizontal dimension (widening). The relative portion of each of them may vary depending on the subject, the group, and the personal preferences of the student.
Remarks
The PhD research is in many cases related to an industrial project or carried out in cooperation with a company, which may be helpful in finding a job later. Others find that making a PhD with an “independent” research grant gives more freedom than working within an industrial project. Job satisfaction IMEC UMI C ORE Ta ll inn METROS TAV S IE MENS S K Mot tM ac Dona ld
Do you feel that your actual job is (at least partly) up to your qualifications Do you feel that your actual job is (at least partly) up to your qualifications
100% 100% 90% 100% 60% 80% Can you use (at least partly) the training as a researcher that
you got during your PhD, and the skills and competences that you acquired during the doctoral programme in your actual job?
100% 100% 77% 100% 71% 80%
Were the fact that you hold a PhD degree and/or the skills and competences that you acquired during your PhD studies (at least partly) an advantage in obtaining your first/ current job?
100% 100% 65% 75% 21% 40%
Does your employer requests PhD qualification on the position you actually hold and remunerates it?
100% 100% 60% 25% 0% 20% Had your participation in the doctoral school a positive effect
on your PhD studies? 60%
When asked about their job satisfaction, most PhD alumni feel that their actual job is at least partly up to their qualifications. Almost all of them agree that the training as a researcher that
12 they got during their PhD research and the skills and competences that their acquired during the doctoral programme are useful for their actual job.
In particular in Central and Eastern European countries employers often do not request a PhD degree when offering jobs, they do not discriminate between engineers with a MSc or with PhD. They also do not remunerate a PhD degree. It is obvious that PhD’s in engineering take full advantage of their PhD in large research intensive West European Companies.
Engineers in industry without PhD are also able to solve complex problems; they often do an excellent job? What is the difference with a PhD?
(Big) companies can create the same learning environment as a university; they may find that innovation and research are important and want to be one step ahead of the competition. In industry one can acquire the same skills as a PhD through the same learning process but one often has no time to go deep into a subject (short term targets) and do a thorough literature survey.
After a number of years there may be hardly any difference between those holding a PhD and those not, though PhD’s move forwards faster.
In small companies the focus is on production, big yield and the short time horizon. Problems are often solved by playing tricks. A sense for detail, depth is missing. A PhD solves problems more fundamentally and could be useful in such company in the innovation process because he has a wider view and a wider experience; people in the company continue working on the same traditional lines. However, 1 PhD in a group of 20 will not make the difference, 10 in20 will do. One should have the proper environment. There should be the will to change.
What is needed to facilitate the doctoral process? Formal structured doctoral programmes?
Doctoral programmes
The doctoral programme should be in support of the research, facilitating the research and not be an extra burden.
The doctoral programme therefore should be individualized and depend on the past 2nd cycle and prepare the PhD student for the future, i.e. what he/she would like to do after the PhD (go to industry, start a business, continue in research …); many PhD students however have not made up their mind at this stage.
13 The doctoral programme should contain a number of complementary activities, e.g. corresponding to a time expenditure of 30 ECTS.
Since everyone agrees that a PhD student should work independently, there is no need for formal taught courses, including examinations. PhD students have shown that they can study lots of material by themselves: they should no longer get knowledge from somebody else but find out by themselves. This is the very essence of the PhD learning process.
There should be an offer of non technical courses or seminars, from which the candidate can make his own selection (possibly advised by his promoter). Subjects that are not dealt with in the 2nd cycle and may be useful either for the doctorate or for the afterlife (Make one more prepared for the job market/ industry. Be prepared for facing the cultural shock between an academic environment and industry).
Seminars supporting the PhD, developing research skills
The development of individual scientific skills should not take too long. Research skills should be acquired in the early stage of the PhD process: find your way. Usually one needs two years to sort things out. If one is well coached (e.g. by someone from industry, learning to use efficient tools) or supported by proper courses/ training in project management and research methodology, you can reduce that to 1 year. Making a PhD in close relation with industry is a plus, in industry they have other skills and knowledge than in academia, which are complementary and help you to go faster and more efficiently forward!
Academic writing, How to write a scientific paper? Design of experiments?
Learning a “project based approach”: define the project, the objectives clearly, design work packages, estimate the necessary budget, keep within the budget, plan operations, project management; research methodology.
preparing for the future
“what is innovation”, how to contribute to innovation (cases, economy …), how to start a company, finances
IP (Intellectual Property rights).
A broader perspective in ones field of expertise (beyond ones own, narrow topic) may be very helpful later.
Compulsory (advanced) Technical courses are not needed. If PhD student needs to catch up with a topic (e.g. statistics, computer programmeming, ) or has to deepen his knowledge in a particular field, het should find out by himself (It could be that following a second cycle course may be the fastest way to catch up!). That does not mean that specialized seminars or lecture
14 series e.g. by visiting scholars or organized nationally or internationally may not be interesting and useful. The advisor can “advise” the PhD to attend these.
Experience shows that for a student having a European second cycle degree, the formal courses in the US are quite easy because of the good 2nd cycle programmes in Europe. We should necessarily copy the US system because the whole context is different. It depends on the previous 2° cycle whether there is a need to more general technical courses!
Teaching assignments (exercise sessions, etc) with (under)graduate students are experienced as very positive (learn to explain something in a clear and easy way, useful experience, social skills …) but should not take more than 10% of time.
Teaching assignments are the best way to be obliged to understand a subject thoroughly.
A stay in another university (even for a short period of 3 months) is very enriching and are strongly advised: look at things from another perspective (e.g. Marie Curie fellowships)! Get the knowledge where it is: an internship of a few months in a top international research group may help you fast forward. Interdisciplinary contacts lead to cross fertilization and, eventually, to innovation).
Presenting a paper on a good and appropriate conference is an ideal “learning event”: make presentation of your work, answer questions, discuss with fellow researchers in same field.
The research group, the advisor
PhD students should not be left alone; they work independently and “alone” on their subject but in a stimulating research environment, with daily contacts with fellow researchers, post docs, professors. Even de informal contacts with them are very rewarding. The frequency of contacts should be rather high at the beginning of the PhD process and may decrease gradually.
Some research groups are too small, they are not enough experienced in research to be a good environment for PhD research. Universities/ doctoral schools should be critical about which (research) groups are allowed to get PhD’s.
Sometimes PhD students are used by their promoters, do spend too much time in logistics or “services” or to stay longer and postpone the defense to do additional research or write complementary papers from which the advisor benefits. A PhD student should have access to a confidential person, a “tutor” or an “ombudsman/women” from outside the university and from another field (no connections with the advisor) where he/she can express his/her frustration and/or complain if it is felt that the behavior of the advisor is not correct.
15 A company is sometimes better in coaching researchers than a university (common objective of the group vs. “competition” in an academic environment)
In a company starting post docs earn as much as a Master with the same age. Doctors move faster in the hierarchy because of their skills, but from a remuneration point of view, they lose vis-à-vis Masters, who became “line managers’ and acquired more financial responsibility and supervise more people (the “weight” of the function in the company!).
Duration
3 years is short (in France it is DEA + 3 years, DEA is kind of preparation/ selection year); in the USA there is the course work and the qualification exam (often PhD directly after bachelor: 4 years not exactly comparable to the European System). 3 years duration is positive for the job market but short for research; it may be sufficient for acquiring PhD research skills
Whether 3 years is enough depends on the preceding education, the size and nature of the project (e.g. lab work may take more time), the requested “deliverables”, how well the topic is defined… A PhD should not last too long. Maybe diversify? Three years for someone going to industry afterwards (and who performs his/her doctoral research in close co-operation with industry), four years for those who will stay in academia?
Conclusion
Many comments of employers of PhD’s and of PhD’s working in industry are remarkably similar.
A PhD should have 2 dimensions, going deep into a small subject and widening knowledge and interest to other fields and in particular other skills.
The doctoral programme should support and facilitate the PhD work and not be an extra burden. Because of big differences in background (2nd cycle) of PhD candidates, in their character and talent, in the subjects, in research groups, in advisers, in aspiration for the future career, ... PhD programmes should be individualised: the different components should be offered, but the candidate himself should be free to make his own choice (with the help of his adviser) according to his own preferences, needs and aspirations (career perspectives).
Minimum requirements prescribed as e.g. 30 “ECTS” should be used as a time measure. Sometimes it could be to deepen the knowledge in a specific field, sometimes to introduce in another field (multi-disciplinary subjects) but most of it should be non technical and not scholarly taught. Those activities can be
(PhD)Seminars Teaching assignments
16 Attending conferences and presenting papers
Introductions to entrepreneurship, economy, IP, how to innovate, how to start a company Temporary placements in industry
Participating in European or industrial research projects …
A research project closely related to industry is a plus
A stay in another university (e.g. 3 or 6 months) is strongly advised.
The doctoral students learn most in an informal way from each other, from their advisor. The added value of a PhD is the learning process, not the acquired knowledge. Working in a good research group with supercritical size, having good relations with industry and with an international profile is of great help.
17
LEARNINGS FROM RECENT LITERATURE
As a complement to the research which was conducted through the interviews, some recent literature and other ongoing research project on the subject have been consulted.
S’Jegers et al. (2002):
“Scientists have developed less societal skills, which are relevant for the industrial world. During the doctoral programme attention should be paid to these skills e.g. by offering management training.
Scientists often only see a narrow relation between their research work and their carreer in industry: they should learn to understand/ explain the relevance of their research for different sectors of society, e.g. by training in science communication”
This study confirms the importance of acquiring societal skills through the PhD process. It also, most interestingly, draws the attention to the fact that PhD’s not only have to acquire knowledge and skills, but that they also should assume a different attitude: they should become aware of the importance of communicating their findings to different sectors of society, in particular tot SME’s, who could benefit from them eventually.
EUA DOC CAREER project (www.eua.be)
Promoting collaborative doctoral education for enhanced career opportunities
The project “Promoting Collaborative Doctoral Education for Enhanced Career Opportunities” (DOC-CAREERS II) has been conceived as an exploratory action to test the feasibility of Regional Workshops as an instrument to foster university-business/enterprise collaboration. DOC-CAREERS I project confirmed that many views on opportunities, challenges and barriers hindering university-industry cooperation are shared by both partners. In this sense, the “diagnosis” of the situation is sound and the common barriers in Europe are well identified. DOC-CAREERS I Case Studies also confirmed that not only are there no “one-size-fits-all solutions” but also that they tend to be specific to every case including local or regional cultural differences, that is, “the way we do things/business here”. In order to capture this diversity, DOC-CAREERS II will look uniquely at how universities work with their regional partners in doctoral education across Europe.
The regional focus of the action will allow us to identify examples of university collaboration with local SME, large R&D enterprises, RTD performers, NGO’s and other industries (health
18 care, cultural, etc.). Building on DOC-CAREERS I outcomes, a series of five Regional Workshops will be held in selected locations, geographically spread throughout Europe (Eastern, Southern, Central-North), with the intention to bring together interested partners in cooperation through doctoral education.
DOC-CAREERS II is a project funded by the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) through a Support Action within the 2008 People Work Programme.
Project Objectives
The general aim of the Regional Workshops will be to identify specific tools and incentives that may have wider application across Europe. The specific objectives will be:
To disseminate the outcomes of DOC-CAREERS I in the framework of the “open innovation” model: strategies and good practices on university-industry relations; models and the degree of structure of university-industry doctoral schemes; employability of doctorate holders and its relation with transferable skills; good practices in the tracking of doctorate holders.
To broaden evidence of good practices validating DOC-CAREERS I outcomes and identifying new models of university-industry collaboration.
To identify strategies and good practices used by SMEs and other local partners to approach universities and address how their access to university research could be enhanced.
To bring into the dialogue SMEs who might not be “convinced” of the added value and benefits of university-industry cooperation to identify specific issues to be addressed at local level.
To explore the perspectives of employability of doctorate holders in the region, mobility opportunities and its relation to regional efforts to reinforce doctoral employability considering the benefits of employing creative workers and their professional expectations.
From the results of the DOC-CARREERS I project it is confirmed that the doctoral programme should be adapted to every case a. o. because of regional and cultural differences i.e. “the way we do business here”. There is no “one-size-fits-all solution”.
Also the usefulness of doing PhD research in close contact with or for SME, large (R&D) enterprises, industries… is emphasized.
19 LERU
Doctoral programmes at LERU universities aim to train researchers to the highest skill levels to become creative, critical and autonomous intellectual risk takers in pushing the boundaries of frontier research.
• The modern doctorate is at its core determined by interplay between professional research experience and personal development, the most important outcome of which is an individual trained to have a unique set of high level skills.
• The modern doctorate is an excellent training for those who go into roles beyond research and education, in the public, charitable and private sectors, where deep rigorous analysis is required. • The business of research and innovation in the knowledge economy is international, interdisciplinary and increasingly inter sectoral. Doctoral graduates should be trained in this context.
• In order to provide a fertile research experience, doctoral training should be concentrated in research intensive environments where excellence is fostered.
.
Doctoral programmes prepare researchers to the highest level to make important contributions to frontier research. In addition, doctoral graduates are well prepared to take up roles in driving complex changes in society: to explore unknown frontiers of knowledge, to anticipate the questions that will matter in tomorrow’s world, to take the intellectual risks by which major breakthroughs come, and to take action on the basis of these insights. Doctoral graduates deliver the advanced research skills necessary in professional sectors beyond frontier research and education: in applied research, in policy making, in management, and in many other leadership roles in society.
This broad range of skill sets includes:
• intellectual skills, which comprise the ability to - think analytically and synthetically, - be creative, inquisitive, and original, - take intellectual risks,
- deploy specific technical, research-related tools and techniques; • academic and technical skills, which comprise the ability to
- understand, test and advance complex theories or hypotheses and to deploy sophisticated concepts, methodologies and tools in the chosen subject to a very high level,
- be able to identify issues and translate them into questions amenable to scholarly enquiry,
- successfully pursue original research in the chosen field,
- use critical judgment in an objective manner based on verifiable evidence, - apply highest standards of rigour in the proof of ideas,
20 - manage a high degree of uncertainty both in method and in outcomes,
- develop and demonstrate academic credibility and become recognised as a member of an international scholarly community,
- understand the workings of a specific high level research-intensive environment, - transfer new knowledge to scholarly communities and communicate it to society, - work according to ethical principles,
- work in an interdisciplinary setting or on an interdisciplinary topic; • personal and professional management skills, which comprise the ability to
- persist in achieving long term goals,
- manage projects with uncertain outcomes in diverse settings and organisations,
- take a project through all its stages: from developing the original idea, to developing a plan, garnering the evidence, and communicating the results and their significance, - be self-motivated and autonomous,
- work to achieve results with minimum supervision,
- be flexible and adaptable in approaching complex and uncertain problems, - communicate very complex concepts,
- network internationally, - work in a team,
- speak and present effectively in public; The following skills are sometimes also developed:
- the ability to lead other researchers, - the ability to teach and train others,
- the ability to organise conferences and workshops.
These skills should enable and enhance the doctoral graduate in three complementary domains: • competence: acquiring specific expertise, knowledge, technology and methodology to conduct and understand research within a discipline and across disciplines;
• achievement: gaining personal effectiveness, time, project, and self management, developing a problem- solving attitude and assuming a leadership role;
• relationship: developing a team work attitude, collaborating and communicating with specialists and non-specialists.
LERU insists on the fact that PhD research should be pushing boundaries frontier research. Also the research environment is important: “doctoral training should be concentrated in research intensive environments where excellence is fostered”.
They also insist on the acquirement of high level skills, which are meanly the intellectual and scientific skills that are acquired through the doctoral process. Some societal skills are also mentioned, they do not differ from the ones that were mentioned in the interviews.
21 In line with S’Jegers, LERU also stresses the importance of the attitude to and the capability of communicating new knowledge to society.
Lucia Smit
Added value of PhD graduates for companies in knowledge society/ economy
75 % of PhD graduates in companies do not have a research function in the company, but they do perform research and development tasks during more than 50 % of their time In particular, the skills in the field of logic reasoning, decision making and data analysis
are highly estimated on the work floor.
These skills are at the basis of innovation, which is essential for our knowledge economy and how HR managers appreciate this added value
HR managers look at the short term and the direct operability of doctor engineers. They consider them as being very specialized, which hampers a broad personal development, not flexible and not mobile within the company
Choose a topic that may be of interest to people in industry.
Doctors have procedural knowledge about how to carry out research tasks , which are transferable to other contexts: this skill is useful at creating new knowledge.
HR managers (Line managers: short term results)
- On the job performance: generic skills are more important than technical skills O & O managers (broader perspective, long term perspective) appreciate
- The ability to synthesize information from different disciplines From contacts with 5 companies she concludes:
At the recruitment stage specialized knowledge and skills are important
For the development of the career generic skills aiming at the creation of new knowledge
Lucia Smit confirms the surplus value of performing the PhD research in collaboration with industry or in an industrial context.
She also stresses that specialized knowledge and skills may be important at the recruitment stage but that the generic scientific/ research skills aiming at the creation of new knowledge are much more important for the development of the career.
22 Prof. Diego Lo Presti(University of Pisa) – Chairman of the Working Group “Curriculum development” of EUCEET association, reported at the EUCEET1 Association Administrative Council meeting London, 8 April 2011, that there are cultural difference in the terms of reference of civil engineering curricula: Het noticed differences between
“Latin” countries and Greece; UK + the Northern countries; Germany and Central Europe; France
23
Provisional conclusions and recommendations
The interviews were held with employers of PhD alumni and PhD’ s working in industry. Mostly large research intensive companies were selected, simply because others do not hire PhD’s or only a few by chance. It is therefore clear that these conclusions are not necessarily valid for PhD’s pursuing an academic career.
Some of the conclusions from the interviews are corroborated by other recent research. None of them is contradicted!
Most companies are happy with the quality of their PhD’s, although they fear that the level is lowering slightly and slowly, which is attributed to the fact that the duration of the PhD research is gradually reduced and that there is a growing tendency to reduce the required depth of knowledge of (the basic) sciences in the first cycle.
Most often, hardly any difference is found between the PhD from the “old” system and the ones from the “new system” with more or less structured doctoral programmes. They are hardly more innovative, more effective, more inventive or taking more initiatives than their predecessors.
Probably it does not make much of a difference because other issues, personal qualities and character are more relevant? Sometimes, depending on the nature of the 2nd cycle education, it is found that the PhD’s, who benefited from the doctoral programmes in the doctoral school
o do have a better ability for international communication, to build international networks;
o often have experience with working abroad, they have better languages skills. o have a broader view and improved analytical skills
The doctoral programme should consist essentially of scientific research. PhD is a learning process, the process of doing research is more important than the research (result) itself; it is a training through research. A PhD student should acquire a thorough, deep knowledge of his subject over the edge of the existing knowledge. By doing so, a PhD student acquires scientific competences and generic skills (ask the right research questions, ask other related questions; formulate new research themes, be critical for your own work and results; think “out of the box”, take initiative e.g. in experimental work, persevere: don’t give up, cope with failures, find ways out; build an international knowledge network). A PhD thesis must proof that the candidate is capable of doing (scientific) research independently, not only from a scientific point of view, but also from a research- and people management point of view (social skills, organization, logistics e.g. for the experiments).
24 The PhD programme should not be an extra burden, or an extra requirement, but support and facilitate the PhD research and prepare the candidate for his future. It should have two dimensions: depth (study the own subject deeply) and width (widen one’s view to other topics and other skills).
Facilitating the PhD research can e.g. consists in dedicated sessions on measuring or laboratory techniques, on scientific writing, research methodology, design of experiments, on a “project based approach” (defining the project and its objectives clearly, designing work packages, estimating the necessary budget, keeping within the budget, planning operations, project management).
Preparing for the future (in industry) may consist of PhD seminars on how to start a company, finances, IP (Intellectual Property rights), introductions to entrepreneurship, economy. A lectures series on “innovation” taught by people from industry may be welcome!
“Soft (scientific) skills” are acquired by attending conferences and presenting papers, temporary placements in industry, participation in European or industrial research projects, … Especially teaching assignments (exercise sessions, etc) with (under)graduate students are experienced as very positive (learn to explain something in a clear and easy way, useful experience, social skills …) Apart from that, teaching assignments are the best way to understand a subject thoroughly, one is obliged to!
These activities can be seminars, workshops, ... but should not be formal taught courses with exams, after many years at university, students should be able to study by themselves what they need to know. In particular PhD’s who are expected to be able to do research independently should be able to find by themselves the scientific and technical knowledge that they may need and work on it individually and independently by self-study, by finding the necessary contacts, etc. Therefore it is almost a contradiction to organize “specialized” or “advanced” taught courses during the PhD programme! That does not mean that specialized seminars or lecture series e.g. by visiting scholars or organized nationally or internationally may not be interesting and useful. The advisor can “advise” the PhD to attend these.
Sometimes, the fastest and most efficient way to acquire complementary knowledge could be to follow a 2nd cycle or a dedicated PhD course; then the PhD candidate should be free to choose that.
The activities mentioned in the previous paragraph requested from PhD students could correspond to time expenditure estimated at 30 ECTS. Teaching assignments should not take more than 10% of time.
25 The relative weight of both deepening and widening activities may differ. PhD programmes should be individualized, flexible and adjustable.
Indeed, there are different types of PhD students, with different interests, different plans for the future, different backgrounds (2
nd
cycle). There are differences in their character and talent, in the subjects, in research groups, in advisors …
PhD programmes should depend on the student’s past and the student’s future.
Notwithstanding the “Bologna process” that aimed at harmonizing higher education in Europe, there is (fortunately!) a large variety in the 2nd cycle curricula. In some universities/ countries Ma students have had already introduction to economy, IP, etc., or are proficient in foreign languages. In other countries they haven’t and then such non technical courses/ seminars may be offered.
There are “cultural differences” and different traditions in engineering curricula throughout Europe: between Latin countries and Greece and UK + the Northern countries, Germany and Central Europe and France.
Some have a more problem solving, project based approach others stick to traditional class teaching, some engineering schools foster team work, presentations, int. exchanges, assignments in industry thoughout the 2nd cycle, others don’t. In some universities the Master thesis consists essentially of a design project, in other ones Ma students participate in a scientific or industrial research project. In some countries PhD candidates are already proficient in foreign languages. In the USA both 1st and 2nd cycle of engineering education is quite different from Europe. Student having a European second cycle degree often experience the formal PhD courses in the US quite easy. Therefore, one should not necessarily copy the US system because the whole context is different. It depends on the previous 2nd cycle whether or not there is a need for more general technical courses and thus a formal structured PhD programme!
Whether a formal PhD programme is needed to acquire the skills that PhD alumni should possess to be successful and contributing to the Lisbon objectives, depends on the
preceding undergraduate and graduate education. In many engineering schools or faculties in Europe skills listed as typical for a PhD are acquired during the Ba or Ma phases e.g. design, group work, foreign languages, communication, etc.
Different PhD candidates may have different plans for their future, some may aspire after an academic career or a research position in industry; others may want to start a spin off company, …. This is another reason why the PhD programmes should be individualized. It is therefore recommended that the PhD school offers a wide range of seminars and complementary activities covering both types of subject out of which the candidate can choose (advised by his advisor) according to his needs and plans
26 It is assumed that time spent with these activities other than the research properly, does not exceed 30 ECTS (as a time measurement). Especially because of the ever shorter time period available for PhD studies: 4 years is considered as a minimum which could possibly be reduced to 3 for PhD’s who do not intend to go on with research but to go to industry instead, or for PhD’s carried out in industry.
Doing part of the research in an other (excellent) university, preferably abroad, is very enriching (look at things from a different perspective, get the knowledge where it is). Doing PhD research in close collaboration with industry, the company paying part of the scholarship, may be a plus, the candidate acquiring social and planning skills.
Although the research should be done independently, the phd student should not be left alone. Working in a good research group of supercritical size, where excellence is fotered and having good relations with industry and an international profile is the best “PhD programme”. The added value of a PhD is the learning process, not the acquired knowledge. By doing research scientific skills are acquired. In particular, the skills in the field of logic reasoning, decision making and data analysis are highly estimated on the work floor. These skills are at the basis of innovation, which is essential for our knowledge economy
When asked about their job satisfaction, most PhD alumni feel that their actual job is at least partly up to their qualifications. Almost all of them agree that the training as a researcher that they got during their PhD research and the skills and competences that their acquired during the doctoral programme are useful for their actual job.
It is obvious that in particular, big, research intensive companies hire PhD’s. There appears to be a different culture in Western and Northern Europe on the one side and in Southern and Eastern Europe on the other side. In particular in Central and Eastern European countries employers often do not request a PhD degree when offering jobs, they do not discriminate between engineers with a MSc or with PhD. They also do not remunerate a PhD degree. It is obvious that PhD’s in engineering take full advantage of their PhD in large research intensive West European Companies.
27
Recommendations summary
A doctoral programme should consist essentially of scientific research. PhD is a learning process. The process is more important than the research results. It is a training through research, which provides the PhD with scientific skills,
appreciated by industry in the process of innovation.
The PhD programmes should support and facilitate the PhD research and not be an extra burden or an extra requirement.
Formal PhD programmes, consisting of compulsory taught courses (with exams) are only needed if there are deficiencies in the 2nd cycle engineering education. Complementary activities, corresponding with 30 ECTS (as a time measure)
should be requested from the PhD students both to deepen and widen their
knowledge and interests. These should not be taught classes. In particular teaching assignments are instrumental to acquire communication skills.
The universities should offer a wide range of such seminars or workshops, so that each PhD student can make his own choice (possibly with the help of his/ her advisor), taking into account his past education and future aspirations.
PhD work benefits strongly from a stay at another university. Stays abroad should be encouraged.
PhD research benefits from the international dimension of the research and the research group.
PhD research in close co-operation with industry can be rewarding.
PhD’s learn most from informal contacts with their peers and advisors. Being part of a research group of supercritical size having good relations with industry and an international profile is the best PhD programme.
28 References:
Lucia Smit: “The activities of PhD holders in companies: do they valorise their skills and knowledge?” in Dutch (“De activiteiten van doctoren in de ondernemingssector, valoriseren zij hun vaardigheden en kennis?”), PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 2010.
LERU (League of European Research Universities): “Doctoral Degrees beyond 2010: Training talented researchers for society”, 2010
http://www.leru.org/files/publications/LERU_Doctoral_degrees_beyond_2010.pdf
S’Jegers, R. et al.: “Is there work after scientific research” in Dutch (“Is er nog werk na het wetenschapsbedrijf”), OVER-WERK, Tijdschrift van het steunpunt WAV 4/2002, pp. 110-114
29
Attachments
1. Questionnaire/ guide for the interview 2. Imec PhD graduates
3. Imec research managers 4. Imec top management 5. UMICORE, PhD graduates 6. UMICORE, (research) managers 7. Talinn University of Technology 8. Metrostav, PhD graduates 9. Metrostav, employer
10. Siemens Slovakia, PhD graduates 11. Siemens Slovakia, employer
12. Mott MacDonnald (Czech republic), employer 13. Mott MacDonnald (Czech republic), PhD graduates 14. Bekaert Belgium,
30 1. Questionnaire
EUGENE A1: Effectiveness and Efficiency of doctoral programmes Questionnaire/ guide for the interview.
HEI which awarded the PhD: Type of doctoral programme
Compulsary PhD programme o Structured PhD programme
(1 year, 60 ECTS)
Mainly scientific/ technical courses Partly non technical courses (extent) ( ECTS)
Mainly scientific/ technical courses Partly non technical courses (extent) o Elective seminars, courses, other activities
Optional PhD programme None
Actual position of PhD alumnus - Industry/ SME
- Civil servant - Consultant
- Research institute/ HEI - …
Questions to the PhD alumnus
- Do you feel that your actual job is up to your qualifications?
- Can you use the training as a researcher that you got during your PhD, and the skills and competences that you acquired during the doctoral programme in your actual job?
EUGENE Academic Network
EUropean and Global ENgineering Education 01.10.09-30.09.12
31 - Were the fact that you hold a PhD degree and/or the skills and competences that you
acquired during your PhD studies an advantage in obtaining your first/ current job? - Your employer:
do request PhD qualification on the position you actually hold and remunerate it do recognize your PhD qualification and remunerate it
do recognize your PhD qualification but does not remunerate it does not request nor recognize your PhD qualification
- Is your status on your job position different from those employees without PhD qualification?
Questions to the employer of the PhD
- Do you have any experience with employees with a PhD degree?
- Can you notice a difference between PhD’s from the traditional system and recent PhD’s, who benefited from the doctoral programmes in the doctoral school? Main findings. - Are they more innovative, more effective, more inventive and taking more initiatives than
their predecessors?
- Are they more communicative, more internationally oriented?
- Do they show more leadership in search of new products, processes, methods?
32 2. Meeting with PhD graduates at IMEC on 26.08.2010
Imec performs world-leading research in nano-electronics and nano-technology. Its staff of more than 1,750 people includes over 550 industrial residents and guest researchers. Imec’s research is applied in better healthcare, smart electronics, sustainable energy, and safer transport.
50 PhD holders were invited, 27 accepted the invitation, 1/3 of them had a background in sciences (computer science, physics, chemistry), 2/3 in engineering.
The group was very enthusiastic and cooperative. One participant sent extensive comments afterwards.
Why did you go for a PhD?
Because I wanted to do research, study a subject in more depth than I could during the Master project. In the Masters project there is not enough room for research, the “project” is too short (sometimes only 3 months) to go really through all phases of research and thus must be very closely guided. No place for independent work, in many places no contact with industry.
A doctorate provides you with recognition, but that may depend on your country. You have more credibility (for example when proposing or defending a project).
Learn to work independently on subjects related to projects
Very few do it with a view of going to industry later, they just don’t think about later
What is the added value of having a PhD?
Not the knowledge but the process is important; the subject is not to be identified with you. A PhD is a learning process. Some PhD’s are hired because of the topic on which they worked but in most cases it is not. In most cases the subject is indeed not relevant for the later job in industry, but the scientific or science related skills gained are the added value.
Going very deep into a subject forces one to look aside and widen one’s view (e.g. when in an exploratory phase specifying the research question) by going through literature, looking for similar problems, other methods, … A PhD must be two-dimensional: a vertical (deepening) and a horizontal dimension (widening). The relative portion of each of them may vary depending on the subject, the group, and the personal preferences of the student.
33 One learns to break a problem into small pieces, learn to solve a problem independently, think critically, learn to learn, force yourself to find a solution
PhD’s are rather flexible; they can easily jump in another research field.
In the masters it is (sometimes) all very theoretical (France); the PhD research is in many cases related to an industrial project or carried out in cooperation with a company. Working on an industrial project may be helpful in finding a job later. Others find that making a PhD with a research grant/ scholarships gives more freedom than working within an industrial project.
Engineers in industry without PhD are also able to solve complex problems, they often do an excellent job? What is the difference with a PhD?
(Big) companies can create the same learning environment as a university, they may find that innovation and research is important, want to be one step ahead of the competition (pharmaceutical industry). In industry one can acquire the same skills as a PhD through the same learning process. After a number of years there may be no difference between those holding and those not, Though PhD skills are acquired faster.
In small companies they are focusing on production, big yield and the short time. Problems are solved by playing tricks. A sense for detail, depth is missing. A PhD solves problems more fundamentally. There a PhD could be useful in the innovation process because he has a wider view and a wider experience, people in the company continue working on the same tradition lines. However, 1 PhD in a group of 20 will not make the difference, 10 in20 will do. One should have the proper environment.
In industry one can acquire the same skills but you often have no time to go deep into a subject (shorter-term targets). You have time to go into details and do a thorough literature survey. In industry you can acquire the same skills but you often have no time to go deep into a subject. Depending on topic, field, depending on the type of industry:
What is needed to facilitate the doctoral process? Formal structured doctoral programmes?
Doctoral programmes
The doctoral programme should be a support in the research, facilitating the researchand not an extra burden.
The need for courses may depend on what one wants to accomplish afterwards (go to industry, start a business, continue in research, …), but most have not thought about that
34 Keep freedom. Learn to learn no longer time to be taught by someone else.PhD students have shown that they can study lots of material by themselves: No longer getting knowledge from somebody else but time to find out by yourself
Very much depending on the discipline, field, subject. Individualised doctoral programmes!! No strict imposed programme of courses and evaluations
Courses, the doctoral programme must support the research, if it is too far away it is a burden: give support but keep freedom
Make you more prepare for the job market/ industry
A minimum of complementary activities should be prescribed e.g. speciality courses, PhD seminars, the obvious non technical courses e.g. course on writing scientific paper, 1 conference, teaching assignment, … Compulsory courses should be non technical. Course on “what is innovation”, how to contribute to innovation (cases, economy …), how to start a company, IP (Intellectual Property rights). Teaching assignments (exercise sessions, etc) with (under)graduate students are experiences as very positive (explain something in a clear and easy way, useful experience, no room in 3 years programme) but should not take more than 10% of time. On the other hand having short time is making you more efficient.
Presenting a paper on a good and appropriate conference is an ideal “learning event”: make presentation of your work, answer questions, discuss with fellow researchers in same field, I would strongly agree with the importance of a PhD programme, which, in my opinion should be more specific than the area being worked on (as you alluded to, this can become a narrow field very quickly), but a useful overview of topics in relatively similar areas, as well as the basics in statistics, possibly computer programmeming, and as someone mentioned today, innovation, business development etc.
Depends on previous 2° cycle whether is a need to more general technical courses!
Technical courses if they really deal with the subject, or as an introduction in an other field if the subject of the PhD is multidisciplinary
Depending on the foregoing second cycle:
Subjects that are not dealt with in de Master and may be useful either for the doctorate (eg writing technical/ scientific paper) or for the afterlife, e.g. if the doctor creates his own company (finances, Intellectual property rights, ) or in industry (intellectual property rights). A stay in an other university (even for a short period of 3 months) is very enriching, look at things from an other perspective. Stays abroad: Marie Curie fellowships very positive stongly advised stay abroad not assimiltated by the system where you are, other angles
