Textbook Doctoral Education For The Knowledge Society Convergence or Divergence in National Approaches Jung Cheol Shin Ebook All Chapter PDF

Doctoral Education for the Knowledge
Society Convergence or Divergence in

National Approaches Jung Cheol Shin
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/doctoral-education-for-the-knowledge-society-conver
gence-or-divergence-in-national-approaches-jung-cheol-shin/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The Segmentation of Europe Convergence or Divergence

between Core and Periphery 1st Edition Mark Baimbridge
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-segmentation-of-europe-
convergence-or-divergence-between-core-and-periphery-1st-edition-
mark-baimbridge/
Manifesto For The Humanities Transforming Doctoral

Education In Good Enough Times Sidonie Smith
https://textbookfull.com/product/manifesto-for-the-humanities-
transforming-doctoral-education-in-good-enough-times-sidonie-
smith/
Global Networking, Communication and Culture: Conflict

or Convergence? Halit Ünver
https://textbookfull.com/product/global-networking-communication-
and-culture-conflict-or-convergence-halit-unver/
Wellbeing in Doctoral Education Insights and Guidance

from the Student Experience Lynette Pretorius
https://textbookfull.com/product/wellbeing-in-doctoral-education-
insights-and-guidance-from-the-student-experience-lynette-
pretorius/
The Quotable Jung C. G. Jung
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-quotable-jung-c-g-jung/
International Financial Management Cheol S. Eun
https://textbookfull.com/product/international-financial-
management-cheol-s-eun/
Intercultural Competence in Education: Alternative

Approaches for Different Times 1st Edition Fred Dervin
https://textbookfull.com/product/intercultural-competence-in-
education-alternative-approaches-for-different-times-1st-edition-
fred-dervin/
Knowledge First: Approaches in Epistemology and Mind

First Edition. Edition Carter
https://textbookfull.com/product/knowledge-first-approaches-in-
epistemology-and-mind-first-edition-edition-carter/
National Geographic Guide to National Parks of the

United States National Geographic Guide to the National
Parks of the United States 8th Edition Society
https://textbookfull.com/product/national-geographic-guide-to-
national-parks-of-the-united-states-national-geographic-guide-to-
the-national-parks-of-the-united-states-8th-edition-society/
Knowledge Studies in Higher Education 5
Jung Cheol Shin · Barbara M. Kehm

Glen A. Jones Editors
Doctoral
Education for
the Knowledge
Society
Convergence or Divergence in National
Approaches?
Knowledge Studies in Higher Education
Volume 5
Series Editors
Professor Jung Cheol Shin, Seoul National University, South Korea
Dr. Hugo Horta, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
Editorial Board
Prof. Dr. Ulrich Teichler, University of Kassel, Germany
Prof. Loet Leydesdorff, Amsterdam School of Communications Research,
The Netherlands
Prof. Simon Marginson, UCL Institute of Education, University College London,
UK
Prof. Keun Lee, Seoul National University, Korea
Prof. Gary Rhoades, University of Arizona, USA
Scope of the Series
Even though knowledge is the main content of teaching and universities are key
knowledge producers, scholars have only recently begun to actively explore research
on knowledge studies in higher education. As this field of study has grown, it has
increasingly overlapped with the research focus of other fields, namely research and
science policy, and information studies. However, these three fields have developed
independently with little interaction between them, causing our understanding of
knowledge to be limited, compartmented, and lacking a multidimensional
perspective. This book series is designed to improve knowledge studies in higher
education by stimulating interactions between these different approaches.
Coverage in this series includes:
• University and knowledge production
• R & D funding systems
• Education reforms
• Innovation systems for emerging regions
• School curriculum and knowledge
• Social utility of knowledge production
• University research and in-house research
• Research collaborations.
With its comprehensive overview and multidisciplinary perspective, this series
provides scholars and policymakers with the theory and data they need to make
more informed decisions regarding knowledge research in higher education.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11778

Jung Cheol Shin • Barbara M. Kehm
Glen A. Jones
Editors
Doctoral Education
for the Knowledge Society
Convergence or Divergence in National
Approaches?
Editors
Jung Cheol Shin Barbara M. Kehm
Department of Education School of Education
Seoul National University University of Glasgow
Seoul, South Korea Glasgow, UK
Glen A. Jones
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
University of Toronto
Toronto, ON, Canada
ISSN 2566-7106 ISSN 2566-8315 (electronic)

Knowledge Studies in Higher Education
ISBN 978-3-319-89712-7 ISBN 978-3-319-89713-4 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89713-4
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018951712
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
The emphasis placed on doctoral education and training (hereafter, doctoral educa-
tion) has increased dramatically in many higher education systems in response to
the global competition for highly skilled human resources to serve the needs of
knowledge societies. Doctoral education is a key element within the research and
development infrastructure, and doctoral students support university research and
represent the next generation of the professoriate. Doctoral education therefore
plays a role in global rankings, which largely focus on research, and in initiatives
designed to create world-class universities. The top-ranked universities place a con-
siderable emphasis on doctoral education, and they actively compete for the best
doctoral students who, in turn, contribute to the reputation of the institution.
Given this context, it is important to understand whether there has been a con-
tinuation of distinct national approaches to doctoral education or whether there has
a shift towards the development of a more common “global” approach in terms of
quality, standards and requirements. Higher education systems continue to be
“national” in structure, mission and funding, and unique national approaches to
doctoral education can be seen as a function of different histories, cultures and tradi-
tions. At the same time, there appear to common pressures for reform. There is an
increasing interest in the development of “world-class” universities and in adopting
policies and approaches associated with these leading institutions. In many systems,
there has also been an increasing interest in reforming the doctorate with a view
towards more directly addressing the needs of the nonacademic labour market by
emphasizing transferable skills, general competences and entrepreneurial activities.
Are these pressures leading towards a convergence of approaches to doctoral educa-
tion, or are government policies and institutional traditions reinforcing distinct
national goals and approaches?
While doctoral education has received considerable attention within national
higher education systems, there has been surprisingly little international or com-
parative research on the structure of doctoral education and the nature of contempo-
rary reforms. Much of recent literature on the reform of doctoral education has
focused on US research universities (with relatively little research on doctoral pro-
grammes at low-status universities within this highly stratified system) or on reforms
v
vi Preface
in Europe as part of the Bologna Process. There is obviously a need to understand

doctoral education in other parts of the world and to explore the trends and direction
of national reforms from a comparative, international perspective.
This book is organized to explore and compare the systems of doctoral education
in 12 higher education systems. We selected four competitive higher education sys-
tems in East Asia (Japan, South Korea, China and Taiwan) as well as four European
systems (Germany, Sweden, Portugal and Switzerland) and four Anglo-American
systems (the USA, the UK, Australia and Canada) for this book. We hope that this
book contributes to a broader understanding of doctoral education in the world. In
addition, we hope that it will encourage academic discourses on how doctoral edu-
cation differs across countries and how they have been institutionalized in different
ways.
Finally, we thank our colleagues who participated in the workshop of the
Academic Profession in the Knowledge Society hosted by Seoul National University
in April 2016. We are much advantaged because of their invaluable comments about
the changing nature of doctoral education across countries. In addition, we appreci-
ate the assistance of Heejin Lim, a PhD candidate at Seoul National University. We
could not have managed the editing process without her help. We acknowledge that
partial fulfillment of this work was supported by the National Research Foundation
of Korea (NRF-2014028698).
Seoul, South Korea Jung Cheol Shin

Glasgow, UK Barbara M. Kehm
Toronto, ON, Canada Glen A. Jones
Contents
1 The Increasing Importance, Growth, and Evolution

of Doctoral Education�� 1
Jung Cheol Shin, Barbara M. Kehm, and Glen A. Jones
Part I Doctoral Education in European Systems

2 Doctoral Education, Training and Work in Germany�� 13
Christian Schneijderberg and Ulrich Teichler
3 Doctoral Training in Sweden: History, Trends
and Developments�� 35
Lars Geschwind
4 Cooperation and Competition in Swiss Doctoral Training:
For the Sake of the Knowledge Society?�� 51
Lukas Baschung
5 A Tale of Expansion and Change: Major Trends in Doctoral
Training and in the Doctoral Population in Portugal �� 67
Pedro Teixeira and Pedro Videira
Part II Doctoral Education in Anglo-American Systems

6 US Doctoral Study to Early Career�� 91
William K. Cummings and Olga Bain
7 Growth and Diversification of Doctoral Education
in the United Kingdom�� 105
Barbara M. Kehm, Richard P. J. Freeman, and William Locke
vii
viii Contents
8 Development and Future Directions of Higher Degree

Research Training in Australia �� 123
Peter James Bentley and V. Lynn Meek
9 Doctoral Education in Canada �� 147
Glen A. Jones
Part III Doctoral Education in East Asian Systems

10 Doctoral Education in Japan: Historical Development
and Challenges �� 167
Akira Arimoto
11 Doctoral Education in South Korea: On the Way Toward
Becoming an Independent Research Hub�� 183
Heejin Lim and Jung Cheol Shin
12 Changes and Challenges to Chinese Doctoral Education�� 203
Futao Huang
13 Doctoral Education in Taiwan: Balancing Market Demands
and Supply�� 223
Robin Jung-Cheng Chen
14 Conclusion: Doctoral Education and Training –
A Global Convergence? �� 237
Barbara M. Kehm, Jung Cheol Shin, and Glen A. Jones
About the Editors and Authors
Editors
Jung Cheol Shin is a Professor at Seoul National University. He served for the
Ministry of Education in Korea for about 20 years. His research interests are higher
education policy, organizational studies, knowledge and social development and
academic profession. His recent book publications include University Rankings
(2011), Institutionalization of World-Class University (2012), The Dynamics of
Higher Education Development in East Asia (2013), Teaching and Research in
Contemporary Higher Education (2014), The Future of the Post-Massified
University at the Crossroads (2014) and Mass Higher Education Development in
East Asia: Strategy, Quality, and Challenges (2015).
Barbara M. Kehm is currently Professor of Leadership and International Strategic

Development in Higher Education at the University of Glasgow’s School of
Education, UK. She is a core member of the Robert Owen Centre for Educational
Change. From 2003 to 2011, she was a Professor of Higher Education at the
University of Kassel and the Director of the International Centre for Higher
Education Research (INCHER) from 2004 to 2011. She has published more than 30
books and over 200 journal articles and book chapters on a wide range of topics in
her field. Her particular areas of expertise are higher education governance, interna-
tionalization in and of higher education and professionalization processes within
higher education. Barbara M. Kehm was Secretary of European Association for
Institutional Research (EAIR) and of Consortium of Higher Education Researchers
(CHER). She also was a member of the International Advisory Board of the
University of Helsinki between 2012 and 2014 and is currently a member of the
Board of Governors of two German universities. She is regularly reviewing manu-
scripts for about ten international journals in her field and is an often requested
reviewer for research applications to national research councils in six European
countries.
ix
x About the Editors and Authors
Glen A. Jones is Professor of Higher Education and Dean of the Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. He is the author of more than
100 papers on Canadian higher education. His research and teaching focuses on
higher education systems, governance, politics and academic work. His recent
books include Governance of Higher Education: Global Perspectives, Theories and
Practices (with Ian Austin, Routledge, 2015) and Universities and Regional
Development: A Critical Assessment of Tensions and Contradictions (with Romulo
Pinheiro and Paul Benneworth, Routledge, 2012). Detailed information on his
research activities can be found at www.glenjones.ca
Authors
Akira Arimoto is the President Advisor at Hyogo University and was Director and
Professor of the Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE) at Kurashiki
Sakuyo University (KSU) and also at Hiroshima University. Dr. Arimoto was the
former President at Kurashiki Sakuyo University (KSU). He is Professor Emeritus
of Hiroshima University, Associate Member of the Japan Council of Science and
President of the National Association of RIHE. He served as Chair of UNESCO’s
Global Scientific Committee for the Asian and Pacific region. He was former
President of the Japanese Association of Higher Education Research and also of the
Japan Society of Educational Sociology. He was the visiting scholar to Yale
University, Max Planck Institute and Lancaster University as the first Nitobe Fellow
of the International House of Japan. He has published many books and articles. His
recent publications as an editor include Teaching and Research in Contemporary
Higher Education (2014) and The Changing Academic Profession in Japan (2015).
Olga Bain received her PhD from the State University of New York at Buffalo. Her
research focuses on change in higher education as influenced by global, institu-
tional, faculty and student agencies. She has published on internationalization and
globalization of higher education, faculty productivity and women’s advancement
in academia, higher education financing and institutional strategies of change. Olga
has authored the book titled University Autonomy in the Russian Federation Since
Perestroika (2003, Routledge Falmer).
Lukas Baschung Born in 1980 in Switzerland (Solothurn), Lukas Baschung stud-

ied political sciences at the University of Lausanne. His PhD thesis focused on
doctoral education’s reform in Switzerland and Norway with an analytical approach
in the field of public management. Simultaneously he contributed to several research
projects in the 6th European Framework Programme. From 2010 to 2016, he has
been working for the government of the canton of Vaud, within the Board of Higher
Education, lastly as Operational Director. Since February 2017, he is Professor and
the Dean of the Business Administration Programme at the University of Applied
Sciences Haute école de gestion Arc.
About the Editors and Authors xi
Peter James Bentley is a Policy Adviser at the Innovative Research Universities,

an association of seven comprehensive research universities in Australia. He is also
an Honorary Fellow at the LH Martin Institute for Tertiary Education Leadership
and Management at the University of Melbourne, where he previously worked as a
Research Fellow from 2011 to 2017. Peter has also worked as a Research Associate
at the Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU)
and in policy and administration for Australian state and territory governments. His
research interests are industrial relations and the academic profession, and he is
Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management.
Robin Jung-Cheng Chen is currently affiliated with National Chengchi University

(NCCU) as a Professor of the Department of Education. His research fields include
comparative education, education policy and sociology of education. He was the
coordinator of Changing Academic Profession in Asia for Taiwan team from 2013
to 2015 conducted by Hiroshima University and was the Vice Provost of NCCU
from 2015 to 2016. He is also the corresponding Professor of Seattle Pacific
University, USA, Guest Professor of Tohoku University in Japan and a consultant of
the UNESCO’s Teacher Task Force.
William K. Cummings received his PhD from Harvard University with a disserta-
tion on “The Academic Marketplace and University Reform in Japan” in 1972 and
currently is Professor Emeritus of International Education and International Affairs
at George Washington University. Dr. Cummings has been involved in development
work for over 25 years, including long-term residence in Ethiopia, India, Indonesia,
Japan and Singapore and short-term consultancies in over 15 countries in Asia, the
Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe.
Richard P. J. Freeman is Senior Lecturer in Research Methods at the Centre for

Doctoral Education, UCL Institute of Education, University College London. He is
Deputy Director of the UCL, Bloomsbury and East London (UBEL) Economic and
Social Research Council (ESRC) Doctoral Training Partnership (DTP). He is also
Programme Leader for the Online MPhil/PhD and Programme Leader for Researcher
Development. He is a co-author with William Locke on a report for the ESRC on
“Early career social science researchers: experiences and support needs”. His other
areas of research include researcher developer professional identity, doctoral iden-
tity and transitioning into doctoral study.
Lars Geschwind is Associate Professor in Engineering Education Policy and

Leadership at the Department of Learning, KTH Royal Institute of Technology. His
main research interests are higher education policy, institutional governance and
academic work. He is currently involved in a number of externally funded projects
focusing on change processes in higher education institutions. Among other publi-
cations, he has recently edited (with Romulo Pinheiro and Timo Aarrevaara) the
volume Mergers in Higher Education: The Experience from Northern Europe
(Springer).
xii About the Editors and Authors
Futao Huang is Professor at the Research Institute for Higher Education,

Hiroshima University, Japan. He earned his BA, MA and PhD in Chinese universi-
ties. Before he came to Japan in 1999, he had taught in several Chinese universities.
His major research fields are concerned with university curricular development,
internationalization of higher education and a comparative study of higher educa-
tion in East Asia. Since the late 1990s, he has published widely in Chinese, English
and Japanese languages in many international peer-reviewed journals, including
Higher Education, Studies in Higher Education, Higher Education Policy, Higher
Education Policy and Management, Journal of Studies in International Education
and so on. In 2014, he co-edited The Internationalization of the Academy: Changes,
Realities and Prospects which was published by Springer. Furthermore, he is mem-
ber of Editorial Advisory Board of Journal of Studies in International Education,
Higher Education, Policy Reviews in Higher Education and Cogent Education.
Heejin Rachel Lim is a Researcher at Research Institute of Education at the

College of Education in Seoul National University. Her research interests are inter-
nationalization of higher education, doctoral education and students’ experiences in
comparative perspective. Dr. Lim received her bachelor’s degree from the University
of Nottingham (2007) in the UK and master’s degree and doctoral degree from
Seoul National University (2014)
William Locke is Reader in Higher Education Studies at the UCL Institute of

Education, University College London. He is Director of the Centre for Higher
Education Studies (CHES) and the MBA Higher Education Management Programme
and is Deputy Director of the ESRC/HEFCE Centre for Global Higher Education
(CGHE). William was formerly Head of Learning and Teaching policy at the
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), Assistant Director of the
Centre for Higher Education Research and Information (CHERI) at the Open
University and Deputy Director of Policy Development at Universities UK. He is a
member of the Governing Council and Publications Committee of the Society for
Research into Higher Education (SRHE) and Joint Editor of the new SRHE jour-
nal, Policy Reviews in Higher Education. He is author of reports for the UK Higher
Education Academy (HEA) on academic work and careers and, with Richard
Freeman, for the Economic and Social Research Council on “Early career social
science researchers: experiences and support needs”. Between 2006 and 2010, he
led the UK part of the international study of the Changing Academic Profession and
was coordinating editor of Changing Governance and Management in Higher
Education: The Perspectives of the Academy (Springer, 2011). He has a wide range
of other publications and has given keynote presentations at international confer-
ences in North America, Japan, China, Australia and throughout Europe.
V. Lynn Meek is a Professorial Fellow and Foundation Director of the LH Martin

Institute at the University of Melbourne. Lynn Meek was previously Professor and
Director of the Centre for Higher Education Management and Policy at the
University of New England. Having completed a PhD in Sociology of higher
About the Editors and Authors xiii
education at the University of Cambridge, he has over three decades experience

researching higher education policy issues. Specific research interests include gov-
ernance and management, research management, diversification of higher education
institutions and systems, institutional amalgamations, organizational change and
the comparative study of higher education systems. He has attracted numerous com-
petitive research grants and is regularly invited to address international conferences.
Lynn has published more than 30 books and monographs and numerous scholarly
articles and book chapters. He is on the editorial board of several international jour-
nals and book series, is the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Studies in Higher
Education and has worked with such international agencies as the UNESCO and the
OECD.
Christian Schneijderberg is Head of the research unit Innovation and Transfer at

INCHER-Kassel (International Centre of Higher Education Research at the
University of Kassel), Germany. He is working at INCHER-Kassel since March
2009 and did his PhD in Sociology.
Ulrich Teichler was Professor at the University of Kassel, Germany, from 1978 to
2013 and former Director for altogether 16 years of the International Centre for
Higher Education Research (INCHER-Kassel; previously Centre for Research on
Higher Education and Work). His key research areas include higher education and
the world of work, international comparison of higher education systems, interna-
tional cooperation and mobility in higher education and the academic profession.
Expert, consultancy, evaluation and review activities for the UNESCO, OECD,
World Bank, Council of Europe, European Commission, various national govern-
ments and agencies as well as international and national university organizations.
Pedro Teixeira is Vice Rector for Academic Affairs and Associate Professor of the
Faculty of Economics at the University of Porto. In addition, he is Director of
CIPES – the Center for Research in Higher Education Policies. He has been a mem-
ber of Portugal’s National Council of Education since 2014 and has served as an
adviser on higher education to the President of Portugal since April 2016. His main
research interests are on the economics of education and the history of economics.
He has published several journal articles in higher education and economics jour-
nals and has authored and/or edited several collective volumes. He is also a member
of the Board of Governors and Secretary General of the Consortium of Higher
Education Researchers (CHER), a Research Fellow at the Institute for the Study of
Labor (IZA) and a member of the Scientific Committee of the Réseau d'Etudes sur
l'Enseignement Supérieur (RESUP).
Pedro Videira is a Researcher at CIPES (Center for Research in Higher Education

Policies) and a PhD candidate at ISCTE –University Institute of Lisbon. His main
research interests are on the internationalization of higher education and research
and the sociology of science. He has collaborated in several projects on technology-
based entrepreneurship and researchers’ international mobility and published sev-
eral journal articles and book chapters on those subjects
Chapter 1
The Increasing Importance, Growth,
and Evolution of Doctoral Education
Jung Cheol Shin, Barbara M. Kehm, and Glen A. Jones
1.1 Introduction
The global competition for highly skilled human resources has led to a rapid expan-
sion of doctoral education in recent years. Since the mid-1990s, assumptions con-
cerning the movement toward the knowledge society and aspirations associated with
the notion of the world-class university have fueled an increased interest in doctoral
education (Shin and Kehm 2012). For example, within the last 15 years, doctoral
program enrolments have grown rapidly across countries, and in some cases the rates
of growth have been dramatic; data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics reveals
that doctoral enrolment has increased by over 150% in the UK and Portugal and over
180% in Switzerland, Canada, Australia, and South Korea (UNESCO 2017). The
dramatic growth of doctoral training or doctoral education (hereafter, “doctoral edu-
cation”) is associated with the rapid expansion of enrolment within countries that
have had a more modest level of participation (China, South Korea, Australia, and
Canada), as well as the expansion of enrolment by the more traditional doctoral
degree providers such as the USA, the UK, Germany, and many European countries
(UNESCO 2014). The rapid growth has been strongly supported by governments in
various ways, such as increased research funding, student financial assistance, and
initiatives designed to facilitate transitions into the labor market.
However, there are major differences in how doctoral education is understood,
structured and positioned in different systems. An individual pursuing a doctoral
J. C. Shin (*)
Department of Education, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea
e-mail: jcs6205@snu.ac.kr
B. M. Kehm
School of Education, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
G. A. Jones
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 1

J. C. Shin et al. (eds.), Doctoral Education for the Knowledge Society,
Knowledge Studies in Higher Education 5,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89713-4_1
2 J. C. Shin et al.
degree is considered a “student” in US universities, while the same individual would

be considered an “early career researcher” in the traditional Humboldtian systems
(Teichler 2006). These systemic differences have recently decreased with the emer-
gence of policy initiatives in some jurisdictions that are designed to standardize doc-
toral education to enhance the international recognition of doctoral degrees (Kehm
2007). The Bologna Process of 1999, for example, triggered the reforms of doctoral
education systems in Europe (Kehm 2007; Sadlak 2004). Similarly, in the late 1990s
and early 2000s, doctoral education in Japan transformed from a traditional
Humboldtian model focusing on individual research and seminars to a structure that
more closely resembles the US model focusing on coursework and supervised
research. In addition, latecomers to doctoral education in East Asia began to adopt
some elements from the US doctoral education model, though many recognize that
US doctoral education is also struggling with many challenges (Cassuto 2015).
One might consider these changes as a global convergence of doctoral educa-
tion toward standardized structures and programs primarily associated with the US
model. However, a careful analysis of reforms across systems would find that there
continue to be important differences in doctoral education by country because while
each higher education system imported some ideas from the US and German systems,
these structures and models were adapted and modified within the unique context of
each higher education system (Sadlak 2004; Teichler 2006). Nevertheless, we observe
that there are growing similarities across systems in response to pressures related to
international recognition of credentials, international student mobility, and an increas-
ingly international academic labor market. There are also labor market pressures asso-
ciated with global markets. For example, as employers increasingly emphasize the
research training component of doctoral graduates in the hiring process, universities
in some jurisdictions have placed increasing emphasis on strengthening the research
training component of their graduate programs (Melin and Janson 2006). In addition,
universities in some jurisdictions have taken steps to widen the scope of doctoral edu-
cation beyond simply educating future scholars to include training for a much broader
range of careers outside the academy (Lee et al. 2009; Mars et al. 2014).
1.2 Different Societal Perspectives on Doctoral Education
There are quite different approaches to doctoral education associated with the two
doctoral models found in Europe and the USA. In Europe, doctoral education is
“training” because most of the European systems did not have official education
systems or programs for training their researchers, while the US systems developed
“education” degree programs in line with bachelor-master-doctoral degrees
(Teichler 2006). The systematic differences between Europe and the USA bring dif-
ferent perspectives on the doctoral degree seekers as a “junior researcher” or “doc-
toral candidate” in Europe and as a “doctoral student” in the USA (Kehm 2006).
The systemic differences between the two major systems bring different social per-
ceptions and social systems of doctoral education in both continents. For example,
European systems do not charge tuition for doctoral degree seekers, while tuition
1 The Increasing Importance, Growth, and Evolution of Doctoral Education 3
Table 1.1 Comparisons between Europe, the USA, and East Asian models
European
models US model East Asian models
Social perception Doctoral Doctoral education Doctoral education +
training training
Training model Supervision Coursework + Coursework-based +
model supervised research supervised research
Doctoral students Employee Student Student
Tuition charge No tuition Tuition Tuition
Training after Habilitation Postdoctoral training Postdoctoral training
doctoral degree
fees are charged in the USA (though frequently waived to attract the very best stu-
dents). In addition, university research activities are closely linked to doctoral edu-
cation, so that doctoral students are frequently employed on funded research
projects, and this work is viewed as a key component of the doctoral student experi-
ence. In the traditional European conception, research funding focuses on research,
and doctoral students may be employed as research workers, but these activities are
viewed as distinct from, rather than as an educational component of, doctoral
education.
Recognizing that there are huge national variations between systems, it may be
useful to briefly review differences in what may be seen as three broad models or
approaches to doctoral education: the European model, the US model, and what
might be defined as an East Asian model. Table 1.1 provides a broad comparative
overview of these models.
While understanding these broad approaches is useful in a comparative discus-
sion of doctoral education, it is extremely important to note the major variations
between national systems that may share some similar characteristics. For example,
doctoral education in France is quite different from doctoral education in Germany
or other systems in Europe. In addition, the German system and its brother systems
(e.g., Austria) are quite different from that of Scandinavian doctoral training sys-
tems. As well as these differences within the similar models, there are quite unique
national elements associated with doctoral education even within the Scandinavian
models and/or within the German systems (Kehm 2004). Most of these unique ele-
ments originated from the historical development of doctoral systems in each coun-
try. The “master-apprentice” model has been deeply institutionalized in doctoral
education in Europe, though the model is fading away in bachelor and master’s
degree levels (Teichler 2006).
However, as already noted, these different models appear to be converging as a
function of external pressures and a growing interest in standardization, degree
recognition, and mobility. The US model involves a relatively standardized program
of study associated with doctoral education, including coursework, candidacy
examinations, and a supervised independent research project leading to a thesis that
is examined by a committee of academics, and this standardized “program”
approach is commonly viewed as one of the great strengths of this model. Given the
4 J. C. Shin et al.
fact that the standardized approach associated with the model facilitates transfer-
ability and comparability across systems, European countries began to encourage
universities to adopt this approach to doctoral education with the Bologna Process
in 2000. However, systemic differences between systems remain.
The growing use of performance-based accountability regimes in higher educa-
tion signals another form of pressure to adopt more standardized approaches to
doctoral education. In the US context, student progress is measured by coursework
completion, satisfying the qualifying exam requirement and successfully defending
the thesis (Weidman et al. 2001). These indicators are also frequently used as met-
rics to measure the performance of the academic department, doctoral program, and
doctoral supervisor. With the growing pressures for accountability, standardized
doctoral education approaches might become increasingly attractive within
European and East Asian higher education systems. Japan already changed its doc-
toral education from a supervision model toward a coursework-based model in the
early 2000s to improve their global competitiveness. For another example,
Norwegian universities have also began to move toward the adoption of a course-
work model in 1993 (Broch and Hyllseth 2004).
While there are pressures for standardization in the structure of doctoral educa-
tion, the increasing impact of rankings in higher education and the ambition to cre-
ate “world-class universities” are also leading to increasing status hierarchies in
doctoral programs. The status of the university that confers the doctoral degree is
increasingly important in academic labor markets, and there is considerable evi-
dence that major research universities tend to hire graduates from peer institutions
(Jones and Gopaul 2012). So there are pressures for standardization at the same
time that we see increasing hierarchy in doctoral education linked to institutional
ratings and research status.
1.3 nowledge Society and Demands for Doctoral Degree

K
Holders
Knowledge society discourses are far from new, in large part, because knowledge
has long been viewed as fundamental to social development, and knowledge is per-
haps a fundamental component of the human civilization. The more contemporary
understanding of a “knowledge society” is closely related to the growing impor-
tance of information and communication technology (hereafter, “ICT”). Knowledge
production, dissemination, and utilization have been massively influenced by ICT
since the 1980s when the personal computer first became widely used. The need for
highly specialized, professional knowledge became increasingly important for ICT,
and increasing levels of participation in higher education became viewed as a key
component for continuing economic development within the knowledge society.
The university became repositioned as a key institution for economic development
given its central role in creating knowledge and in educating the highly skilled
human resources required by knowledge industries. University education took on a
Table 1.2 Growth of doctoral student enrollment (2000–2015)

2000 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Germany 200,400 208,500 213,200 214,700 196,200
Sweden 20,714 22,216 19,986 20,642 21,352 21,512 21,590 21,358
Switzerland 12,933 16,592 20,120 20,953 22,012 22,716 23,237 23,697
Portugal 11,680 18,410 16,877 18,370 19,227 19,471 20,245 19,310
USA 293,002 384,577 479,422 492,345 492,365 391,601 391,915 394,964
UK 74,242 91,607 85,179 90,028 94,949 109,058 111,395
Australia 27,615 38,776 47,054 49,973 52,317 55,086 56,360
Canada 26,221 34,770 45,441 47,616 48,612 50,772
Japan 59,007 73,527 73,734 74,606 74,950 74,480 74,093
South Korea 31,787 41,055 53,533 59,699 62,312 65,938 69,975 72,558
China 290,853 306,651 322,648
Taiwan 4627 4443 4386
Data Source: UNESCO database (UNESCO Institute for Statistics) from: http://data.uis.unesco.
org/
Taiwan data is from Taiwan Ministry of Education
new importance for students and their parents (Shin 2014). As educational expectations
and requirements increased, the bachelor’s degree began to replace the secondary
school diploma as a minimum educational standard, and graduate education (first
with the master’s degree and now increasingly with the doctorate) began to be
viewed as the professional training required in many fields. The recent growth of
doctoral enrolment in select countries is provided in Table 1.2.
As the Key Science and Engineering Indicators show, the share of economic
production in hi-tech and the knowledge economy has been growing rapidly (US
National Science Board 2016). These high-technology industries require new
knowledge production to support economic production. Knowledge production has
evolved to increasingly take on the characteristics of what Gibbons and his col-
leagues have termed mode 2 research (1994). In addition, interdisciplinary research
has been emphasized in national R&D funding schemes as well as traditional disci-
plinary research (e.g., Carney et al. 2006). However, the university as a social insti-
tution has been slow to change, and in many countries the organization of academic
units continues to focus primarily on traditional disciplines (Gardner et al. 2012).
In academic research, the close relationship between knowledge production and
economic development has been focused on technological development, so that the
policy initiatives designed to strengthen the relationship between “knowledge
production” and “economic development” have focused on “technology transfer.”
In response to these social demands, research policy in some countries began to
emphasize STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) based on the
assumption that these fields were of strategic importance in terms of economic
development (Usher 2002). In addition, the OECD began to release data on
technology transfer as a measure of knowledge-economic development.
Theoretically, the close links between university-industry-government are supported
by the triple helix proposed by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1997). In recent dis-
6 J. C. Shin et al.
courses, the concept of technology transfer has been expanded to include notions
of knowledge transfer and wisdom transfer to cover various ranges of social interac-
tion between knowledge and social development.
These societal changes resulted in the diversification of doctoral degrees and
degree holders’ career paths. Doctoral degrees are diversified from the traditional
doctor of philosophy (PhD), to judicial doctor (JD), pharmacy doctor (PD), doctor
of education (EDD), and a range of new forms of professional and academic degrees.
Most of the new doctoral degrees are in professional fields (Boud and Tennant 2006;
Lee et al. 2009). In addition, in many countries the career pathways for doctoral
degree graduates have expanded beyond traditional academic careers to include a
range of opportunities in both the private and public sectors (Enders and Kaulisch
2006). The private sector has become a major career path for doctoral degree
holders in the fields of engineering, and growing numbers of doctoral graduates are
now employed in the public sector with positions in the state bureaucracy and spe-
cialized agencies. These diversified career paths reflect changes in the social and
political environment surrounding doctoral education in the knowledge society (see
Gokhberg et al. 2016).
The changing environment has also influenced doctoral education programs.
With some important national exceptions, doctoral education programs used to be
focused on training the next generation of academics. However, doctoral educa-
tion is rapidly changing in response to the changing social environment associated
with the knowledge society (Mars et al. 2014). In addition, doctoral degree holders
are experiencing different career paths compared with their senior colleagues
because of changes in the academic job market (Enders and Kaulisch 2006). There
are increasing expectations for junior academics, and in some countries there has
been an increasing fragmentation of academic work with a growth in specialized
research and teaching positions, as well as contract and precarious academic labor.
In addition, in some countries, there are increasing pressures for faculty to attract
external funding and engage in entrepreneurial activities (Mendoza 2007). These
entrepreneurial activities are sometimes rationalized as the third mission, so that
academics are expected to transform their knowledge production to external
activities for resource generation. The changing nature of academic works requires
doctoral education programs to be more market-oriented as well as practice-
oriented (Mendoza 2007; Metcalfe 2006).
1.4 Competency Development in the Professional Society
With the growing societal demands and diversified career paths of doctoral degree
holders, the notion of competency outcomes for the degree has widened from more
traditional specialized research skills and knowledge in narrowly defined fields of
discipline-based specialization toward more general skills such as writing funding
proposals, project management, public relation, etc. These competencies require
more general and transferable skills such as interpersonal skills rather than (or in
addition to) the specialized knowledge and skills required for academic research
(Antony 2002; Austin and McDaniels 2006). Research and, to a lesser extent, teach-
ing skills continue to be viewed as core competencies for doctoral degree holders
to survive in academia. However, there are growing social demands for general
skills such as communication and interpersonal skills, especially in the globalized
network society. In addition, there is a growing discussion on the need for general
skills for doctoral degree holders (Antony 2002) though there are also scholars who
are highly critical of the ways in which the doctoral degree is being repositioned
(Gilbert et al. 2004).
There are clearly limitations associated with the traditional master-apprentice
model, which explicitly focuses on training the next generation of academics, if the
objectives of doctoral education expand to include skill sets needed for work outside
of the academic milieu. The model appears to be evolving in some jurisdictions to
include coursework requirements, which provide the forum for acquiring new com-
petencies and skills. These coursework requirements sometimes focus on research
methodologies or provide students with the flexibility to explore related fields of
scholarship. In some cases formal coursework requirements are supplemented with
co-curricular programming (e.g., multi-major programs, major and minor systems)
that provides students with additional educational options.
Much of the recent literature on doctoral education focuses on competency
development across stages of doctoral education. Competency development is
sometimes understood in terms of “academic socialization” in some bodies of
research on doctoral education. Foundational work on the socialization of doctoral
students was conducted by Weidman and his colleagues (2001) and there is an
increasing body of literature focusing on this important area of scholarship (e.g.,
Austin 2002; Gardner 2010). These studies explore how doctoral students develop
their understanding of doctoral education and how they develop the value, norms,
attitudes, as well as the knowledge and skills associated with their academic
disciplines. Socialization theory emphasizes interactions with peers and professors
in doctoral education (Weidman et al. 2001). However, it is important to note that
much of this work has focused on doctoral education in the USA, Canada, and the
UK and that these socialization processes may differ substantially in the context of
very different models of doctoral training, especially since different models position
the relationships between the trainee, supervisor, and academic environment in very
different ways.
In many systems there are expectations that the competencies required for
academic work require additional training or experience beyond the doctorate. In
the German system, completing a habilitation after the initial doctorate is still a
frequent step toward an academic career. In some countries and in some disciplines,
experience as a postdoctoral scholar is increasingly viewed as a prerequisite for
academic careers. Postdoctoral experiences, whether supported by specialized fellow-
ships, or whether they involve precarious contract work as a part-time instructor or
research assistance, can play an important role in providing additional experiences
that are helpful for career pathways in or outside of academia. These postdoctoral
experiences can also allow the recent graduate to develop a profile of publication
8 J. C. Shin et al.
and teaching experience that will increase opportunities in the academic labor
market (Corley and Sabharwal 2007; Horta 2009), and postdoctoral work is increas-
ingly viewed as a legitimate, and in some cases necessary, intermediary step
between doctoral studies and professional careers (Melin 2004).
1.5 Major Issues to Be Addressed in This Book
Given the tremendous changes associated with doctoral education in a rapidly

evolving economic and social context, this book focuses on the evolution of doc-
toral education within national contexts. Particular attention is paid to the growth of
doctoral education programs, career pathways for doctoral graduates, funding, and
job prospects. Finally, by looking at these changes through detailed national case
studies, the book provides a foundation for exploring the question of whether there
is a trend toward convergence in doctoral education across systems, or whether
there continue to be important national or regional differences in models and
assumptions. The core issues related to doctoral education in this book are:
• Historical approach to doctoral education in each system and recent
developments
• The expansion of participation of female and foreign doctoral students in the
growth of doctoral education
• Diversified career paths for doctoral degree holders and national discussions of
competencies associated with the degree
• Funding for doctoral students
• Quality control of doctoral education
• Changing job market prospects for doctoral degree holders
The core of the book are 12 national case studies of doctoral education written
by noted national experts. Four of these studies focus on continental European sys-
tems, four focus on Anglo-American systems, and four focus on East Asian sys-
tems. The continental European systems include Germany, the home of the
Humboldtian model of the university; Switzerland, which was heavily influenced
by Germany but has many distinctive features; Sweden, as an example of a Nordic
doctoral education system; and Portugal, as an example of a Southern European
system. The Anglo-American systems include the USA and Canada (the latter hav-
ing been heavily influenced by the American model) and the UK and Australia
(which has been heavily influenced by the British model). The East Asian systems
included in this volume are Japan, South Korea, China, and Taiwan, representing
the fastest growing region for doctoral education in the world. Each of these coun-
tries has a unique history in terms of doctoral education, frequently influenced by a
unique history of international relationships and influence.
These 12 systems obviously do not represent the whole world of doctoral edu-
cation, and we recognize the important limitations associated with this project,
but we believe that the diversity of systems represented in this volume will add to
our understanding of the evolution of doctoral education across systems. It will

also allow us to explore the question of whether changes taking place across these
systems are moving doctoral education in a common direction, or whether we are
seeing a growth in hybridization and unique national responses to local pressures.
Given the increasing importance placed on doctoral education in so many parts of
the world, it is extremely important to understand national reforms and global
trends.
References
Antony, J. S. (2002). Reexamining doctoral student socialization and professional development:

Moving beyond the congruence and assimilation orientation. In J.C. Smart & W.G. Tierney
(Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 349–380). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to
the academic career. Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94–122.
Austin, A. E., & McDaniels, M. (2006). Preparing the professoriate of the future: Graduate student
socialization for faculty roles. In J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and
research (Vol. XXI, pp. 397–456). Dordrecht: Springer.
Boud, D., & Tennant, M. (2006). Putting doctoral education to work: Challenges to academic
practice. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(3), 293–306.
Broch, I., & Hyllseth, B. (2004). Norway. In J. Sadlak (Ed.), Doctoral studies and qualifications in
Europe and the United States: Status and prospects. Bucharest: UNESCO, Author.
Carney, J., Chawla, D., Wiley, A., & Young, D. (2006). Evaluation of the initial impacts of the
National Science Foundation’s Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship
Program (NSF 06-17). Arlington: National Science Foundation.
Cassuto, L. (2015). Graduate school mess: What caused it and how we can fix it. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Corley, E. A., & Sabharwal, M. (2007). Foreign-born academic scientists and engineers: Producing
more and getting less than their US-born peers? Research in Higher Education, 48(8), 909–940.
Enders, J., & Kaulisch, M. (2006). The binding and unbinding of academic careers. In U. Teichler
(Ed.), The formative years of scholars (pp. 85–95). London: Portland Press Ltd.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple
helix of university-industry-government relations. London: Francis Pinter.
Gardner, S. K. (2010). Contrasting the socialization experiences of doctoral students in high-and
low-completing departments: A qualitative analysis of disciplinary contexts at one institution.
The Journal of Higher Education, 81(1), 61–81.
Gardner, S., et al. (2012). Interdisciplinary doctoral student socialization. International Journal of
Doctoral Studies, 7, 377–394.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new
production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies.
London: Sage.
Gilbert, R., Balatti, J., Turner, P., & Whitehouse, H. (2004). The generic skills in research higher
degrees. Higher Education Research and Development, 23(3), 375–388.
Gokhberg, L., Shamtko, N., & Auriol, L. (Eds.). (2016). The science and technology labor force.
The value of doctorate holders and development of professional careers. Dordrecht: Springer.
Horta, H. (2009). Holding a post-doctoral position before becoming a faculty member: Does it
bring benefits for the scholarly enterprise? Higher Education, 58(5), 689–721.
10 J. C. Shin et al.
Jones, G. A., & Gopaul, B. (2012). Doctoral education and the global university: Study mobility,
hierarchy and Canadian government policy. In A. R. Nelson & I. Wei (Eds.), The global uni-
versity: Past, present and future perspectives (pp. 189–212). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kehm, B. M. (2004). Developing doctoral degrees and qualifications in Europe: Good practice and
issues of concern—A comparative analysis. In J. Sadlak (Ed.), Doctoral studies and qualifica-
tions in Europe and the United States: Status and prospects. Bucharest: UNESCO, Author.
Kehm, B. M. (2006). Doctoral education in Europe and North America: A comparative analysis. In
U. Teichler (Ed.), The formative years of scholars (pp. 105–118). London: Portland Press Ltd.
Kehm, B. (2007). Quo Vadis doctoral education? New European approaches in the context of
global changes. European Journal of Education, 42(3), 307–319.
Lee, A., Brennan, M., & Green, B. (2009). Re-imagining doctoral education: Professional doctor-
ates and beyond. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(3), 275–287.
Mars, M., Bresonis, K., & Szelenyi, K. (2014). Science and engineering doctoral student social-
ization, logics, and the national economic agenda: Alignment or disconnect? Minerva, 52,
351–379.
Melin, G. (2004). Postdoc abroad: Inherited scientific contacts or establishment of new networks.
Research Evaluation, 13(2), 95–102.
Melin, G., & Janson, K. (2006). What skills and knowledge should a PhD have? Changing per-
ceptions for PhD education and post doc work. In U. Teichler (Ed.), The formative years of
scholars (pp. 105–118). London: Portland Press Ltd.
Mendoza, P. (2007). Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization: A case study. The
Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 71–96.
Metcalfe, J. (2006). The changing nature of doctoral programmes. In U. Teichler (Ed.), The forma-
tive years of scholars (pp. 79–84). London: Portland Press Ltd.
Sadlak, J. (2004). Doctoral studies and qualifications in Europe and the United States: Status and
prospects. Bucharest: UNESCO, Author.
Shin, J. C. (2014). University teaching: Redesigning the university as an institution of teaching.
In J. Shin & U. Teichler (Eds.), The future of the post-massified university at the crossroads:
Restructuring systems and functions (pp. 85–100). Heidelberg: Springer.
Shin, J., & Kehm, B. M. (Eds.). (2012). Institutionalization of world-class university in global
competition. Dordrecht: Springer.
Teichler, U. (2006). The formative years of scholars. London: Portland Press Ltd.
UNESCO. (2014). Higher education in Asia: Expanding out, expanding UP – the rise of graduate
education and university research. UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Author. Access: http://
unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002275/227516e.pdf
UNESCO. (2017). Distribution of enrollment by level of tertiary education. Downloaded from
http://data.uis.unesco.org/
US National Science Board. (2016). Science and engineering indicators 2016. Arlington: National
Science Foundation (NSB-2016-1). Access from: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/
nsb20161/uploads/1/nsb20161.pdf
Usher, R. (2002). A diversity of doctorates: Fitness for the knowledge economy? Higher Education
Research and Development, 21(2), 143–153.
Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional
students in higher education: A perilous passage? ASHE-ERIC higher education report 28.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ann E. Austin, (2016) Preparing the Next Generation of Faculty. The Journal of Higher Education
73 (1):94-122
Part I
Doctoral Education in European Systems
Chapter 2
Doctoral Education, Training and Work
in Germany
Christian Schneijderberg and Ulrich Teichler
2.1 Introduction
In looking back to around 1990 and specifically looking at the two major interna-
tional encyclopaedias on higher education published in the early 1990s, we do not
find any article on “doctoral education” or “doctoral training”. But each of the ency-
clopaedias has an article on “graduate education” both authored by US scholars
(Rhoades 1991; Gumport 1992) and takes the term in the headline which only
applies to the USA. “Graduate education” in the USA is often arranged as integrated
master-level and doctoral-level education and training, while other countries bor-
rowing from that model tend to provide for a distinct doctoral-level education and
training. Both encyclopaedia articles underscore the variety across countries and
thereby refer to the German tradition of doctoral education, training and work as the
one most strongly contrasting the US practice. Rhoades (1991, p. 127) terms this
model contrasting the “structured” or “programme” model in the USA as an
“apprenticeship model”, and Gumport (1992, p. 117) calls it “the nineteenth-century
German ideal of uniting advanced study and research with the work of individual
scholars engaged in scientific research”. The difference of basic ideas between the
German and the US model of doctoral education can analytically be described as:
• Work-based education/training in the German model
• Teaching-based education in the US model
During the 1980s, economically advanced countries – in part stimulated by
OECD (see Blume and Amsterdamska 1987) – discussed the state of doctoral edu-
cation, training and work, and proposals gained momentum in many countries to
formalize and institutionalize doctoral education and training. The US model,
C. Schneijderberg (*) · U. Teichler

INCHER-Kassel, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany
e-mail: schneijderberg@incher.uni-kassel.de; teichler@incher.uni-kassel.de
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 13

J. C. Shin et al. (eds.), Doctoral Education for the Knowledge Society,
Knowledge Studies in Higher Education 5,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89713-4_2
14 C. Schneijderberg and U. Teichler
described by Rhoades (1991, p. 127) as consisting of “accumulating courses and

credits, passing examinations, and producing a dissertation” and as “largely course-
work driven”, had become quite popular. Gumport (1992, p. 117) described it as
“the American model of prescribed curriculum, coupled with more formalized
research training, culminating in a thesis that demonstrates original research”. Two
arguments were often presented in favour of moving doctoral education and training
somewhat towards the US model, which tended to be viewed at that time as the most
successful and attractive one. First, concerns spread in some countries amidst
increasing internationalization of higher education that one would suffer a “brain
drain” to the USA, unless a similarly attractive model of doctoral education was
established. Second, more formalized doctoral education combined with the inten-
tion of serving a broader range of competencies than merely those required in pro-
ducing a doctoral dissertation was often viewed as more appropriate for a growing
proportion of doctoral candidates among the respective age group: as a consequence,
the proportion of doctoral degree holders becoming professionally active outside
academia was expected to increase, as pointed out by the OECD. Research was
expected to play an increasingly societal role during the 1990s, as underscored by
the rising popularity of the terms “knowledge society” and “knowledge economy”
(Bell 1974; Drucker 1969; Stehr 1994).
A more careful look at the international discourse on doctoral education and
training shows the most frequently raised issues were (see Teichler 2014):
• To what extent and in which way does the expansion of higher education call for
more formalized and more structured doctoral education?
• How and to what extent should doctoral education be diversified amidst diversi-
fication trends in the higher education and research systems as well as an increase
of doctoral degree holders becoming professionally active outside higher
education?
• What competencies beyond those needed for conducting research and writing a
dissertation should be fostered during the doctoral education phase?
• What might help improve the efficiency (e.g. shorter time to degree, higher suc-
cess rates) and the quality of the doctoral education phase?
Actually, more formalized modes of doctoral education spread in recent decades
in many countries. As a rule, however, these focussed on doctoral training beyond
the master level, while master-level and doctoral-level education is often linked in
the USA. Further, most other countries did not opt for a strong supra-disciplinary
institutional “roof” of a “graduate school”. Moreover, many European countries
introduced various modes of doctoral education and training, whereby detailed cur-
ricula provisions apply only for some of these modes. Finally, various European
countries consider doctoral candidates to be young researchers rather than students
(see the overviews in Kehm 2004; Kehm and Teichler 2016). In Germany, various
doctoral programmes and various other elements of formalizing doctoral training
were introduced about 1990, while the work-based education model remained the
dominant one (Berning and Falk 2005; Hauss and Kaulisch 2012). As will be shown
in the following sections, a parallel existence of teaching-based and work-based
2 Doctoral Education, Training and Work in Germany 15
doctorates has become a reality in Germany. Also, this led to a blurring of boundar-
ies between the two types of doctorate (Schneijderberg 2017). This article will use
“doctoral training” as an inclusive term for the teaching-based and work-based doc-
toral education in Germany. The Merriam-Webster1 dictionary defines training “a
process by which someone is taught the skills that are needed for an art, profession,
or job”. Accordingly the doctorate can be defined as “the state of being trained” to
acquire the skills, knowledge and experience for independent academic work.
This suggests looking both at the “history” of doctoral training in Germany up to
the 1980s as well as at the context of the reform discourses and activities since the
1990s. It should be emphasized that the development of doctoral training as well as
the situation of junior academics in Germany is well documented. In Germany, the
Federal government issued in 2008, 2013 and again in 2017 a national report on the
situation of junior academics (BMBF 2008; KBWN 2013, 2017). The reports were
based on a thorough analysis of available statistics, research findings and policy
findings relevant to the two career stages of junior scholars (Wissenschaftlicher
Nachwuchs) with the doctorate and the habilitation. The first stage is characterized
by work on a dissertation as the first book along with other activities in academia.
The second stage is situated between the award of a doctoral degree and, if the aca-
demic career turns out to be successful, the eventual appointment to a professor
position (equivalent to associate professor or full professor positions in US terms),
after finishing the second book for the habilitation or, in some instances, upon
equivalent academic achievement. Moreover, various international comparative
accounts of the situation of doctoral training or of junior researchers comprised
overviews on the German situation (e.g. Enders 1999; Hüfner 2004; see also Kehm
2012). Finally, some German scholars have summarized the state of doctoral train-
ing or junior academic careers across Europe or worldwide and pointed out the
specifics of the German case in the framework of comparative studies – on higher
education in general or on select issues (e.g. Enders 2003, 2006; Kehm 2004, 2009;
Kehm and Teichler 2016).
2.2 erman Traditions and the Development of Doctoral

G
Training in the Twentieth Century
The idea of the traditional German university is the credo of a close link between
teaching and research, as it has been formulated for the foundation of the University
of Berlin in 1810 by Wilhelm von Humboldt. He advocated three principles for the
university: “unity of research and teaching”, “solitude and freedom” and “commu-
nity of teachers and students”.
Each university in Germany, i.e. each recognized institution in charge of research
and teaching (those with a prime emphasis on teaching are not named “university”
1
See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/training (last accessed 2016/07/29).
16 C. Schneijderberg and U. Teichler
in the German language even today), was entitled to award a doctoral degree,
whereby all procedures were in the hand of the respective faculty. Titles awarded
correspond to the name of the faculty or disciplinary group; the traditional titles in
the Latin language were Dr. phil., Dr. rer. pol., Dr. rer. nat., Dr. med. and Dr. theol.,
whereas academics in the domain of engineering opted for a title in the German
language: Dr.-Ing.
The work on the doctoral thesis has continued to be viewed as the core activity.
The doctoral candidate was considered to be an independent person gradually
maturing into a scholar in the process of his or her work on the dissertation in con-
tact with a single professor (or in some instances additionally a second advisor).
Doctoral candidates had to find a professor – at the university of their prior study or
somewhere else – willing to advise them, or a professor could encourage doctoral
students or early stage researchers to embark on work for dissertation: informally,
the advisor (Betreuer) was named Doktor-Vater (“doctor father”, a gender-neutral
phrasing was not customary – not surprising – as more than 90% of university pro-
fessors were men up to the 1990s).
Until the 1970s, a student was free either to head for a university degree (Diplom,
Magister or Staatsexamen) before working on the dissertation or to start working on
the dissertation without any prior degree. The person willing to write a dissertation
had to be accepted officially as a doctoral candidate by the doctoral committee of
the respective faculty; this procedure could be initiated at the start of working on the
dissertation or later. The doctoral committee could accept the candidate without
reservation or with some requirements to be fulfilled prior to submitting the disser-
tation, e.g. to take some courses in the respective discipline, if the candidate had
studied initially another discipline than that of the dissertation. The doctoral candi-
date was not viewed as a “student” and as a rule was not obliged to enrol. Further
specifications were left to the advisor of the dissertation. Professors accepted doc-
toral candidates as a rule who wanted to write a dissertation in the area of their
expertise. Some accepted a broad range of scientific areas, while others expected the
doctoral candidates to be quite close to their expertise. The professors also might
have expected their doctoral candidates to attend some of their lectures or seminars,
and many of them regularly arranged a doctoral “colloquium” or “seminar” for all
their doctoral candidates. Advisory practices varied. In the humanities and social
sciences, occasional meetings between the advisor and the candidates prevailed –
initiated by either. In the experimental sciences, doctoral candidates often were
involved in the professor’s laboratory or other experimental research activities and
had contact to him/her primarily in this context. In most disciplines, quite a number
of doctoral candidates were employed by the university to serve as assistants or
research workers. According to a survey undertaken in 1983/1984, 59% of the doc-
toral candidates in Germany were funded through employment in higher education
(either on an institutional position or through research grants), 17% through employ-
ment outside academia, 14% through doctoral fellowships (grants and/or loans) and
10% by other means (Holtkamp et al. 1986).
The doctoral dissertation was assessed by the advising professor and possibly by
a second professor. The oral exam traditionally held subsequently was called
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
— Ils sont totalement idiots, déclara Ceintras qui manquait de
patience… En voilà assez pour ce soir ! Toutes ces émotions m’ont
affamé ; si nous mangions ?… Oh ! une idée !… Nous pourrions les
inviter ; qu’en penses-tu ?
— Je pense, répondis-je, que nous ferons bien de prendre cette
plaisanterie au sérieux. La faim est un besoin primordial de toute
créature vivante et il y a peut-être quelque chose à tenter de ce côté-
là.
Laissant Ceintras devant la cabine, j’allai découper quelques
tranches de jambon. J’en présentai une à celui des monstres que
Ceintras ne cessait d’appeler depuis quelques minutes son nouvel
ami ; il s’en saisit avec appréhension, la considéra, puis la tendit à
son voisin ; elle passa ainsi de mains en mains. Le dernier des
monstres, après l’avoir examinée et palpée comme le reste de la
bande, la flaira minutieusement et la mit… dans sa poitrine. Et je
m’aperçus alors que le peuple du Pôle connaissait l’usage des
vêtements : ce que j’avais pris tout d’abord pour la peau de ces êtres
n’était en réalité qu’un manteau de cuir blanchâtre qui les
enveloppait presque entièrement et formait sur la tête de certains
d’entre eux une sorte de capuchon. Notre cadeau avait été
précieusement enfoui dans une poche !
— Ils ne peuvent évidemment pas savoir que c’est comestible, dit
Ceintras en riant.
— Qui sait, ajoutai-je, s’ils ne croient pas que nous voulons les
empoisonner ?
— Mangeons, en tout cas ; ils comprendront alors que nos
intentions ne sont pas criminelles.
Tandis que nous mangions, ils resserrèrent leur cercle autour de
nous. Puis, après une discussion animée avec ses compagnons, un
d’entre eux, — l’ami de Ceintras, je crois, — s’approcha et nous offrit
deux poissons curieusement desséchés qu’il tira de son manteau de
cuir.
— Diable ! s’écria Ceintras, mais il me semble que nos affaires
marchent très bien : ils ne veulent pas être en reste de politesse
avec nous !
— Qu’allons-nous faire de ces poissons ? Les mangeons-nous ?
Ils ne m’ont pas l’air très alléchants.
— Fais comme tu voudras. Moi, je mange le mien. Je crois que
c’est préférable : ils n’auraient qu’à être vexés !…
J’entendis le poisson craquer sous les dents de Ceintras comme
une croûte de pain dur.
— Est-ce bon ? demandai-je.
— C’est ignoble.
Et il l’avala stoïquement.
Le jour commençait à poindre. Le fleuve, devant nous,
apparaissait comme une immense écharpe lumineuse négligemment
jetée sur la plaine encore obscure. Des vols de ptérodactyles
sillonnaient l’air par intervalles et passaient, petites taches éperdues
et mouvantes, entre les astres et nos yeux. Je constatai bientôt que
des querelles s’élevaient dans la troupe des monstres ; sans doute,
leurs occupations devaient, à cette heure, les ramener sous la terre,
et plusieurs étaient d’avis de demeurer malgré tout en notre
compagnie. Mais ce fut un bien plus beau tumulte lorsqu’une autre
bande vint s’adjoindre à ceux qui avaient passé la nuit avec nous.
Ceux-ci renseignèrent les nouveaux venus, encore très timides et
méfiants, à grand renfort de cris, de sifflements et de gestes. Puis
les querelles recommencèrent ; même quelques horions furent
échangés.
— Bon ! m’écriai-je, ils ne diffèrent pas tant des hommes qu’on
aurait pu le supposer d’abord.
— C’est vrai, dit Ceintras. Mais, puisqu’ils sont gentils au point de
ne se séparer de nous qu’à regret, si nous les accompagnions un
bout de chemin ? Ça couperait court à leurs disputes.
— Accompagnons-les. Suivons-les même sous terre s’ils veulent
bien… Le moteur est lourd, ils n’ont pas dû l’emporter très loin, et,
d’autre part, quand nous l’aurons retrouvé, je ne pense pas qu’ils
osent nous contester le droit de le reprendre…
Ceintras, décidément de joyeuse humeur, approuva ma
résolution. Après nous être munis de quelques provisions et, par
prudence, de nos revolvers, nous nous dirigeâmes vers une des
trappes. Les monstres nous suivirent sans difficulté. Mais, comme
s’ils avaient deviné et redouté nos intentions, à quelques mètres de
la trappe ils se concertèrent durant quelques instants, puis se
précipitèrent dans le souterrain avec une agilité extraordinaire. La
plaque de métal se referma sur eux avant que nous fussions
revenus de notre ahurissement. Et, dans son désappointement,
Ceintras n’eut d’autre consolation que celle de déverser sur le
peuple du Pôle le stock d’épithètes injurieuses ou simplement
malveillantes qu’il put trouver en sa mémoire…
Durant les deux nuits qui suivirent, il n’y eut aucun progrès dans
nos relations avec les monstres. Nous remarquâmes même qu’après
leurs sorties ils ne manquaient plus de fermer les portes par
lesquelles nous avions résolu d’entrer subrepticement. Cependant,
le temps nous pressait ; dans l’enveloppe du ballon il ne devait plus
guère rester d’hydrogène et celui que nous possédions en réserve
dans les obus suffirait tout juste à notre retour. Pénétrer dans ce
mystérieux monde souterrain devint alors notre idée fixe. Nous
reparlâmes sérieusement de faire sauter une des portes, mais nous
renonçâmes à ce moyen qui était trop violent pour ne pas risquer
d’irriter nos hôtes. L’occasion se chargea de nous fournir un
ingénieux stratagème.
Sur la fin de la troisième nuit, une troupe de quarante monstres
environ apparut au bord du fleuve et, sans trop se soucier de nous,
certains d’entre eux se mirent à dérouler un grand filet composé de
minces lanières de cuir blanc. Bientôt la troupe se sépara en deux
équipes qui s’affairèrent chacune à un bout du filet, puis, celle qui se
trouvait la plus rapprochée du fleuve y entra sans hésitation et le
traversa à la nage avec une souplesse merveilleuse. Quand le filet,
tendu et maintenu sous l’eau par des poids, eut barré le fleuve dans
toute sa largeur, les deux équipes le halèrent d’amont en aval sur un
parcours de cinquante mètres environ ; après quoi, ceux des
monstres qui avaient déjà traversé l’eau revinrent à la nage vers
leurs compagnons, et enfin le filet chargé de poisson fut ramené sur
la rive.
Un peu plus tard, tandis que les monstres recommençaient
ailleurs leurs opérations, nous rencontrâmes, devant une trappe plus
grande que les autres, une sorte de chariot à demi rempli de
poissons. La porte restait inexorablement close, mais il était sûr que
dans quelques instants elle s’ouvrirait pour laisser entrer le chariot ; il
était de dimensions assez considérables… Je crois que l’idée de
nous y dissimuler surgit en même temps dans l’esprit de Ceintras et
le mien.
— Ceintras, murmurai-je, un peu pâle, sans quitter le chariot des
yeux…
— Oui, oui, je devine ce que tu vas me dire…
— Eh bien ?
Il me montra du doigt le grouillement argenté des poissons dont
beaucoup étaient vivants encore :
— Ça ne te dégoûte pas un peu de t’ensevelir là-dessous ?
— Il est sûr que je préférerais une litière de velours et de soie,
mais nos hôtes ont oublié de mettre rien de semblable à notre
disposition.
— Piteux appareil pour la réception des premiers ambassadeurs
de l’humanité auprès du peuple du Pôle !
— Évidemment, mais le temps nous presse, voici l’aube… Et
c’est peut-être une occasion unique.
— Oh ! une occasion unique !…
— Enfin, agis à ta guise. Tu es libre. Moi, je tente l’aventure…
Ceintras, comme c’était à prévoir, céda. Nous nous enfouîmes,
surmontant notre répulsion, entre deux couches de petits corps
froids, humides et visqueux dont les vertèbres, au-dessous de nous,
craquèrent écrasées, et qui, sur nos mains et nos visages,
s’agitaient dans les dernières convulsions de l’asphyxie. Déjà plus
qu’à moitié suffoqués par leur odeur écœurante, nous nous crûmes
définitivement étouffés lorsque les monstres, au moment de
regagner leurs demeures souterraines, empilèrent au-dessus de
nous d’autres poissons pour remplir complètement le chariot. Nous
ménageâmes tant bien que mal un passage pour que l’air pût arriver
jusqu’à nos bouches ; puis nous sentîmes le véhicule s’ébranler. Un
instant après, le retentissement à l’infini du bruit qu’il faisait en
roulant nous apprit que le libre firmament n’arrondissait plus sur
nous sa voûte illimitée et que nous étions dans les entrailles de la
terre, en route vers l’inconnu.
CHAPITRE XI
EXCURSIONS SOUTERRAINES
— Attention, dit Ceintras à mon oreille, le moment critique est

arrivé.
Le chariot s’était arrêté soudain, et je ne sais trop pourquoi, j’eus
la certitude que nous venions de quitter à ce moment un étroit
corridor pour entrer dans une vaste salle. A voix basse, nous nous
concertâmes. Devions-nous attendre, ou surgir immédiatement de
notre cachette ? Ceintras émit une idée qui me terrifia : le poisson
que lui avait offert un des monstres était très sec, presque
carbonisé… Si on se contentait, sans préparation préalable, de
pousser dans les fours après la pêche les chariots, qui étaient de
métal ?
— Bigre ! m’écriai-je, voilà un risque qu’il ne faut pas courir !
Alors, je m’aperçus que, dans mon émotion, j’avais parlé très
haut : de toutes façons, il devenait donc inutile d’hésiter sur la
décision à prendre… Nous sortîmes de notre cachette souillés,
visqueux, puants. Un premier coup d’œil suffit à nous convaincre
que, pour le moment, nous étions seuls dans la cuisine ou l’une des
cuisines de la communauté polaire.
C’était une salle circulaire d’un diamètre de trente mètres
environ, dont le plafond, étayé par quatre piliers de granit, formait
une sorte de coupole. L’endroit ne manquait pas d’une certaine
majesté. Sur de longues tables de pierre gisaient des poissons
éventrés ; au milieu de la salle, entre les quatre piliers, nous
trouvâmes une sorte d’immense gril fait de minces tiges de fer
parallèles qu’un courant électrique portait à une température élevée :
je m’aperçus de ce détail à mes dépens après avoir sans méfiance
posé une main sur l’appareil.
Comme c’était à prévoir, les monstres ne tardèrent pas à
paraître. Au grand dépit de Ceintras, qui se réjouissait à l’avance de
« la tête qu’ils allaient faire et du bon tour que nous leur avions
joué », ils ne manifestèrent pas outre mesure leur stupéfaction. En
réalité, sur leurs visages, il nous était bien difficile de lire les
sentiments qu’ils éprouvaient. Nous ne pouvions même jamais être
sûrs qu’ils parlaient de nous ; les attitudes usitées dans telle ou telle
circonstance d’une vie sociale sont si souvent à l’opposé de celles
que la nature et la logique sembleraient indiquer ! N’est-il pas
inconvenant, dans nos pays civilisés, de montrer du doigt la
personne dont on parle ?
En tout cas ils se mirent vite au travail, sans paraître nous prêter
grande attention. Certains nettoyaient les poissons, d’autres les
disposaient sur le gril ; d’autres vidaient les chariots ; ceux-ci se
contentèrent de nous regarder avec insistance, quand ils arrivèrent
au chariot dans lequel nous nous étions cachés et dont nous avions
à coup sûr endommagé le chargement.
Des halètements énormes de machines parvenaient jusqu’à nous
par les quatre galeries qui aboutissaient à la cuisine polaire. Nous
résolûmes de suivre au hasard l’une d’elles. Si, comme tout nous
portait à le croire, le peuple du Pôle nous avait subtilisé notre moteur
pour en étudier le fonctionnement, il devait se trouver en ce moment
dans le domaine des mécaniciens et des savants, non dans celui
des cuisiniers. Du reste, il faut bien avouer, — si insensé que cela
puisse paraître, — que la raison primitive de notre expédition
souterraine ne s’imposait déjà plus très nettement à notre esprit, et
que, durant bien longtemps, une curiosité émerveillée allait seule
nous inspirer nos recherches et nos démarches.
Nous nous engageâmes donc dans une des galeries, sans que
cela provoquât la moindre résistance de la part des monstres. Ils
étaient si affairés ou, pour mieux dire, si intimement liés à leur tâche,
qu’il nous semblait dès lors presque inconcevable qu’aucun d’eux,
pour une raison ou une autre, pût s’en distraire un seul instant.
D’ailleurs, cette harmonieuse intimité entre l’ouvrier et son travail ne
cessa pas de nous frapper d’admiration, aussi longtemps que se
prolongea notre séjour dans les régions souterraines du Pôle. Ce fut
à peine si, sur notre passage, les êtres livides, porteurs d’objets
mystérieux, que nous rencontrâmes, se détournèrent pour nous
regarder…
Cependant les halètements des machines devenaient toujours
plus formidables : on eût dit que nous arrivions au cœur même de ce
monde actif, frénétique, prodigieusement vivant, et que nous étions
aspirés dans l’une de ses artères par le propre mouvement de sa
vie. Nous débouchâmes enfin dans une nouvelle salle plus grande
encore que la première où, de seconde en seconde, une énorme
bielle d’un métal éblouissant surgissait jusqu’au plafond puis
disparaissait presque tout entière, engloutie par un puits
rectangulaire aménagé dans le sol. Commandées par cette bielle,
une quantité de machines remplissaient mes oreilles de leur multiple
bourdonnement. — Nul monstre, à première vue, dans la salle.
Cependant, après en avoir fait le tour, nous en découvrîmes deux au
sommet d’une tourelle élevée contre la paroi et qui atteignait
presque la voûte. Une sorte d’échelle conduisait jusqu’à la plate-
forme où ils venaient de nous apparaître. Nous nous enhardissions
peu à peu, et, sans même avoir eu besoin de nous concerter, nous
allâmes les observer à leur poste.
Quand nous passons dans un village humain, l’image de chaque
individu se reflète en nous accompagnée de diverses impressions
que traduisent des mots consacrés comme vieux, jeune, laid, joli…
Jusqu’ici, en face des habitants du Pôle, nous n’avions pu éprouver
rien de semblable. Ils étaient tous également horribles, pareillement
vêtus de cuir blanc et à peu près aussi difficiles à distinguer au
premier coup d’œil les uns des autres que des chiens de même race
dans un chenil. Une fois parvenus au faîte de la tourelle et face à
face avec les monstres qui s’y trouvaient, nous eûmes pour la
première fois, en considérant l’un d’eux, l’idée très nette de ce
qu’était une extrême vieillesse chez les êtres de cette race.
Il se tenait accroupi devant un appareil qui rappelait assez bien
par son aspect une machine à écrire et posait de temps à autre un
de ses longs doigts sur les touches qui devaient actionner
électriquement les machines dont le ronflement retentissait à mes
pieds. Il observait aussi avec une attention soutenue une aiguille
horizontale qui oscillait près de lui au-dessus d’un plateau gradué ;
lorsque la pointe de cette aiguille tendait à se rapprocher d’une raie
située au milieu du plateau, le vieux monstre poussait un levier situé
à sa gauche et l’aiguille peu à peu reculait. Ceintras, avec quelque
apparence de raison, conclut que nous devions nous trouver en
présence d’un manomètre. Mais plus que ces détails mécaniques, la
physionomie du mécanicien m’intéressait.
Effroyablement ridé, les yeux ternis et suintants, le corps,
immédiatement au-dessous de la lèvre inférieure, tout boursouflé par
de multiples replis de peau jaunâtre et parcheminée, plus hideux
encore, s’il est possible, que la plupart de ses congénères, ce
personnage ne m’en inspirait pas moins un étrange respect, tant je
le devinais chargé d’ans et de sagesse. A notre arrivée, sans même
se tourner vers le monstre d’aspect ordinaire qui se tenait immobile
à ses côtés, il émit deux ou trois brefs susurrements auxquels l’autre
répondit plus brièvement encore. Le sens de cet entretien me parut
évident : « Voilà donc les êtres singuliers dont vous parlez sans
cesse ? — Ce sont bien eux. » Après quoi, sans prendre un quart de
minute pour nous envisager, il se remit à faire aller méthodiquement
ses mains sur le levier et les touches de l’appareil.
Nous partîmes de nouveau à la découverte par la première
galerie qui s’offrit à nous, sans trop savoir dans quel sens nous
allions, sans peur de ne plus retrouver par la suite notre chemin vers
le ballon et le libre ciel. La curiosité nous enivrait véritablement ;
nous avions à peine pris le temps de nous étonner devant un
spectacle inattendu ou un objet de destination mystérieuse, de nous
extasier devant une machine que, déjà, nous brûlions de contempler
autre chose de plus inattendu, de plus mystérieux, de plus admirable
encore.
Je ne saurais m’attarder davantage à raconter dans l’ordre notre
exploration et à décrire les sentiments successifs qui en résultèrent
pour nous. Je ne peux en toute raison attacher à ce que j’écris
qu’une importance documentaire et le mieux est, dès à présent, de
donner un résumé d’ensemble de ce que nous vîmes, et d’exposer
les conclusions, — nécessairement hâtives et sans doute erronées
bien souvent, — que nous crûmes pouvoir en tirer.
Ce qui frappe à première vue dans le monde polaire, c’est sa
relative exiguïté. La lumière violette et la chaleur, la vie et la
civilisation qui en sont les conséquences, s’étendent sur un domaine
circulaire dont le diamètre ne doit pas excéder de beaucoup douze
lieues. Les galeries souterraines rayonnent dans un espace encore
moindre. On se trouve évidemment en présence d’une parcelle de la
Terre, qui, lors de la formation des banquises éternelles du Pôle, fut
épargnée pour des raisons dont une au moins, même aujourd’hui,
n’est pas indiscernable et que j’exposerai un peu plus loin. En tout
cas notre exploration apportera un argument décisif en faveur de la
thèse selon laquelle les glaces des Pôles, sur la Terre et dans les
planètes voisines, se sont formées brusquement, à la suite de
grands cataclysmes naturels. Donc, séparés à tout jamais du reste
du monde par les murailles infranchissables du froid, quelques
individus d’une race alors existante, — race d’iguanodons ou d’êtres
analogues, — ont pu continuer à vivre aux environs immédiats du
Pôle Nord. Ceci admis, on conçoit que la nécessité immédiate d’une
lutte à outrance pour la vie dans des conditions aussi défavorables
ait aussitôt donné une énorme impulsion au progrès général de
l’espèce et que celle-ci ait conquis l’intelligence dès une époque où
les ancêtres eux-mêmes de l’homme étaient destinés à rester
longtemps encore dans les limbes du possible.
Si le pays du Pôle n’a pas été condamné comme les territoires
qui l’entourent à porter pour toujours un fardeau de glaces stériles et
mortelles, cela est dû à la présence en cet endroit d’un immense
calorifère naturel. Il est probable que les eaux de l’Océan, non loin
du continent où je me trouve, s’engouffrent dans les profondeurs de
la terre, s’échauffent jusqu’à l’ébullition au contact du feu intérieur, et
reviennent ensuite par toutes sortes de canaux à proximité de la
surface ; elles jaillissent même çà et là en geisers salés que nous
aurions découverts le lendemain même de notre arrivée, si nous
avions poussé notre excursion un peu au delà des collines. Ce qui
est sûr, c’est que les monstres polaires ont su asservir depuis
d’incalculables séries de siècles cette force qui bouillonne au cœur
de leur monde. N’ayant jamais eu rien à espérer du ciel, du soleil, de
toutes ces vertus naturelles que les hommes se sont accoutumés de
bonne heure à prendre pour les attributs de Dieu ou les
conséquences de sa bonté, ils nous prouvent merveilleusement
aujourd’hui, après avoir transformé à la longue la force qu’ils avaient
à leur disposition en principe même de vie, que toute créature douée
d’intelligence et de raison risque d’être victime d’une illusion en
supposant qu’elle n’est pas pour elle-même son unique Providence.
A la plupart des carrefours du monde polaire on entend le
grondement tumultueux de l’eau bouillante emprisonnée dans
d’énormes tuyaux de métal. Une fois même, ayant suivi longtemps
une galerie qui descendait en pente rapide, nous atteignîmes les
bords d’un gouffre colossal tout embué de vapeur suffocante, au
fond duquel, invisible, le fleuve souterrain ou une de ses
ramifications les plus considérables tombait en cataracte et roulait
avec un fracas de tonnerre. Ce fut à peine si dans l’opaque buée
nous pûmes distinguer à quelques mètres de nous une immense
roue, — fantôme effarant de machine, — qui, entraînée par la force
de la chute ou du courant, tournait avec une indescriptible vélocité.
Il est hors de doute (et il me semble qu’on peut pressentir dès à
présent ce fait qui un instant plus tôt eût été bien difficile à
concevoir) que les monstres polaires fabriquent eux-mêmes la
lumière de leurs jours en utilisant cette formidable et inépuisable
source d’énergie. Par quels procédés ? Ceintras crut une fois avoir
trouvé le secret de l’énigme, — secret dont personne ne pourrait
contester le prix. — Mais il n’est plus là aujourd’hui pour me répéter
une démonstration à laquelle je ne prêtai sur le moment qu’une
oreille distraite et une attention peu familiarisée avec des questions
scientifiques aussi ardues. Ce que j’ai retenu, c’est qu’il tenait les
habitants du Pôle pour d’extraordinaires électriciens. Je crois aussi
me rappeler qu’il considérait en définitive le jour polaire comme le
résultat d’une chaleur lumineuse de nature électrique, mais, ceci, je
n’ose pas l’affirmer, ni insister davantage, étant à peu près sûr que
tout ce que j’écrirais là-dessus ne pourrait apparaître à des savants
que comme l’inintelligence et l’incohérence mêmes.
Après avoir été obligé de rester dans le vague sur ce point
capital, ce n’est pas sans une certaine satisfaction que je vais à
présent donner quelques chiffres précis sur la durée du jour et de la
nuit polaire. Comme je l’avais constaté dès la première fois où il me
fut possible de ne pas succomber au sommeil, la durée de la nuit
était assez brève ; entre la disparition complète de la clarté violette
et les premiers signes de son retour, j’ai noté des temps variant à la
surface du sol de 3 h. 35 minutes à 3 h. 44 minutes et sous la terre
de 3 h. 24 minutes à 3 h. 35 minutes. Ce fut lorsque nous passâmes
la nuit dans la salle où nous avions rencontré le vieux monstre et
dans les salles situées au même niveau que nous observâmes la
moindre durée, d’où je crois pouvoir conclure que la durée
augmentait proportionnellement à la distance qui séparait de ce
niveau le lieu, — supérieur ou inférieur à lui, — où nous nous
trouvions. Le jour n’apparaît pas autrement dans la partie
souterraine du Pôle qu’à la surface, à cela près que dans les salles
et les galeries situées au-dessous du niveau dont il vient d’être
question, il ne s’élève pas du sol, mais tombe de la voûte. Quant au
jour, il dure environ seize heures trois quarts.
C’est l’observation des astres et du soleil qui a fourni aux
hommes les principes sur lesquels ils se basent pour mesurer les
temps. Mais au Pôle, le soleil est un objet inutile et l’on ne doit pas
prêter beaucoup plus d’attention aux étoiles du ciel qu’aux pierres de
la plaine. Pour diviser pratiquement la durée, le peuple du Pôle se
sert de vases d’argile plus ou moins volumineux d’où l’eau
s’échappe en minces filets. Tels vases donnent la mesure de la
cuisson des poissons, par exemple, tels autres de la nuit, tels autres
du jour. Un de ces derniers, qui sont naturellement de dimensions
considérables, a été accroché en face de la tourelle où siège le
vieux monstre. Un jour que nous avions résolu d’observer
minutieusement son manège, nous demeurâmes à côté de lui et de
son jeune compagnon jusqu’au moment où l’eau cessa de couler ;
aussitôt, s’étant baissé, il poussa un levier placé entre ses pattes ;
alors les machines cessèrent peu à peu de ronfler et en moins d’une
minute ce fut la nuit, la nuit noire que ponctuaient seulement autour
de nous les quatre yeux des monstres, luisants comme des
escarboucles.
Le plus vieux de ces deux êtres était donc un des personnages
les plus importants de la communauté polaire ; d’une défaillance,
d’un oubli ou d’une distraction de sa part risquait de résulter toute
une série de conséquences désastreuses : le froid, l’obscurité, la
suppression momentanée de l’activité individuelle et sociale, fléaux
qu’il pouvait également dispenser dans un accès de colère, par
besoin de vengeance, et même, — ce qui sur le moment ne parut
pas absurde à mon âme étourdie et bornée d’homme, — par caprice
ou par fantaisie. Combien devait être grand aux yeux des habitants
du Pôle, de ce monde où tout était produit mécaniquement, même
les conditions premières de la vie, le prestige de celui d’entre eux qui
surveillait le fonctionnement de la machine cardinale ! Apparemment,
il était pour eux un roi, peut-être même un dieu… Telles furent les
pensées qui me vinrent tout d’abord à l’esprit. Des constatations
ultérieures devaient les modifier singulièrement, ou tout au moins me
prouver que, pour prononcer ou écrire à propos de créatures si
éloignées de nous des mots comme respect, prestige, royauté,
divinité, il fallait être influencé par un présomptueux
anthropomorphisme. Il est probable (et je me contente de dire : il est
probable) que leurs notions intellectuelles ne doivent pas
essentiellement différer des nôtres, que les théorèmes géométriques
sont vrais pour eux comme pour nous, mais ce qui est sûr c’est que
leur morale et leur moralité ne rappellent en rien les confuses
collections d’habitudes héréditaires auxquelles ces termes servent
d’étiquettes dans les langages humains.
Ce monde étant clos comme une prison, le nombre de ses
habitants doit être rigoureusement limité dans l’intérêt même de la
conservation de l’espèce, et nul ne peut y vivre sans avoir une
raison expresse de vivre, sans accomplir une tâche précise et
inévitable. L’humanité est trop vaste et trop complexe pour que des
siècles ne nous séparent pas encore du jour où elle réalisera son
idéal social, si tant est qu’elle le réalise jamais ; même aux yeux des
plus optimistes nos mœurs, nos lois et nos gouvernements actuels
ne peuvent être autre chose que de grossières ébauches, sinon de
ridicules caricatures de cet idéal inaccessible ou infiniment lointain.
En revanche, dans le microcosme polaire, tout est si
merveilleusement réglé et ordonné que, devant les moindres
manifestations de son activité, on a l’impression de ce déterminisme
harmonieux qui préside aux mouvements des machines. Qu’un
organe de cette machine soit défectueux, on le supprime sans vaine
et misérable pitié et on le remplace par un autre qu’on a sous la
main, tout prêt. En effet, nous ne tardâmes pas à constater au cours
de notre exploration souterraine que certains monstres, ceux surtout
qui étaient chargés de fonctions importantes, difficiles et dont
l’exercice exigeait une certaine accoutumance, avaient toujours à
leurs côtés un « double », un compagnon immobile et attentif dont ils
ne se séparaient pas et qui était indubitablement leur successeur
éventuel.
Nous assistâmes presque consécutivement à trois suppressions
de monstres. Ils s’égorgèrent eux-mêmes, tout simplement, sans
que ceux de leurs congénères qui assistaient à cette étrange
opération parussent manifester aucun trouble. Encore une fois, sur
de tels visages, il est impossible qu’un homme lise les sentiments
avec quelque certitude ; cependant de l’attitude des victimes, de la
tranquillité avec laquelle elles allaient présenter leur gorge à une
machine d’où surgissait une sorte de poignard après un déclic
qu’elles provoquaient de leur propre main, il faut conclure que ce
droit à la vie que réclament si éperdument les humains sur la foi de
quelques-uns de leurs prophètes moraux est remplacé chez les
créatures polaires par la conviction profondément enracinée de la
nécessité de la mort en certaines circonstances.
Aussi, les vieux monstres sont-ils infiniment rares ; en ce qui me
concerne, tant que j’ai vécu parmi le peuple du Pôle, je suis à peu
près persuadé de n’en avoir rencontré qu’un. Et, à franchement
parler, si l’on excepte quelques fonctions où une grande habitude et
une extrême pondération sont les qualités requises, il est bien
évident qu’au delà d’un âge relativement peu avancé, l’individu
devient inférieur à lui-même et à sa tâche. C’est aux vieillards que,
par suite d’une inexplicable aberration, sont confiés les emplois les
plus considérables dans les sociétés humaines. Quelles ne seraient
pas la force et la vitalité d’une nation moralement et matériellement
dirigée par des hommes de moins de quarante ans ! On parlera du
respect dû aux vieillards ? Le respect consiste-t-il à les laisser
remplir avec une incapacité fatale diverses missions dont d’autres
s’acquitteraient mieux qu’eux ? Mais on se dit : Cela leur est bien dû
et, après tout, les affaires vont leur train tout de même ; laissons-les
mourir à leur poste : nul n’en souffrira !
Ainsi la gérontocratie entrave le progrès humain. Est-ce à dire
qu’il faudrait logiquement supprimer les vieillards, ou limiter la vie à
un certain âge chez les hommes comme au Pôle ? Non, puisque
l’humanité possède un domaine vaste et riche qui lui permet de
supporter des inutilités sans détriment immédiat pour elle ; il suffirait
de généraliser le système des retraites, de le rendre obligatoire au
delà d’un âge variant selon les fonctions, et de ne pas accorder à
l’impuissance d’autre importance que celle qu’elle mérite. Mais, au
Pôle, devant la nécessité de réaliser un maximum d’énergie avec un
minimum d’encombrement, il a fallu de bonne heure et probablement
de tout temps se résigner à ne laisser personne mourir de vieillesse.
Du reste, la suppression de tel ou tel monstre n’offre pas
simplement un intérêt négatif, puisque les autres tirent parti de sa
dépouille pour fabriquer de la graisse et du cuir. C’est ce qui
explique pourquoi, à première vue, nous avions pris pour la peau
même des monstres les vêtements de cuir blanc qui s’adaptent si
parfaitement à leurs corps. Certains d’entre eux conservent même le
cuir du crâne et le transforment pour leur usage personnel en une
sorte de capuchon bizarre et compliqué. Il nous parut par la suite
que c’était la parure distinctive des femelles. La coquetterie féminine
serait-elle un sentiment profond et essentiel au point de pouvoir, à
l’exclusion presque absolue de tout autre, coexister dans une
certaine mesure chez deux races radicalement différentes ?… Quant
à la graisse, bien qu’il y ait au Pôle des gisements d’huile minérale et
que les monstres n’ignorent pas l’art de l’extraire du sol, ils s’en
servent ordinairement pour adoucir les frottements des parties les
plus délicates de leurs machines. Avant de se récrier d’horreur sur
tout cela, qu’on réfléchisse que, dans la faune polaire, il ne se trouve
pas de gros animaux et que, pour produire cette graisse et ce cuir,
objets indispensables, force est au peuple du Pôle de se contenter
des éléments qu’il a sous la main.
Peu de temps après avoir quitté la salle où s’agitait la grande
bielle éblouissante, nous tombâmes dans une véritable nursery.
Sous la surveillance de quelques femelles, nous vîmes s’ébattre une
vingtaine de petits monstres qui, à notre approche, saisis d’une folle
terreur, allèrent se blottir dans le giron de leurs gardiennes ; ils
avaient des fronts énormes, disproportionnés, où rayonnaient au-
dessus de chaque œil des faisceaux de grosses veines
frémissantes ; leur peau était d’une blancheur lactée ; l’aspect de
leurs membres donnait une impression extraordinaire de fragilité,
d’inconsistance même, et malgré ma curiosité je n’osai pas
m’emparer de l’un d’eux qui, en fuyant, passa presque à portée de
ma main, par crainte de l’écraser ou de le briser. Tout autour de la
salle, — preuve définitive de la nature saurienne du peuple du Pôle,
— des œufs étaient alignés sur des appareils du genre de nos
couveuses artificielles. Leurs dimensions étaient à peu près celles
des œufs d’autruches, mais, en l’absence de tout tégument calcaire,
ils n’avaient qu’une enveloppe membraneuse bleuâtre, diaphane, à
travers laquelle apparaissait la silhouette courbe du monstre près
d’éclore.
Nous assistâmes même, deux jours plus tard, à l’éclosion en
masse de ces œufs. Les nouveau-nés, qui étaient presque
immédiatement capables d’aller et venir tout seuls, furent examinés
par dix monstres de sexes divers qui en firent un triage minutieux,
placèrent les uns dans de petites niches aménagées contre le mur,
et entassèrent sans précaution le plus grand nombre dans des
cages de fer. Ensuite, deux nouveaux monstres survinrent qui
ouvrirent un robinet aménagé dans un coin et remplirent d’eau
bouillante une bassine de métal où les cages et les petites créatures
grouillantes furent plongées sans plus de façon. Nous n’avions pu
assister à ce spectacle sans éprouver un sentiment de révolte ou
d’écœurement ; ce fut bien pis lorsque, quelques instants plus tard,
nous eûmes l’occasion de voir comment se terminait cette atroce
cérémonie.
L’animation, dans la nursery, devenait de plus en plus grande. De
toutes parts le peuple du Pôle accourait ; la salle étant à peu près
comble, quelques-uns se postèrent aux portes, en défendirent
l’accès et expulsèrent même certains des derniers venus. Quand
l’eau de deux horloges polaires qui se trouvaient au-dessus de la
bassine se fut complètement écoulée, on retira les cages de l’eau,
les jeunes monstres bouillis des cages, après quoi les assistants les
répartirent entre eux équitablement et se mirent à les manger avec
divers gestes qui exprimaient à n’en point douter la plus véhémente
satisfaction. La nuit tomba brusquement là-dessus. A la lueur de la
lanterne dont nous étions munis, nous pûmes voir arriver le vieux
monstre de la tourelle qu’on laissa entrer par faveur, sa tâche
terminée, et qui prit sa part de ce répugnant régal avec un bruit
joyeux et solennel de mâchoires.
Ce fut même, soit dit en passant, la seule circonstance où nous
eûmes l’occasion de constater au Pôle quelque chose qui
ressemblât de près ou de loin à un repas en commun. En général,
les monstres, à toute heure et sans interrompre leur travail,
grignotaient quelques bribes de poissons ou de ptérodactyles à demi
carbonisés dont ils avaient toujours une ample provision dans leurs
poches.
Je comprends que personne en lisant ce récit ne puisse se
défendre de l’horreur que j’ai ressentie moi-même. Il faut bien dire
cependant qu’il n’existe à cette horreur de légitimes raisons que
dans la mesure où nous nous plaçons à notre point de vue humain ;
et un esprit libre ou simplement sensé estimera que le point de vue
humain ne saurait représenter rien d’idéal ou d’absolu. D’abord, ce
ne sont pas à proprement parler leurs enfants que mangent les
monstres polaires ; le mot de famille (comprendraient-ils pour le
reste notre langage) ne signifierait rien pour eux. La reproduction,
dans leur société, est assurément considérée comme une mission
générale dont chaque individu doit s’acquitter en plus de sa tâche
particulière. Point de pères, de mères, ni d’enfants. Les œufs,
immédiatement après la ponte, sont remis à des fonctionnaires qui
les font éclore par des procédés mécaniques ; ils sont anonymes et
appartiennent à la collectivité. D’autre part, ne l’oublions pas, c’est
pour la race polaire une question de vie ou de mort que la population
n’excède pas un certain nombre ; il faut donc nécessairement
sacrifier quelques-uns des petits. Ceci entendu, on excusera aussi le
peuple du Pôle de laisser éclore ces condamnés à mort et de les
manger, puisqu’il se procure ainsi, pour le même prix, sans surcroît
de peine, une nourriture qu’il juge substantielle et succulente. Du
reste, pour bien montrer que certaines règles de moralité qu’on juge
volontiers éternelles et imprescriptibles varient selon les époques et
les habitudes au cœur même de la patrie humaine, je rappellerai
qu’il y a cinquante ans, chez certaines peuplades de l’Océanie,
c’était le fait d’un fils respectueux et bien élevé d’égorger son père
chargé d’ans et d’en manger la chair ingénieusement
accommodée… Bien entendu, je n’ai eu nullement l’intention d’écrire
ici un panégyrique des coutumes polaires ; je me borne à faire
constater que toutes ces coutumes sont les conséquences d’une
clairvoyante et implacable raison.
Ce fut durant une période à peu près équivalente à la durée de
huit jours terrestres que nous recueillîmes au hasard ces
observations ; naturellement, par la suite, elles se complétèrent et
s’ordonnèrent peu à peu dans mon esprit. — A présent, par suite de
cette facilité avec laquelle les monstres semblent avoir toujours pris
leur parti des actes que nous accomplissions contre leurs désirs,
nous circulions à notre gré dans le monde polaire ; les trappes, aux
heures claires comme aux heures sombres, restaient ouvertes,
mais, bien que pourvus d’une lanterne à acétylène et d’une bonne
provision de carbure, nous profitions de la nuit pour aller manger ou
dormir dans le ballon. A ce moment-là, d’ailleurs, le sous-sol du Pôle
n’offrait plus grand intérêt. Le bourdonnement des machines faisait
trêve, il n’y avait plus dans les longues galeries et les hautes salles
que du silence et de l’immobilité et tandis que, parmi les monstres,
les uns s’étendaient sur le sol pour prendre les courtes minutes de
repos dont se contente leur organisme, les autres erraient sur les
rives du fleuve en quête de plantes à cueillir, de poissons à pêcher
ou chassaient les ptérodactyles dans les cavernes de la colline.
Ce fut absolument par hasard que nous nous trouvâmes face à
face avec notre moteur, alors que le souci de le reconquérir avait été
relégué au second plan de mon esprit tout occupé de tant de
merveilles. Il était logé au fond d’une grande alvéole aménagée dans
la paroi d’une galerie où nous passions pour la première fois, et de
solides barreaux de fer scellés en plein roc et dressés parallèlement
devant lui comme les barreaux d’une cage le protégeaient contre
nos tentatives probables de rapt. Mais quelle que fût notre émotion à
sa vue, elle s’effaça presque entièrement devant celle que nous
valut la présence affolante d’une autre chose, à côté de lui…
Un crâne humain !… Oui, légèrement incliné en arrière dans un
des angles de ce réduit, un crâne humain me regardait avec les
trous de ses orbites. Ceintras, qui l’avait aperçu en même temps que
moi, immobile et incapable de prononcer une parole, le désignait du
doigt, les yeux hagards, la bouche convulsée. Lorsque je parvins à
me ressaisir, je vis également à côté du moteur et du crâne divers
produits de l’industrie humaine qui ne nous avaient pas appartenu :
un couteau, un revolver, une boussole, des fragments de l’enveloppe
d’un aérostat et d’une nacelle d’osier. Nous avions devant nous une
sorte de musée où les monstres rassemblaient tous les documents
qu’ils possédaient touchant les créatures qui, pour la deuxième fois,
leur arrivaient par les chemins du ciel. Un nom entendu jadis
réapparut brusquement dans les régions claires de ma mémoire :
— Andrée ! m’écriai-je… Ce sont les vestiges de l’expédition
Andrée…
— Je sais, je sais, j’avais compris, murmura Ceintras comme du
fond d’un cauchemar.
Puis une sinistre exaltation succédant soudain à son
accablement, il fit un bond, tendit un poing menaçant et furieux dans
le vide et hurla :
— Oui, c’est lui, et ils l’ont tué… et c’est le sort qu’ils nous
réservent… Ah ! misère de nous !…
Mais moi, c’était un sentiment plus affreux encore que la peur de
la mort qui me torturait. Je ne crois pas que le Destin ait jamais
préparé pour une créature pensante une aussi cruelle désillusion
avec autant de raffinement : j’avais sacrifié ma vie à mon rêve, et ce
sacrifice était vain… Un autre homme au moins avant moi avait foulé
ce sol, contemplé ce paysage hallucinant, ces êtres horribles et
impitoyables… J’eus un rire strident, prolongé, dont le bruit
m’épouvanta moi-même et qui me parut, en s’échappant malgré moi
de ma poitrine, froisser, déchirer, écorcher jusqu’au sang les nerfs
de ma gorge. Puis je sentis tout mon être chavirer et, m’étant
appuyé pour ne pas tomber aux barreaux de fer qui emprisonnaient
ma dernière espérance, j’éclatai en sanglots.

Textbook Doctoral Education For The Knowledge Society Convergence or Divergence in National Approaches Jung Cheol Shin Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Textbook Doctoral Education For The Knowledge Society Convergence or Divergence in National Approaches Jung Cheol Shin Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textbook Doctoral Education For The Knowledge Society Convergence or Divergence in National Approaches Jung Cheol Shin Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctoral Education for the Knowledge

Society Convergence or Divergence in

The Segmentation of Europe Convergence or Divergence

Manifesto For The Humanities Transforming Doctoral

Global Networking, Communication and Culture: Conflict

Wellbeing in Doctoral Education Insights and Guidance

International Financial Management Cheol S. Eun

Intercultural Competence in Education: Alternative

Knowledge First: Approaches in Epistemology and Mind

National Geographic Guide to National Parks of the

Jung Cheol Shin · Barbara M. Kehm

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11778

ISSN 2566-7106 ISSN 2566-8315 (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018951712

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

in Europe as part of the Bologna Process. There is obviously a need to understand

Seoul, South Korea Jung Cheol Shin

1 The Increasing Importance, Growth, and Evolution

Part I Doctoral Education in European Systems

Part II Doctoral Education in Anglo-American Systems

8 Development and Future Directions of Higher Degree

Part III Doctoral Education in East Asian Systems

Barbara M. Kehm is currently Professor of Leadership and International Strategic

Lukas Baschung Born in 1980 in Switzerland (Solothurn), Lukas Baschung stud-

Peter James Bentley is a Policy Adviser at the Innovative Research Universities,

Robin Jung-Cheng Chen is currently affiliated with National Chengchi University

Richard P. J. Freeman is Senior Lecturer in Research Methods at the Centre for

Lars Geschwind is Associate Professor in Engineering Education Policy and

Futao Huang is Professor at the Research Institute for Higher Education,

Heejin Rachel Lim is a Researcher at Research Institute of Education at the

William Locke is Reader in Higher Education Studies at the UCL Institute of

V. Lynn Meek is a Professorial Fellow and Foundation Director of the LH Martin

education at the University of Cambridge, he has over three decades experience

Christian Schneijderberg is Head of the research unit Innovation and Transfer at

Pedro Videira is a Researcher at CIPES (Center for Research in Higher Education

Jung Cheol Shin, Barbara M. Kehm, and Glen A. Jones

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 1

degree is considered a “student” in US universities, while the same individual would

1.2 Different Societal Perspectives on Doctoral Education

1.3  nowledge Society and Demands for Doctoral Degree

Table 1.2 Growth of doctoral student enrollment (2000–2015)

1.4 Competency Development in the Professional Society

1.5 Major Issues to Be Addressed in This Book

Given the tremendous changes associated with doctoral education in a rapidly

our understanding of the evolution of doctoral education across systems. It will

Antony, J. S. (2002). Reexamining doctoral student socialization and professional development:

Christian Schneijderberg and Ulrich Teichler

C. Schneijderberg (*) · U. Teichler

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 13

described by Rhoades (1991, p. 127) as consisting of “accumulating courses and

2.2  erman Traditions and the Development of Doctoral

— Attention, dit Ceintras à mon oreille, le moment critique est

You might also like

Seoul, South Korea Jung Cheol Shin

1 The Increasing Importance, Growth, and Evolution

Part I Doctoral Education in European Systems

Part II Doctoral Education in Anglo-American Systems

8 Development and Future Directions of Higher Degree

Part III Doctoral Education in East Asian Systems

1.2 Different Societal Perspectives on Doctoral Education

1.3 nowledge Society and Demands for Doctoral Degree

1.4 Competency Development in the Professional Society

1.5 Major Issues to Be Addressed in This Book

2.2 erman Traditions and the Development of Doctoral