Organizational structures for doctoral education in Portugal: Prevalence and characteristics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21814/rpe.35803Keywords:
Educação Doutoral, Estruturas organizacionais, Adaptação das universidades, Teoria institucional, PortugalAbstract
This exploratory study examines the organizational structures of Portuguese universities for doctoral education, seeking to uncover their prevalence and characteristics. Despite being recent, these structures seem to emerge as autonomous institutional arrangements, with specific models of implementation, mission, objectives, and domains of activity. They also appear to play a crucial role in legitimizing and supporting doctoral education, contributing to both its integration into university research and its structuring. Drawing on institutional theory as a theoretical lens to discuss the results, the study suggests that Portuguese universities, in implementing these organizational structures, and perhaps due to the absence of national regulation, follow European influences and trends. Normative and mimetic forces, driven by the need for legitimacy and survival in the field of higher education, seem to influence this adaptation. Although these structures contribute to improving doctoral education, their limited prevalence suggests challenges to their implementation. The study provides insights for policymakers and institutional leaders, as well as suggestions for future research on these structures.
Downloads
References
Aittola, H. (2017). Doctoral education reform in Finland: Institutionalized and individualized doctoral studies within European framework. European Journal of Higher Education, 7(3), 309–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2017.1290883
Amaral, A., & Carvalho, T. (2020). From the medieval disputation to the graduate school. In S. Cardoso, O. Tavares, C. Sin & T. Carvalho (Eds.), Structural and institutional transformations in doctoral education: Social, political and student expectations (pp. 143–173). Palgrave Macmillan.
Ambrasat, J., & Tesch, J. (2017). Structured diversity: The changing landscape of doctoral training in Germany after the introduction of structured doctoral programs. Research Evaluation, 26(4), 292–301. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx024
Ashonibare, A. A. (2022). Doctoral education in Europe: Models and propositions for transversal skill training. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 14(2), 164–170. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-03-2022-0028
Baschung, L. (2016). Identifying, characterising and assessing new practices in doctoral education. European Journal of Education, 51(4), 522–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12191
Baschung, L. (2020). How effective are doctoral schools? Organisational characteristics and related objectives. In S. Cardoso, O. Tavares, C. Sin & T. Carvalho (Eds.), Structural and institutional transformations in doctoral education: Social, political and student expectations (pp. 175–202). Palgrave Macmillan.
Cardona Mejía, L. M., Pardo del Val, M., & Dasí Coscollar, M. S. A. (2020). The institutional isomorphism in the context of organizational changes in higher education institutions. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 6(1), 61–73. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1229102
Cardoso, S., Carvalho, T., Soares, D., Santos, S., Diogo, S., & Freires, T. (2022). Do que se fala quando se fala de educação doutoral? As perspetivas das universidades e dos doutorandos portugueses. EDULOG. https://www.edulog.pt/publicacao/40
Carvalho, T. (2021). The transformation of universities in response to the imperatives of a knowledge society. In T. Aarrevaara, M. Finkelstein, G. A. Jones & J. Jung. (Eds.), Universities in the knowledge society: The nexus of national systems of innovation and higher education (pp. 15–31). Springer.
Coates, H., Croucher, G., Moore, K., Weerakkody, U., Dollinger, M., Grosemans, I., Bexley, E., & Kelly, P. (2020). Contemporary perspectives on the Australian doctorate: Framing insights to guide development. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(6), 1122–1139. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1706451
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Diogo, S., Carvalho, T., & Amaral. A. (2015). Institutionalism and organizational change. In J. Huisman, H. Boer, D. D. Dill & M. Souto-Otero (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of higher education policy and governance (pp. 114–131). Palgrave Macmillan.
Direção-Geral do Ensino Superior. (2022). Cursos e instituições. https://www.dges.gov.pt/pt/pesquisa_cursos_instituicoes
European Commission. (2011). Principles for innovative doctoral training. https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/policy_library/principles_for_innovative_doctoral_training.pdf
European University Association. (2010). Salzburg II recommendations: European universities’ achievements since 2005 in implementing the Salzburg principles. https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/salzburg%20ii%20recommendations%202010.pdf
Hasse, R., & Krücken, G. (2009). Neo-institutionalistische theorie. In G. Kneer & M. Schroer (Eds.), Handbuch soziologische theorien (pp. 237–251). Springer.
Kováts, G. (2018). The change of organizational structure of higher education institutions in Hungary: A contingency theory analysis. International Review of Social Research, 8(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.2478/irsr-2018-0009
Lachmann, D., Martius, T., Eberle, J., Landmann, M., von Kotzebue, L., Neuhaus, B., & Herzig, S. (2020). Regulations and practices of structured doctoral education in the life sciences in Germany. PloS one, 15(7), e0233415. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233415
Magalhães, A. M., & Veiga, A. (2022). European governance and doctoral education: What is “higher” in higher education?. In M. Guilherme (Ed.), A framework for critical transnational research: Advancing plurilingual, intercultural, and inter-epistemic collaboration in the academy (pp. 21–34). Routledge.
Murphy, M. (2009). Bureaucracy and its limits: Accountability and rationality in higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(6), 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690903235169
Pausits, A. (2015). The knowledge society and diversification of higher education: From the social contract to the mission of universities. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi & P. Scott (Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 267–284). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_18
Pelger, C., & Grottke, M. (2015). What about the future of the academy? Some remarks on the looming colonisation of doctoral education. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 26, 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.09.007
Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (2012). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Qin, L. (2017). Structuralization of doctoral education in Germany: An interdisciplinary comparison. European Journal of Higher Education, 7(3), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2017.1290876
Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th Ed.). Sage.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Sónia Cardoso, Teresa Carvalho
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
1. The authors preserve their authorship and grant the Portuguese Journal of Education the right to the first publication. The work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License that allows sharing the work with the acknowledgment of initial authorship and publication in this Journal.
2. The authors have the right to take additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the published version of their work (e.g. to deposit in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), acknowledging the initial authorship and publication in this Journal.
3. The authors have the permission and are stimulated to post their work online (e.g. in an institutional repository or on their personal website). They can do this at any phase of the editorial process, as it may generate productive changes, as well as increase impact and article citation (see The Open Citation Project).
The work is licensed under Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)
