Just as Betts and Smith, (1998: 63) defined ‘graduateness’ as making an award worthy of the title ‘degree’ so ‘doctorateness’ defines the characteristics of the doctoral award. However, the notion differs in significance depending on who uses it and how it is used. My evidence is drawn from attending 112 doctoral vivas/defence of theses, 30 years of doctoral supervision and examining, researching doctorateness, plus national (UK) involvement in doctoral education. I have identified three interlocking genres of doctorateness in doctoral education practices which, respectively, display Venn diagram characteristics. Governmental reports into higher education portray doctorateness as fulfilling strategic functions in knowledge creation, employment and skill development (Park, 2007; Emery and Metcalf, 2009). University regulatory frameworks provide operational protocols and quality assurance processes for administrators, supervisors and doctoral candidates (Park, Denicolo, Clarke and Bohrer, 2009). Examiners represent the summative assessment of doctoral activity by using scholarly criteria to judge the merit of research, personal development and the production of knowledge in a thesis or assembly of published papers (Murray, 2003:79; Trafford and Leshem, 2008: 32-52, 225). These three agencies foster doctoral identity and provide national quality assurance; however, they contain creative tensions for everyone involved with doctoral education.