Strengthening Doctoral Education in Kazakhstan: A Review of the Publication Requirement Reform

Introduction
Doctoral education is increasingly recognized as a crucial driver of research and innovation, which are vital for social development and economic growth (McAlpine, 2017; Yudkevich et al., 2020). Globally, higher education institutions (HEIs) are modernizing their doctoral programs to better prepare future researchers. Innovations include international mobility, hybrid formats, and the inclusion of external committee members (Shin et al., 2018; Kehm, 2007). Despite these advancements, there is a notable gap in understanding the effectiveness of doctoral programs, especially in non-Western contexts (Lee & Boud, 2009; Maloshonok & Terentev, 2018). This proposal addresses this gap by examining Kazakhstan’s recent reforms in doctoral education, particularly the introduction of a publication requirement.

Project Background
Kazakhstan’s doctoral education reforms, driven by its entry into the Bologna process in 2010, aimed to align with European standards and enhance research capacity (Tomusk, 2011). These reforms include the implementation of PhD programs and stringent publication requirements for degree completion (Kuchumova, 2021). The government’s Strategy for Industrial-Innovative Development 2003-2015 and subsequent State Programs for the Development of Education and Science (IQAA, 2023) emphasize improving research quality and international competitiveness.
The publication requirement mandates that doctoral candidates publish 2-3 articles in international peer-reviewed journals before completing their degrees. While this aims to boost research quality, it has led to debates and challenges within the academic community (Matrica, 2021). Issues include limited research capacity among supervisees, reliance on external advisors, and unethical practices such as predatory publishing. This study seeks to investigate the implementation and impact of this requirement in Kazakhstan.

State of Current Research
Research on doctoral publication requirements is limited, especially in non-Western contexts. In Western countries, publication is often encouraged but not mandatory, except in specialized cases (Kehm, 2020). However, there is growing interest in the Chinese experience with publication requirements (Cargill et al., 2018; Horta & Li, 2023). This proposal aims to contribute to the existing body of knowledge by focusing on Kazakhstan’s approach and its implications for doctoral education globally.

Theoretical Framework
This study employs the Process Model of Policy Implementation (Bullock et al., 2021), which provides a comprehensive framework for understanding policy implementation. This model explores how policies evolve from initial ideas to final outcomes, considering the roles of context, interests, institutions, and external factors. By applying this framework, we aim to understand the publication requirement’s policy rationale, implementation processes, and outcomes at various levels.

Project Purpose
The primary objectives of this study are:
To Understand the Policy Rationale: Examine the reasons behind the introduction of the publication requirement and how it is interpreted by stakeholders.
To Analyze Implementation Mechanisms: Investigate how the requirement is implemented across different universities and the challenges encountered.
To Explore Student Experiences: Assess the impact of the requirement on doctoral students, including their experiences and challenges.
To Evaluate Impacts on Doctoral Education Quality: Determine the objective and perceived effects of the publication requirement on doctoral education quality and research capacity.
To Assess Interaction with Other Reforms: Explore how the publication requirement interacts with other publication-related reforms in research funding and faculty evaluation.

Methodology The study employed a descriptive phenomenological design to address its research questions (Lopez & Willis, 2004; Willis et al., 2016). Rooted in Husserlian philosophy (Husserl, 1970), descriptive phenomenology emphasizes understanding human experiences as they are perceived by consciousness, highlighting the subjective and lived aspects of those experiences. This approach assumes that subjective narratives can reveal universal essences or the fundamental nature of a phenomenon, making it essential to bracket preconceptions and biases to achieve an unbiased analysis. Data were collected through individual semi-structured interviews with 30 doctoral supervisors from 14 higher education institutions in Kazakhstan. A maximum variation sampling approach was employed to recruit participants from diverse backgrounds (Cohen et al., 2018). The primary inclusion criterion was that each faculty member was an active doctoral supervisor. This approach allowed us to include supervisors from different types of institutions (e.g., National, Public, or Private), across various fields of study (e.g., STEM, Social Sciences), and with a wide range of supervisory experiences. To reach potential participants, we contacted doctoral supervisors by email, using publicly accessible information from university websites. Invitation emails were sent to over 400 faculty members across 22 higher education institutions offering PhD programs. Approximately 50 faculty members responded, and ultimately, 30 supervisors agreed to participate in the interviews. Most participants represented four National Universities, which was anticipated given that these institutions receive additional state funding and support due to their special status (Kemelbayeva, 2022). Consequently, these universities offer the highest number of doctoral programs. The interviews were conducted online via Zoom, with each session lasting approximately one hour. All interviews were conducted in the local languages, Kazakh and Russian, by members of the research team. The interview recordings were transcribed and analyzed using the NVivo 13 software package.

Rationale for the Publication Requirement. The gathered data indicate that the publication requirement for obtaining a doctoral degree in Kazakhstan serves several objectives, addressing both the challenges of global integration and the goals of internal quality control. Primarily, the requirement aims to align Kazakhstani research with international standards and promote global academic integration. This is in line with Kazakhstan's adoption of the Bologna system in 2010, which was intended to ensure compliance with European educational standards. A key rationale identified is the improvement of research quality. As one interviewed supervisor observed, "At that time, there were a lot of varied articles, and many people defended their dissertations and earned titles, but not all of those articles were of particularly high quality." This concern, rooted in the earlier Soviet era, highlights the variability in article quality and underscores the need for stricter selection criteria to ensure high-quality research outputs. In addition to the direct benefits for Kazakhstan's research sector, the publication requirement also serves political and administrative functions. According to one respondent, it demonstrates the return on investment of governmental funds allocated to doctoral education by increasing research output: "The goal is to increase the number of publications in international databases, in order to report that the allocated funds have contributed to the growth in publications." This aligns with a broader objective to showcase the effectiveness of public investment in higher education.

Bullock, H.L., Lavis, J.N., Wilson, M.G. et al. (2021). Understanding the implementation of evidence-informed policies and practices from a policy perspective: a critical interpretive synthesis. Implementation Sci 16, 18 (2021). Cargill, M., Gao, X., Wang, X., & O'Connor, P. (2018). Preparing Chinese graduate students of science facing an international publication requirement for graduation: Adapting an intensive workshop approach for early-candidature use. English for Specific Purposes, 52, 13-26. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education. Routledge. Horta, H. & Li, H. (2023) Nothing but publishing: the overriding goal of PhD students in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau, Studies in Higher Education, 48:2, 263-282 Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Northwestern University Press. Kehm, B. M. (2007). Quo vadis doctoral education? New European approaches in the context of global changes. European Journal of Education, 42(3), 307-319. Kehm, B.M. (2020). Reforms of Doctoral Education in Europe and Diversification of Types. In: Cardoso, S., Tavares, O., Sin, C., Carvalho, T. (Eds.), Structural and Institutional Transformations in Doctoral Education. Issues in Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan. Kemelbayeva, S. (2022). University selectivity and returns premium: evidence from Kazakhstan. Education Economics, 30(3), 270-302. Lee, A., & Boud, D. (2009). Framing doctoral education as practice. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.), Changing Practices of Doctoral Education (pp. 10-25). Routledge. Lopez, K. A., & Willis, D. G. (2004). Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: Their contributions to nursing knowledge. Qualitative Health Research, 14(5), 726-735. Maloshonok, N., & Terentev, E. (2018). National barriers to the completion of doctoral programs at Russian universities. Higher Education. McAlpine, L. (2017). Building on success? Future challenges for doctoral education globally. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 8(2), 66-77. Shin, J. C., Kehm, B. M., & Jones, G. A. (2018). Doctoral education for the knowledge society. Springer. Tomusk, V. (2011). The Geography and Geometry of the Bologna Process: Central Asian Higher Education in the New Global Periphery. In I. Silova (Ed.), Globalization on the margins: education and postsocialist transformations in Central Asia (pp. 41-62). Information Age. Yudkevich, M., Altbach, P. G., & de Wit, H. (Eds.). (2020). Trends and issues in doctoral education: A global perspective. SAGE Publishing India. Willis, D. G., Sullivan-Bolyai, S., Knafl, K., & Cohen, M. Z. (2016). Distinguishing features and similarities between descriptive phenomenological and qualitative description research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 38(9), 1185-1204.