In an era of profound social and technological change, educational research is increasingly characterised by epistemic uncertainty - where the boundaries of what is known, how it is known, and who is authorised to produce knowledge are fluid (Biesta, 2010; Knorr-Cetina, 1999). This uncertainty is particularly pronounced for internationally mobile doctoral students, who must navigate different academic traditions, institutional expectations, and shifting research paradigms while establishing themselves as legitimate knowledge producers. As doctoral researchers move across national and institutional contexts, they acquire established epistemological frameworks but also need to reinterpret, challenge and extend them in response to new academic, technological and socio-political challenges (Marginson, 2014).This study examines how international PhD students at German universities negotiate epistemic uncertainty and develop epistemic agency within epistemic habitats (Felt, 2009).
Building on the concept of epistemic living spaces (Felt, 2009), this study explores how international doctoral students at German higher education institutions negotiate epistemic uncertainty and develop epistemic agency, positioning themselves as both learners and contributors in an unpredictable academic landscape. The notion of epistemic living spaces, rooted in a co-productionist approach, emphasises the interconnectedness of science and society, where the ways in which knowledge is produced and represented are shaped by broader academic, institutional and socio-political structures (Jasanoff, 2004). For PhD students, epistemic living spaces are not static, but require constant negotiation to establish, protect, and expand spaces for intellectual and professional agency (Felt et al., 2012).
PhD mobility is shaped by institutional structures, disciplinary norms, and academic expectations that influence both the opportunities available to and the challenges faced by international doctoral students (Bauder, 2015). International doctoral students in Germany enter an academic system that differs significantly from structured doctoral programmes in other countries. Doctoral training is largely self-directed, with students engaging in supervisor-led seminars, research projects and independent study, rather than following a pre-defined coursework model. This lack of a formalised framework shapes the epistemic living spaces of international doctoral students, requiring them to construct their own intellectual and professional trajectories within the constraints of institutional, disciplinary and funding structures (Enders & Musselin, 2008).Social integration into new academic environments is another critical aspect of epistemic living spaces. PhD students need to develop strategies to navigate academic hierarchies, institutional cultures and disciplinary conventions while working towards epistemic agency (Tight, 2020). The balance between individual autonomy and institutional constraints determines the extent to which doctoral students can define their own research agendas, engage in interdisciplinary work, or challenge existing paradigms.Epistemological resources and metacognition - the ability to reflect on, regulate and adapt one's learning processes - are central to how PhD students engage with knowledge (Flavell, 1979; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). These contextual beliefs about knowledge production are developed through academic interactions, disciplinary traditions and institutional expectations (Coryell et al., 2012). The interaction between doctoral students and their supervisors is therefore crucial, as supervision influences academic integration, epistemic development, and the negotiation of research autonomy (Pyhältö, Stubb, & Lonka, 2009).In the context of epistemic living spaces, feeling intellectually and socially 'at home' in a new academic environment is crucial for doctoral success. Doctoral students must learn to navigate the often uncodified values, tacit disciplinary practices and specific institutional logics that shape contemporary research (Swan et al., 2010). This challenge is particularly acute for international doctoral students, who must reconcile different academic traditions while adapting to highly symbolic and normative regimes that govern research practices (Felt, 2009).

Epistemic agency in academic research is never predetermined or stable, but requires constant negotiation and adaptation (Felt et al., 2012). For international PhD students, epistemic agency - the ability to critically engage with, challenge and contribute to knowledge production - is shaped by multiple factors: Institutional and disciplinary constraints: Funding structures, publication pressures, and academic hierarchies shape what kinds of research can be pursued and how PhD students position themselves within their fields (Marginson, 2014; Nerad, 2010). Supervisory relationships: The degree of intellectual independence granted to doctoral students varies, affecting their ability to assert epistemic agency and establish themselves as legitimate knowledge producers (Pyhältö et al., 2009). Using a biographical-reflective narrative approach (Sigl, 2016), this study analyses in-depth interviews with international doctoral students from Asia, all of whom are pursuing doctoral studies in STEM fields at different German higher education institutions. The participants, aged between 25 and 35, come from diverse educational and professional backgrounds, reflecting the complexity of their academic journeys. Data were analysed using grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), using constant comparative analysis, facilitated by MAXQDA. Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) revealed several strategies students used to navigate epistemic uncertainty and assert epistemic agency, including Building interdisciplinary and international networks to broaden epistemic perspectives and gain alternative academic support. Seeking mentorship beyond formal supervision to counter the limitations of hierarchical academic structures. Developing metacognitive strategies for self-directed learning that foster greater autonomy in research design and execution.

This presentation, based on two published articles, identifies key factors that contribute to the development of epistemic agency among international doctoral students. Mentorship, interdisciplinary exposure, and the ability to navigate research autonomy are crucial in fostering a sense of agency. However, institutional barriers such as rigid disciplinary boundaries, bureaucratic obstacles and unequal access to academic networks remain significant constraints. The data also highlight socio-cultural factors - students with previous international educational experience or from privileged backgrounds tend to adapt more easily to the German academic system, while others face challenges related to language, work-life balance and integration into academic communities. These findings are consistent with previous research on international student mobility (Kim, 2012; Rice et al., 2012), which found that Chinese students experienced increased acculturation stress compared to Indian students due to differences in language proficiency and familiarity with Western academic norms. Furthermore, the study shows that epistemic uncertainty is not limited to intellectual adjustment, but also includes emotional and career challenges. International doctoral students have to navigate not only the uncertainties of their academic progress, but also the prospects of entering an increasingly competitive and precarious academic job market (Tight, 2020). The study calls for greater institutional support to help students develop the resilience and resourcefulness needed to cope with these uncertainties.

Bauder, H. (2015). The international mobility of researchers: Globalization and the circulation of knowledge. Geoforum, 58, 31-40. Biesta, G. (2010). Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy. Routledge. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Coryell, J. E., Roska, S. M., & Klemmer, M. (2012). Examining the role of metacognitive practices in students' academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1016-1029. Enders, J., & Musselin, C. (2008). The transformation of the doctoral education system: What challenges lie ahead? Higher Education, 56, 271-285. Felt, U. (2009). Epistemic living spaces: The co-production of knowledge and space. Journal of the Sociology of Knowledge, 25, 1-22. Felt, U., Fochler, M., & Müller, M. (2012). Epistemic living spaces and the international mobility of PhD students: Navigating the boundaries of knowledge and institutional spaces. European Educational Research Journal, 11(2), 1-19. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and learning and their role in learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140. Jasanoff, S. (2004). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Harvard University Press. Kim, Y. Y. (2012). International students’ acculturation: A review of the literature. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(3), 287-301. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press. Marginson, S. (2014). The global higher education race: Taking the measure of the world's universities. Routledge. Nerad, M. (2010). The PhD in the US: Institutionalized and internationalized. International Handbook of Higher Education, 25-44. Pyhältö, K., Stubb, J., & Lonka, K. (2009). PhD students' academic and social integration in the research community. Studies in Higher Education, 34(3), 333-349. Swan, J., Newell, S., & Robertson, M. (2010). The role of social networks in knowledge creation. Research Policy, 39(2), 278-288.