This paper examines the support structures, supervision and agency of doctoral and early career researchers (DECs) in vocational education and training (VET) across the Nordic countries. Doctoral education has been widely researched as a complex process involving academic training, identity development, student-supervisor relations, and socialisation into academic communities (Gardner, 2010). Supervision and mentoring have been seen as key to doctoral success, involving timely feedback, emotional support, regular meetings, and integration into academic life (Anttila et al., 2024; Lee, 2008). However, there is limited knowledge of why individuals pursue a doctorate related to the field of VET, what kind of support and supervision they receive, and how they navigate the challenges related to the marginalisation of VET within the broader educational research field (Teräs & Virolainen, 2018; Zoellner, 2025).  

The study explores the following research questions: 

1. In what ways can doctoral supervision, mentoring and networking support the development of research competences and a sense of belonging to academia among doctoral and early career researchers involved in vocational education research?  

2. In what ways has the position of VET within the educational research landscape shaped the professional and academic trajectories of doctoral and early-career researchers? 

Theoretically, we draw on two complementary perspectives of agency. The framework of relational agency (Edwards, 2011; Burkitt, 2016) conceptualises agency not as an individual, autonomous capacity, but rather as an interdependent, evolving process enacted through and within relations over time. This lens focuses on the co-constitutive nature of supervisor-supervisee relationships and the importance of collaborative networks for doctoral progress. Additionally, the second framework – the subject-centred socio-cultural approach (Eteläpelto et al., 2013) - highlights individuals’ active role in selecting a specific course of action, adopting positions, and making strategic decisions regarding their doctoral journey and the development of their academic identities. By integrating these complementary perspectives, our framework conceptualises the doctoral journeys of VET researchers as alternating between positions of dependence within academia’s relational networks and active agency, in which DECs influence others in their collaborative communities, make choices, and advocate for particular stances.  

The European dimension is central to this study, which calls for greater attention to VET in educational research and addresses the implications of disciplinary marginalisation on the support for early career researchers in VET. 

The study employs a mixed-methods design, combining a semi-qualitative survey with follow-up qualitative interviews. In the spring of 2025, a 20-item online survey (10 closed, 10 open-ended questions) was distributed via professional and academic networks to doctoral and early career researchers in VET across the Nordic countries. The survey collected demographic data (age, gender, country, work experience, funding), motivations for doctoral study, experiences of supervision, peer and collegial support, challenges faced, and suggestions for improvement. A total of 33 respondents participated (Finland: 11; Sweden: 8; Norway: 6; Denmark: 3; Iceland: 1). Survey respondents were invited to participate in follow-up semi-structured interviews focusing on themes emerging from the survey: supervision and support, peer networks, disciplinary belonging, and career trajectories. From November 2025 to January 2026, a total of 11 interviews were conducted in English or in Norwegian/Swedish and translated into English using generative AI tools. All participants gave informed consent at the beginning of the interview. Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was used for the interview data. After an initial round of manual, researcher-driven open coding, the preliminary codes were entered into university’s internal Microsoft Copilot to explore additional thematic patterns, overlaps, gaps, and possible sub-themes. Only anonymised, unsensitive data was entered into AI tools. Generative AI (Copilot) was used solely as a complementary analytical aid, with all interpretative decisions made by the research team. The final themes reflect the integration of manual analysis and AI-assisted analytical reflection. The study followed ethical regulations of each of the participating countries involved in the research team (Finland, Sweden and Norway), and when necessary, received approval from the necessary national or university bodies. Participation was voluntary and anonymised, and GDPR-compliant procedures were followed. Participants gave their informed consent to participate at the beginning of the survey form and before the start of the interview. The research team is composed of two doctoral researchers from Finland and Norway, and three senior researchers from Sweden, Norway and Finland. Doctoral researchers were mainly involved in the data collection and analysis, while the three senior researchers have focused on the theoretical background and overall design of the study.

Both formal and informal supervision and support structures were recognised as crucial resources for wellbeing, academic socialisation and identity development as VET scholars. According to participants’ experiences, the quality and relevance of doctoral supervision in the field of VET varies across Nordic countries. While general academic supervision is often strong, especially in research methodology or educational theory, VET-specific guidance is frequently lacking, requiring doctoral researchers to manage VET-related aspects of their research independently. The scarcity of supervisory competence in the field of VET can hinder disciplinary, professional socialisation and academic belonging. Some are introduced to and encouraged to join more formal networks such as NordYrk or VETNET through their supervisors; others have proactively found these communities themselves or through their peers. Doctoral researchers frequently compensate for this weak formal support by seeking informal mentoring, building networks and their own VET communities to learn from their peers. Many respondents report that informal peer groups (e.g., WhatsApp groups, workshops, VET conferences) provide emotional and academic support and build a sense of community for the marginalised field of VET research. Supervision, mentoring, and networking are essential for doctoral and early-career researchers. However, the marginalisation of VET research in the Nordic context, with few dedicated research groups or professorships, affects DECs’ access to VET-competent supervision resources and disciplinary communities. Although this position of VET research in the educational research landscape encourages doctoral researchers to be self-reliant, proactive, and network-oriented, some participants express feelings of isolation. The study calls for more attention on developing VET-specific supervisory competence, peer support structures, mentoring and networking opportunities to better support doctoral and early career researchers, and will presumably strengthen the research base of VET now and in the future.

Anttila, H., Pyhältö, K., & Tikkanen, L. (2024). Doctoral supervisors’ and supervisees’ perceptions on supervisory support and frequency of supervision – Do they match? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 288–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2238673 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Burkitt, I. (2016). Relational agency: Relational sociology, agency and interaction. European Journal of Social Theory, 19(3), 322–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431015591426 Edwards, A. (2011). Building common knowledge at the boundaries between professional practices: Relational agency and relational expertise in systems of distributed expertise. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(1), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.04.007 Eteläpelto, A., Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P., & Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review, 10, 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.001 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2010.11778970 Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049202 Teräs, M., & Virolainen, M. (2018). Ammatillisen koulutuksen tutkimus Suomessa ja Pohjoismaissa. Ammattikasvatuksen Aikakauskirja, 2018(2), 4–12. Zoellner, D. (2025). Theorising the status of VET from the institutional logics perspective. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 77(4), 939–957. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2024.2369846