Once a formative space for future researchers and a relatively protected space for the curiosity-driven pursuit of deep knowledge and mastery (Deem, 2020) (aligned with Mode 1 of knowledge production), doctoral education (DE) has been increasingly shifting its focus and reconfiguring its characteristics (Magalhães & Veiga, 2018; Sarrico, 2022).

At the beginning of the XXI century, within the scope of the Bologna Process, higher education institutions were pressured to demonstrate DE’s value in more tangible, quantifiable terms, and called upon to play a more active role in driving economic growth and innovation. To respond to the growing demands for relevance (Kyvik & Olsen, 2012) for enabling technological development and cutting-edge innovation (Jung, 2022), transnational policy discourse began influencing Higher Educations’ dynamic and the concept and design of DE (Magalhães & Veiga, 2017). As the ‘knowledge triangle’ doctoral education-research-innovation (Maassen & Stensaker, 2011; Veiga, 2023) nexus became embedded in national and institutional strategies (Magalhães & Veiga, 2018), the purpose of STEM[1] DE was reshaped to incorporate innovation-oriented goals. This provoked changes in the characteristics of the traditional model of the doctorate (Cardoso, 2024; Kehm, 2006; Nerad, 2020). In the scope of Mode 2 of knowledge production, it reconfigured to a project-based (Ylijoki, 2016) model, often accompanied by stronger ties to externally/privately funded research projects, in collaboration with industry partners (Santos & Patrício, 2020), and a growing emphasis on producing tangible outcomes (e.g. prototypes, patents, innovations with commercial value).

As DE became driven by globalisation and internationalisation, interconnected global challenges (such as sustainability and digital transformation) were placed on funding agendas and research priorities (Heitor, 2025; Letta, 2024). DE became expected to shift its focus on solving immediate context-specific problems towards focusing on integrating knowledge into complex, dynamic, interconnected ecosystems more aligned with Mode 3 of knowledge production (Carayannis et al., 2016).

Given the current ‘’new complex of uncertainty’’ (Heitor, 2025; Nowotny et al., 2001) shaped by geopolitical tensions, the call for strengthening the link between the knowledge triangle components to promote European competitiveness and sovereignty, as well as addressing global common challenges (e.g. Letta, 2024; Draghi, 2024; Heitor, 2024; Niinisto, 2024) became imperative. As such, a hybrid, adaptive, and evolving Mode 3 of knowledge production (Machado et al., 2024; Smith & Leydesdorff, 2022) is gaining traction, expanding the purposes of DE towards greater societal responsiveness and global responsibility. However, this shift does not replace Mode 2 logics; rather, it appears to coexist with (and in some cases intensify) expectations related to competitiveness, innovation and strategic utility. These tensions increasingly permeate STEM DE given this fields’ connection to dual-use knowledge, defence-related technologies and strategic innovation.

From a theoretical perspective, these dynamics are unfolding in what has been conceptualised as a shift (CDE-EUA, 2022; Heitor, 2025) towards Mode 3 of knowledge production. While DE has been analysed through the lenses of Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge production, given the current social, economic and political dynamics, it is worthwhile to analyse how Mode 3 conditions are reconfiguring the purposes and the characteristics of DE, particularly in STEM fields.

Against this background, this paper seeks to examine how the purpose and characteristics of STEM doctoral education are being reconfigured under the shift to Mode 3 knowledge production?

[1] STEM-science, technology, engineering, mathematics

By using the knowledge production modes (Carayannis et al., 2016; Gibbons et al., 2010; Nowotny et al., 2003) as analytical lens, this paper uses thematic content analysis to offer a conceptual and interpretative analysis of the influence of knowledge production shifts on STEM DE. A knowledge production mode refers to the way knowledge is produced and validated by specific groups, according to shared norms, practices and criteria of legitimacy. By providing a context that describes how societies and institutions generate and value knowledge, this lens highlights epistemological shifts and helps to identify patterns in the transitions to reveal how Mode 3 conditions may be pushing for the broadening of the purpose of STEM DE and for its reconfiguration. The dataset comprised eight purposively selected European policy and strategic documents published between 2020 and 2025, chosen because they explicitly shape doctoral education priorities, within broader research and innovation agendas. It included two European Higher Education Area ministerial communiqués, two European Commission research and innovation strategies, two doctoral education policy reports, and two Council recommendations. We used document analysis and adopted the six-phase model for the thematic analysis method by Braun and Clarke (2006). The unit of analysis consisted of policy statements, strategic priorities and recurring references to doctoral education across the documents. The thematic analysis was guided by sensitising themes (Bowen, 2019) that derived from recurring priorities identified in the texts and aligned with our research question. These were: (i) innovation ecosystems; (ii) globalisation and internationalisation; (iii) talent circulation and research career reform; and (iv) the preservation of core academic values in doctoral education. These themes guided the initial coding process, while additional subthemes emerged through iterative coding and constant comparison across documents. The analysis focuses on identifying recurring themes and patterns related to how STEM DE is framed and justified in relation to Mode 3 knowledge production.

The results signal a shift in the purpose of DE. In the current context, while fulfilling the expectations of higher education institutions of academic productivity, DE is now expected to prepare knowledge workers with advanced skills for careers in and beyond academia. DE is also expected to respond to growing demands for relevance towards producing original knowledge that fosters technological development and boosts cutting-edge innovation. Concomitantly, it is expected to align with Mode 3 and have a societal impact by addressing interconnected global challenges. In current years, the call for strengthening the knowledge triangle components gained new arguments as Europe’s economic independence and sovereignty are being challenged. DE is currently being increasingly steered to Align, Act and Accelerate Research and Innovation (Heitor, 2025) under the banner of ‘knowledge security’ to address common global challenges. In this sense, the paper explores this shift in the purpose of DE, discussing how the current expectations of DE multiple (and sometimes competing) purposes create a hybrid concept (Cardoso et al., 2024) of what DE is nowadays. The analysis also revealed that the broadening of its purposes and change of scope to consider knowledge production as strategic, is reconfiguring DE characteristics. The state’s growing entanglement in defining the priorities of research and higher education (Moser, 2025) pushes for new models of doctoral training that promote Mode 3 of knowledge production conditions. Finally, the paper discusses how these shifts and reconfigurations are undermining DE potential to cultivate critically engaged scholars who contribute to the advancement of knowledge, of DE as a public good, and the transformation of society.

Bowen,G.(2019).Sensitizing Concepts.SAGE PublicationsLtd Braun,V.&Clarke,V.(2006).Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology,3(2),77-101 Carayannis,E.,Campbell,D.,&Rhman,S.(2016).Mode 3 knowledge production:systems and systems theory,clusters and networks.Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship,5(1),17 Cardoso,S.(2024).The transformation of doctoral education:responding to the needs and expectations of society and candidates.Teaching in Higher Education,29(8),2205-2215 Cardoso,S.,Amaral, A.&Carvalho,T.(2024).The changing concept of doctoral education: an insight from Portuguese universities.Journal of Further and Higher Education,48(2),255-268 CDE-EUA.(2022).Council for Doctoral Education of the European University Association. Building the Foundations of Research–a Vision for the Future of Doctoral Education in Europe.Geneva Communiqué of the Ministerial Conference.(2024).Tirana Communiqué.Tirana:European Commission.Bologna Process Secretariat Deem, R.(2020).Rethinking Doctoral Education:University Purposes, Academic Cultures, Mental Health and the Public Good.In S.Cardoso,O.Tavares,C.Sin, &T.Carvalho (Eds.) Structural and Institutional Transformations in Doctoral Education(pp.13-42).Springer Publishing. Gibbons,M.,Limoges,C.,Nowotny,H.&Schwartzman,S.(2010).The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies.SAGE PublicationsLtd. Hasgall,A.(2025).PhD education must not be redefined via a security lens.University World News Heitor,M.(2025).Aligning, acting and accelerating Europe’s research and innovation brings new challenges and opportunities for doctoral education.Doctoral Debate. Jung, J.(2022).Imagining Doctoral Education in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.Minerva,60(4),615-632 Kehm,B.(2006).Doctoral Education in Europe:New Structures and Models.In K.Georg,K.Anna&T.Marc (Eds.)Towards a Multiversity?(pp.132-153) Kyvik,S.&Olsen,T.(2012).The relevance of doctoral training in different labour markets. Journal of Education and Work,25(2),205-224. Maassen,P.&Stensaker,B.(2011).The knowledge triangle, European higher education policy logics and policy implications.Higher Education,61(6),757-769. Machado,H.,Sartori,R.&Rosa,P.(2024).Beyond the Triple Helix Model: Scientific Production on the Quadruple and Quintuple Helix.Journal of the Knowledge Economy. Magalhães,A.&Veiga,A.(2017).The Europe of Knowledge and Doctoral Education. In C. a. W. Balaban, S (Ed.), European governance and doctoral education: The ‘knowledge worker’ in the EU (Vol4,pp.4-6) Magalhães,A.&Veiga,A.(2018).Reconfiguring education and research in the European Higher Education Area.Revista Lusófona de Educação(42),11-25. Marti,S.&Peneoasu,A.(2026).Policies in doctoral education: navigating geopolitical change and technological acceleration while advancing Europe’s society and competitiveness. 2025 EUA-CDE survey report II Moser, B.(2025).The NIH is becoming a Trump University. Nerad,M.(2020).Governmental Innovation Policies, Globalisation, and Change in Doctoral Education Worldwide:Are Doctoral Programmes Converging? In S.Cardoso,O.Tavares,C.Sin&T.Carvalho(Eds.)Structural and Institutional Transformations in Doctoral Education:Social, Political and Student Expectations(pp.43-84).Springer Publishing. Nowotny,H.,Scott,P.& Gibbons,M.(2003).'Mode 2' revisited:The new production of knowledge-Introduction.Minerva,41(3)179-194 Santos,A.,&Patrício,M.(2020). Academic culture in Doctoral Education: are companies making a difference in the experiences and practices of doctoral students in Portugal? . International Journal of Doctoral Studies,15,685-704. Sarrico,C.(2022).The expansion of doctoral education and the changing nature and purpose of the doctorate.Higher Education,84(6)1299-1315 Smith,H&Leydesdorff,L(2022).Have Quadruple and Quintuple Helices Emerged? Metaphors, Project Titles, and Empirical Research.Triple Helix,9(2)174-183. Veiga,A.(2023).European integration, alternative futures and critical engagement. In P.Zgaga,C.Balaban,M.Lim,J.Komljenovic,A.Veiga,A.M.Magalhães&J.W.Ørberg(Eds.) (Vol16,pp.88-112) Ylijoki,O.(2016).Projectification and Conflicting Temporalities in Academic Knowledge Production.Theory of Science,38(1),7-26