Historically, doctoral degrees were undertaken by students wishing to develop a career in academia, following the so-called apprenticeship model [1]. They still often remain a requirement for those who wish to rise up the university promotions ladder. However, since the 2000s, there has been a change in the way doctorates are perceived. Countries globally, realising the importance of research innovation to their development goals, began promoting doctorates through education, research, or labour market policies [2]. A few countries, such as Germany, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil, offered no-fee or reduced-fee doctorates regardless of nationality [3]. Diverse new fellowships, living cost stipends, and other funding opportunities were created in most countries, and this is the main model followed in the United Kingdom (UK). For some, this model has provided both a possible route into academia, and a way of deferring career decisions whilst having a small income. Many fellowships became institutionalized and, together with the rest of academia, commodified (that is, dominated by economic criteria [4]). Doctorates began to be seen as a pathway to greater earnings outside as well as inside academia, a way of entering the job market at a senior level. This caused a rise in their popularity globally, for example they trebled between 2004 and 2019 in China and almost doubled over this period in the UK [5]. Demand far exceeded the fellowship offerings and increasingly students self-financed.

The subsequent glut in doctorates and simultaneous changes in academia mean doctoral employment advantages are no longer guaranteed. Changes in university governance and funding, rising higher education costs, an expanding emphasis on liaison with industry or government, the increasing ‘internationalisation’ of universities [6], technological advances, the COVID-19 pandemic, and remote conferencing have forced changes in the academic skillset. Formal doctoral training and development programmes evolved to reflect some of these changes [7]. New degree formats such as the ‘professional’, also known as the ‘practice-based’ or ‘practice-led’, doctorate led to the development of taught modules for doctoral students who needed to engage with research methods while concurrently employed in professional occupations.

Whilst doctorates remain a popular route to hoped-for career advancement [8], Human Capital Theory predicts this will only be sustained if the expected benefits exceed the expected costs [9]. According to this theory, doctoral students typically go through a process of weighing up expected benefits, such as a sense of achievement and higher future earnings, against the expected direct costs of living, education, and the income they have potentially foregone while they undertake the degree. Hand in hand with these considerations, there has been a change in doctoral students’ expectations of the training and development they should receive. This needs to encapsulate continuing changes within academia and also consistently give students a competitive edge for careers outside academia. Supervisors, meanwhile, in the commodified academy, are most invested in ensuring the student obtains their doctorate, and their support is shaped by the expectations of university benchmarking and challenging workloads, as encapsulated in the Theory of Job Demands and Available Job Resources [10]. This has the potential to create tension between what the student expects and requires and what the supervisor provides. However, with careful thought, the needs of both can be suitably met. This entry explores the different possibilities.