definition of doctorate in education

What Is a Doctorate Degree?

A doctorate is usually the most advanced degree someone can get in an academic discipline, higher education experts say.

What Is a Doctorate?

Getty Images

It's unwise to apply to a doctoral program if you don't have a clear idea of how you might use a doctorate in your career.

In many academic disciplines, the most advanced degree one can earn is a doctorate. Doctorate degree-holders are typically regarded as authorities in their fields, and many note that a major reason for pursuing a doctorate is to increase professional credibility.

"If someone wants to be respected as an expert in their chosen field, and also wants to have a wider array of options in research, writing, publishing, teaching, administration, management, and/or private practice, a doctorate is most definitely worth considering," Don Martin, who has a Ph.D. in higher education administration , wrote in an email.

A doctoral degree is a graduate-level credential typically granted after multiple years of graduate school, with the time-to-degree varying depending on the type of doctoral program, experts say.

Earning a doctorate usually requires at least four years of effort and may entail eight years, depending on the complexity of a program's graduation requirements. It also typically requires a dissertation, a lengthy academic paper based on original research that must be vetted and approved by a panel of professors and later successfully defended before them for the doctorate to be granted.

Some jobs require a doctorate, such as certain college professor positions, says Eric Endlich, founder of Top College Consultants, an admissions consulting firm that helps neurodivergent students navigate undergraduate and graduate school admissions.

Endlich earned a Doctor of Philosophy degree, commonly known as a Ph.D., from Boston University in Massachusetts. He focused on psychology and notes that a doctoral degree is generally required to be a licensed psychologist.

"Since a Ph.D. is a research-focused degree, it can be advantageous to those seeking high-level research positions in scientific fields such as astrophysics or biotechnology," he says.

How Long it Takes to Get a Doctorate Degree

Martin, founder and CEO of Grad School Road Map, an organization that helps grad school applicants navigate the admissions process, says obtaining a doctorate is often a lengthy endeavor.

"Typically it can take between four and six years to complete any doctoral program," he says. "If comprehensive examinations and a dissertation are part of the graduation requirements, it may take a year or two longer. There is no standard amount of time – some students take seven to 10 years to finish."

Endlich says doctoral degree hopefuls should be aware that completing a dissertation may take a long time, especially if unexpected hurdles arise.

"My dissertation, for example, involved recruiting college students to complete questionnaires, and it took much longer than I anticipated to recruit enough subjects for my study," he says.

The standards for a dissertation, which include the proposal and research, are rigorous and usually involve a review and approval by a faculty committee, says Hala Madanat, vice president for research and innovation at San Diego State University in California.

"As part of dissertation requirements, some programs will require publication of the research in high-impact peer-reviewed journals," Madanat wrote in an email.

Types of Doctoral Degree Programs

According to professors and administrators of doctoral programs, there are two types of doctorates.

Doctor of Philosophy

A doctor of philosophy degree is designed to prepare people for research careers at a university or in industry, and teach students how to discover new knowledge within their academic discipline. Ph.D. degrees are offered in a wide range of academic subjects, including highly technical fields like biology , physics, math and engineering; social sciences like sociology and economics; and humanities disciplines like philosophy.

A Ph.D. is the most common degree type among tenure-track college and university faculty, who are typically expected to have a doctorate. But academia is not the only path for someone who pursues a Ph.D. It's common for individuals with biology doctorates to work as researchers in the pharmaceutical industry, and many government expert positions also require a Ph.D.

Professional or clinical doctorates

These are designed to give people the practical skills necessary to be influential leaders within a specific industry or employment setting, such as business, psychology , education or nursing . Examples of professional doctoral degrees include a Doctor of Business Administration degree, typically known as a DBA; a Doctor of Education degree, or Ed.D.; and a Doctor of Nursing Practice degree, or DNP.

A law degree, known as a juris doctor or J.D., as well as a Doctor of Medicine degree, or M.D., are also considered professional doctorates.

How to Get a Doctorate

Getting a doctorate is challenging. It ordinarily requires a series of rigorous classes in a field of study and then passage of a qualification exam in order to begin work on a dissertation, which is the final project.

Dissertations are difficult to write, says David Harpool, vice president of graduate and online programs at Newberry College in South Carolina. Some research indicates that only about half of doctoral students go on to finish their degree, and a main reason is that many never finish and successfully defend their dissertation

"Many of them are in programs that permit them to earn a master’s on the way to a doctorate," Harpool, who earned a Ph.D. from Saint Louis University in Missouri and a J.D. from the University of Missouri , wrote in an email. "The transition from mastering a discipline to creating new knowledge (or at least applying new knowledge in a different way), is difficult, even for outstanding students."

Learn about how M.D.-Ph.D. programs

There is a often a "huge shift in culture" at doctoral programs compared to undergraduate or master's level programs, says Angela Warfield, who earned a Ph.D. in English from the University of Iowa.

Doctoral professors and students have more of a collaborative relationship where they function as colleagues, she says. And there's pressure on each student to produce "significant and original research."

Many full-time doctoral students work for the school as researchers or teaching assistants throughout their program, so time management is crucial to avoid burnout. However, the dissertation "is by far the biggest battle," she says. The goal is to avoid an "ABD," she says, meaning "all but dissertation."

"In my writing group, we had two motivational slogans: 'ABD is not a degree,' and 'a good dissertation is a done dissertation,'" Warfield, now the principal consultant and founder of admissions consulting firm Compass Academics, wrote in an email.

How Are Doctorate Admissions Decisions Made?

Admissions standards for doctoral programs vary depending on the type of doctorate, experts say.

The quality of a candidate's research is a distinguishing factor in admissions decisions, Madanat says. Meanwhile, leaders of clinical and professional doctorate programs say that the quality of a prospective student's work experience matters most.

Doctoral programs typically expect students to have a strong undergraduate transcript , excellent letters of recommendation and, in some cases, high scores on the Graduate Record Examination , or GRE, Endlich says.

"The size of the programs may be relatively small, and universities need to be sure that applicants will be able to handle the demands of their programs," he says.

Because professional doctorates often require students to come up with effective solutions to systemic problems, eligibility for these doctorates is often restricted to applicants with extensive first-hand work experience with these problems, according to recipients of professional doctorates.

In contrast, it's common for Ph.D. students to begin their programs immediately after receiving an undergraduate degree. The admissions criteria at Ph.D. programs emphasize undergraduate grades, standardized test scores and research projects , and these programs don't necessarily require work experience.

Admissions decisions may also depend on available funding, says Madanat, who works with doctoral students to provide funding, workshops and faculty support to help their research.

Who Is a Good Fit for a Doctoral Program?

Doctoral degree hopefuls "should be interested in making a deep impact on their field, open-minded, eager to learn, curious, adaptable and self-motivated," Madanat says. "Doctoral programs are best suited for those whose goals are to transform and change the fields they are studying and want to make a difference in the way the world is."

Someone who loves to study a subject in great depth, can work alone or in teams, is highly motivated and wants to develop research skills may be a good candidate for a doctoral program, Endlich says.

Because of the tremendous effort and time investment involved in earning a doctorate, experts say it's foolish to apply to a doctoral program if it's unclear how you might use a doctorate in your career.

"The students are being trained with depth of knowledge in the discipline to prepare them for critical thinking beyond the current state of the field," Madanat says. "Students should consider the reasons that they are pursuing a doctoral degree and whether or not it aligns with their future professional goals, their family circumstances and finances."

Rachel D. Miller, a licensed marriage and family therapist who completed a Ph.D. degree in couples and family therapy at Adler University in Illinois in 2023, says pursuing a doctorate required her to make significant personal sacrifices because she had to take on large student loans and she needed to devote a lot of time and energy to her program. Miller says balancing work, home life and health issues with the demands of a Ph.D. program was difficult.

For some students, the financial component may be hard to overlook, Warfield notes.

"Student debt is no joke, and students pursuing graduate work are likely only compounding undergraduate debt," she says. "They need to really consider the payoff potential of the time and money sacrifice."

To offset costs, some programs are fully funded, waiving tuition and fees and providing an annual stipend. Some offer health insurance and other benefits. Students can also earn money by teaching at the university or through fellowships, but those adding more to their plate should possess strong time management skills, experts say.

"Graduate school, and higher education in general, can be brutal on your physical and mental health," Miller wrote in an email.

But Miller says the time and effort invested in her doctoral program paid off by allowing her to conduct meaningful research into the best way to provide therapy to children affected by high-conflict divorce and domestic violence. She now owns a therapy practice in Chicago.

Miller urges prospective doctoral students to reflect on whether getting a doctorate is necessary for them to achieve their dream job. "Really know yourself. Know your purpose for pursuing it, because that's what's going to help carry you through."

Searching for a grad school? Access our complete rankings of Best Graduate Schools.

30 Fully Funded Ph.D. Programs

Tags: graduate schools , education , students , academics

You May Also Like

Law school websites: what to look for.

Gabriel Kuris March 12, 2024

Are You Too Old for Medical School?

Kathleen Franco, M.D., M.S. March 12, 2024

How to Get a Great MBA Recommendation

Cole Claybourn March 8, 2024

MBA Waitlist Strategy: What to Do Next

Andrew Warner March 6, 2024

Tackling the First Year of Med School

Renee Marinelli, M.D. March 5, 2024

How to Reapply to Law School

Gabriel Kuris March 4, 2024

Work With Disabled Populations

Rachel Rizal Feb. 27, 2024

Schools That Teach Integrative Medicine

Ilana Kowarski and Cole Claybourn Feb. 27, 2024

Biggest Factors in Law School Admissions

Gabriel Kuris Feb. 26, 2024

Medical School Application Mistakes

Ilana Kowarski and Cole Claybourn Feb. 23, 2024

• Bachelor’s Degrees
• Master’s Degrees
• Doctorate Degrees
• Certificate Programs
• Nursing Degrees
• Cybersecurity
• Human Services
• Science & Mathematics
• Communication
• Liberal Arts
• Social Sciences
• Computer Science
• Admissions Overview
• Tuition and Financial Aid
• Incoming Freshman and Graduate Students
• Transfer Students
• Military Students
• International Students
• Early Access Program
• About Maryville
• Our Faculty
• Our Approach
• Our History
• Accreditation
• Tales of the Brave
• Student Support Overview
• Online Learning Tools
• Infographics

Home / Online Doctorate Degree Programs / Online Doctor of Education (EdD) — Higher Education Leadership / Doctor of Education – Higher Education Leadership Resources / What is a Doctor of Education (EdD) Program

What Is an EdD? Understanding the Doctorate of Education Program What Is an EdD? Understanding the Doctorate of Education Program What Is an EdD? Understanding the Doctorate of Education Program

Take your next brave step.

Receive information about the benefits of our programs, the courses you'll take, and what you need to apply.

Higher education institutions comprise many different departments, each with their own focus, goals, and needs. Professionals who hold a Doctor of Education (EdD) have the option to move into various leadership roles in each of these different departments. They can work in admissions, as an academic dean, or as an academic officer, to name a few. Those with EdD degrees should have a passion for higher education and want to hold positions in which they deal with the daily challenges and administrative duties of higher education.

In this article, we’ll explore the benefits of an EdD degree, how to earn one, what career options are open to those who have one, and what makes it unique.

EdD Benefits

Professionals looking to earn a doctorate and pursue a career in higher education administration are a perfect fit for an EdD program. An EdD is practice-based. It allows students to research their areas of interest and also leverage the results of their research to influence the decision-making process of an institution or organization.

Pursuing an EdD means a student will focus on identifying problems and developing strategies that can help clarify or even solve those problems. As such, an EdD program prepares students with skills in conducting qualitative research, collecting data, conducting interviews, making observations, and participating in focus groups.

It’s also valuable to note that for professionals interested in putting an advanced degree to work in as little time as possible, an EdD takes less time to earn than a PhD. On average, a PhD takes five to six years to complete, with some studies showing that students regularly take as many as eight years. On the other hand, earning an EdD generally takes between three and four years.

EdD Curriculum and Instruction

EdD students usually take courses covering a wide range of topics designed to prepare them for a career in higher education administration. They’ll learn about the workings of the academic community, including the student experience and the competitive nature of academia. They’ll learn about gathering and analyzing data and implementing strategic change in an institution.

Because graduates will be pursuing administrative careers, a course in leadership in higher education is required. This course will provide a general overview of many aspects of leadership roles, including theories, the concept of a multiple frames approach, strategic planning, and different decision-making processes and models.

EdD graduates enter a field in constant evolution. Future academic leaders must be prepared to understand, manage, and implement new ideas to evolve with the industry. Therefore, students will take a course in strategic change and innovation as part of their requirements. This course focuses on change models, barriers and resistance to change, and innovation and how that looks for the future of higher education.

EdD Careers

An EdD degree helps to prepare graduates for a range of professions in the higher learning sphere. EdD graduates learn leadership and decision-making competencies. These skills, coupled with their research and doctoral study experience, make them ideal candidates for college administration positions, such as chief academic officer (CAO) and academic dean.

CAOs are responsible for providing direction to an institution’s faculty and staff, monitoring programs, and ensuring adherence to rules and regulations. They create curricula and academic programs and are often involved in creating and implementing budgets and financial plans. CAOs ensure that their institutions are creating the best-possible environment for students, faculty, and staff.

Their hefty responsibility is reflected in a generous salary. In 2017, a CAO’s average annual salary was around $138,000, according to PayScale. The U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) predicts the profession will continue to grow steadily over the next decade.

Academic deans are responsible for managing all aspects of their respective departments, including hiring, firing, and providing budgetary oversight. Academic deans work closely with professors and other faculty members to create plans of action, execute those plans, and evaluate the results. They’re responsible for setting department and performance standards and ensuring that faculty and staff meet those standards.

According to the BLS, academic deans earned a median annual salary of $94,340 in 2018.

EdD vs. PhD in Education

An EdD is a terminal degree. It’s unique in that it’s, generally speaking, a practice-based degree rather than a research-based degree. EdD students tend to be experienced education professionals who are interested in expanding and advancing their careers in a specific direction. An EdD program is often structured to be flexible and part time to accommodate the lifestyles of already working professionals.

Professionals who plan to devote their careers mostly to research pursue the better-known PhD. The EdD better suits the needs of individuals who want to take on leadership roles in their areas of focus.

In choosing between a PhD and an EdD, it’s helpful to explore your career aims. Do you want to spend your time researching new methods and developing theoretical models focused on topics ranging from equity in education to environmental impacts on student outcomes? Or are you inclined to transform the research into solutions that can drive change in real-world academic settings and improve the lives of students?

The EdD program entails coursework that aims to prepare students with the essential knowledge to deliver practical solutions to help address some of the most critical challenges in education. Graduates can serve in leadership roles by developing the skills needed to work in higher education as teacher educators; academic advisers; or administrators, such as department deans and even college presidents.

If an EdD degree sounds as if it could be right for you, you may want to check out  Maryville University’s online Doctor of Education program .

Now that you know what a doctorate in education is all about, take the next step to learn more about potential  careers you can pursue with an EdD degree .

Recommended Reading

Tips on Landing the Job in Higher Education Administration

Trends in Higher Education

3 Solutions to Challenges in Higher Education

College Recruiter, “5 Career Trajectories for Graduates Who Earn Doctoral Degrees in Education”

Inside Higher Ed, “Ph.D. vs. Ed.D.”

Learn.org, Doctor of Education: Salary and Career Facts

Maryville University, Online Doctor of Education – Higher Education Leadership

PayScale, Average Chief Academic Officer Salary

Teach.com, EdD vs. PhD Degrees

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Postsecondary Education Administrators

Bring us your ambition and we’ll guide you along a personalized path to a quality education that’s designed to change your life.

• Future Students
• Current Students
• Faculty/Staff

Programs & Degrees

• Programs & Degrees Home
• Master's
• Undergraduate
• Professional Learning
• Student Voices

You are here

Doctoral programs.

The goal of the GSE PhD in Education is to prepare the next generation of leading education researchers. The cornerstone of the doctoral experience at the Stanford Graduate School of Education is the research apprenticeship that all students undertake, typically under the guidance of their academic advisor, but often with other Stanford faculty as well.

In this apprenticeship model, doctoral students are provided with a multi-year funding package that consists of opportunities each quarter to serve as teaching and research assistants for faculty members' courses and research projects. By this means, and in combination with the courses that they take part of their program, students are prepared over an approximately five-year period to excel as university teachers and education researchers.

The doctoral degree in Education at the GSE includes doctoral program requirements as well as a specialization, as listed below, overseen by a faculty committee from one of the GSE's three academic areas.

Doctoral programs by academic area

Curriculum studies and teacher education (cte).

• ‌ Elementary Education
• ‌ History/Social Science Education
• ‌ Learning Sciences and Technology Design
• ‌ Literacy, Language, and English Education
• ‌ Mathematics Education
• ‌ Science, Engineering and Technology Education
• ‌ Race, Inequality, and Language in Education
• ‌ Teacher Education

Developmental and Psychological Sciences (DAPS)

• ‌ Developmental and Psychological Sciences

Social Sciences, Humanities, and Interdisciplinary Policy Studies in Education (SHIPS)

• ‌ Anthropology of Education
• ‌ Economics of Education
• ‌ Education Data Science
• ‌ ‌Educational Linguistics
• ‌ Educational Policy
• ‌ Higher Education
• ‌ History of Education
• ‌ International Comparative Education
• ‌ Organizational Studies
• ‌ Philosophy of Education
• ‌ Sociology of Education

Cross-Area Specializations

Learning sciences and technology design (lstd).

LSTD allows doctoral students to study learning sciences and technology design within the context of their primary program of study (DAPS, CTE, or SHIPS).

Race, Inequality, and Language in Education (RILE)

RILE trains students to become national leaders in conducting research on how race, inequality, and language intersect to make both ineffective and effective educational opportunities. RILE allows students to specialize within their program of study (DAPS, CTE, or SHIPS).

Other academic opportunities

• ‌ Concentration in Education and Jewish Studies
• ‌ Quantitative Methods Certificate Program
• ‌ PhD Minor in Education
• ‌ Stanford Doctoral Training Program in Leadership for System-wide Inclusive Education (LSIE)
• ‌ Certificate Program in Partnership Research in Education
• ‌ Public Scholarship Collaborative

“I came to Stanford to work with faculty who value learning in informal settings and who are working to understand and design for it.”

Doctoral graduates were employed within four months of graduation

of those employed worked in organizations or roles related to education

For more information about GSE admissions and to see upcoming events and appointments:

To meet the Academic Services team:

Stanford Graduate School of Education

482 Galvez Mall Stanford, CA 94305-3096 Tel: (650) 723-2109

Improving lives through learning

• Contact Admissions
• GSE Leadership
• Site Feedback
• Web Accessibility
• Career Resources
• Faculty Open Positions
• Explore Courses
• Academic Calendar
• Office of the Registrar
• Cubberley Library
• StanfordWho
• StanfordYou

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Terms of Use
• Non-Discrimination
• Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Definition of doctorate

Examples of doctorate in a sentence.

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'doctorate.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

1570, in the meaning defined above

Dictionary Entries Near doctorate

Cite this entry.

“Doctorate.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctorate. Accessed 12 Mar. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of doctorate, more from merriam-webster on doctorate.

Nglish: Translation of doctorate for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of doctorate for Arabic Speakers

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

8 grammar terms you used to know, but forgot, homophones, homographs, and homonyms, your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, more commonly mispronounced words, popular in wordplay, 'arsy-varsy,' and other snappy reduplicatives, the words of the week - mar. 8, 10 scrabble words without any vowels, 12 more bird names that sound like insults (and sometimes are), 8 uncommon words related to love, games & quizzes.

• Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Teacher Education

Enhance your practice while remaining actively involved in classroom instruction, supervision, or professional development.

• Academic Programs

About this Program

The Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Education program enhances the professional practice of its graduates who assume the role of scholar practitioners as classroom teachers, local curriculum specialists, and other professionals actively involved in classroom instruction, supervision, or professional development in the various areas of emphasis.   

The Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Education prioritizes a practitioner focus in doctoral studies in four separate emphasis areas:  

• Early Childhood Education  
• Elementary Education  
• Secondary Education (with specializations in Social Studies Education, Mathematics Education, English Language Arts Education, or Science Education)  
• Special Education  

The Ed.D. program is designed to improve the practice of educators involved in classrooms, curriculum, or professional development.

• Participants take advanced courses in educational foundations, inquiry, analysis, and evaluation methods for real-world problems.
• They also delve into a chosen area of study.
• This program is typically completed in three years and requires 48 semester hours of coursework after a master's degree.  

The School of Education at the University of Mississippi is a member of the  Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate  (CPED), a consortium of over 80 colleges and schools of education which have committed resources to work together to advance the understanding of the contemporary doctorate in education.

Graduates of the Ed.D. program may advance to AAAA licensure.

On this Page…

Program information, program type.

Doctorate Program

Area of Study

School of Education

Ed.D. in Education

Program Location

Early Childhood Education; Elementary Education; Secondary Education; Special Education

Required Credit Hours

Degree and admissions requirements.

Applicants to the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) program must meet the following requirements:

• A Master’s degree in a related field area with a 3.0 GPA minimum from a regionally or nationally accredited college or university
• Full or Part-time employment in the field of education
• Official transcripts
• GRE scores (less than five years old with verbal, quantitative, and writing component sub-scores)
• 3 years teaching or relevant experience (letter from employer on letterhead)
• Hold or be eligible to hold a valid teaching license in the content or related area
• Two letters of recommendation signed by the recommender. Letters of recommendation should speak to the applicant's competency to conduct rigorous, scholarly work as well as the applicant's impact on his or her professional practice
• Why is this problem important?
• Discuss the potential underlying causes.
• Discuss the ways in which this problem aligns with your chosen area of specialization.
• Interview with doctoral admissions committee

How could the Ed.D. transform your future?

Median salary for K-12 School Principals in 2022.

Median salary for a Superintendent in 2024.

Median salary for a Postsecondary Education Administrator in 2023.

Median salary for Technical and Trade School Administrators in 2022.

We're here for you!

If you have any questions about the Ed.D. in Curriculum and Instruction, don't hesitate to reach out!

Dr. Michael Mott

Professor of Teacher Education

• [email protected]
• 662-346-6069

Want to stay up to date with the SoE?

Follow us on Instragram and never miss a thing!

View this profile on Instagram Ole Miss School of Education (@ olemissedschool ) • Instagram photos and videos

Explore Affordability

We have a variety of scholarships and financial aid options to help make college more affordable for you and your family.

Apply to the University of Mississippi

Are you ready to take the next step toward building your legacy?

• Online Degrees
• Tuition & Financial Aid
• Transferring Credit
• The Franklin Experience

Request Information

We're sorry.

There was an unexpected error with the form (your web browser was unable to retrieve some required data from our servers). This kind of error may occur if you have temporarily lost your internet connection. If you're able to verify that your internet connection is stable and the error persists, the Franklin University Help Desk is available to assist you at [email protected] , 614.947.6682 (local), or 1.866.435.7006 (toll free).

Just a moment while we process your submission.

Popular Posts

What is a Doctorate: Everything You Need to Know

Already have a master’s, and thinking about taking your education further? Unsure of what that actually means and what your next options may be?

The pinnacle of educational attainment is the doctoral degree. But…what exactly is a doctoral degree, what can you get your doctorate in, and what is involved in the process? Consider this your introduction to all things doctorate.

What Is A Doctorate Degree?

The doctorate degree is the most advanced degree you can earn, symbolizing that you have mastered a specific area of study, or field of profession.

The degree requires a significant level of research and articulation. Those who earn the degree must have researched a subject or topic thoroughly, conducted new research and analysis, and provided a new interpretation or solution into the field.

The doctorate positions the professional for top-tier consulting and education career considerations and advancement in their current profession, and gives them the edge to staying relevant. In many cases, completing the doctorate means achieving a lifelong personal goal.

Earning a doctorate is challenging and rewarding, but do you know what to really expect? Download this free guide for tips and insights to help you prepare for success.  

So, what types of doctorates are available?

Two Types of Doctorate Degrees

There are two major types of doctoral degrees : the research-oriented degree, and the professional application degree (also called an applied doctorate). The difference between the two types of programs may be a bit murkier than you think.

Here’s a breakdown of the two common types of doctorate programs.

The Ph.D.: A Research-Oriented Doctorate

These degrees are commonly referred to as Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.s). Some common research-oriented doctorates include the following:

• Doctor of Arts (D.A.)
• Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
• Doctor of Business Management (Ph.D)
• Doctor of Education (Ed.D.)
• Doctor of Theology (Th.D.)
• Doctor of Public Health (DPH)

“Philosophy” in this sense refers to the concept of research and pursuit of knowledge, as opposed to the actual subject of philosophy. A core component of this type of degree is the dissertation process .

The Professional Doctorate: An Application-Oriented Program

The professional doctorate (also called an applied doctorate, or terminal doctorate) is a degree that focuses on the application of a subject within real-world contexts or scenarios.

Most likely, you’ll want to pursue this type of degree if your goals include career advancement, meeting the requirements for certain high-level corporate jobs, establishing teaching credibility within industry, or building a consulting business.

Some common professional doctorates include:

• Doctor of Business Administration (DBA)
• Doctor of Healthcare Administration (DHA)
• Doctor of Professional Studies – Instructional Design Leadership
• Doctor of Finance (DPH)
• Doctor of Social Work (DSW)
• Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.)
• Juris Doctor (JD)

This type of degree may or may not require a dissertation. Unlike the academia-focused research doctorate, the curriculum of the professional doctorate will encourages you to tackle real-world issues within their field, research and present a solution.

How A Doctorate Works

The path to a doctoral degree is typically comprised of four stages of coursework: a core set of research and prep classes, a set of major area emphasis courses, electives and dissertation courses.

The Research Core

In most doctoral programs, you begin the journey to your degree with a common core of classes. The research core establishes the foundational skills you will need to complete the level of work required for the degree.

This core often includes advanced writing methods, research methodology and design, applied statistics, colloquium courses, and courses in qualitative and quantitative research and analysis.

Major Focus Area

Once the research core is complete, you will typically take courses in your major emphasis of study.

For example,

• If you’re earning a DBA ( Doctor of Business Administration ), you will likely take courses in organizational behavior, organizational systems, strategic thinking and decision making, ethics and change management.
• If you’re earning a DHA ( Doctor of Healthcare Administration ), you will likely take courses in healthcare policy and regulations, healthcare economics and finance, quality improvement and process improvement, and health information governance.
• If you’re earning a Ph.D. in Human Services, you will likely take courses in advanced study in research methods for public service, social influences of behavior, ethics in decision making, and advanced communication for the human services leader.

In most doctoral programs, you will also be required to take certain electives within your field. This helps provide a rounded worldview to apply your doctorate in real-world environments.

For example, if you’re pursuing a DPS (Doctor of Professional Studies) with an emphasis in Instructional Design Leadership , you may take a course from the DHA track if you want to apply your doctorate in the public health environment.

Dissertation Requirements

Once the foundation work, major area of focus, and electives are completed, you’ll begin working on your dissertation. That can take different forms, determined by the Ph.D. or applied doctorate.

For Ph.D. students, the dissertation is typically a five-chapter dissertation. This is commonly broken into three phases. In phase 1, you’ll submit a prospectus for approval from the dissertation committee. In phase 2, you’ll finalize the first chapters of your dissertation and begins collecting data. In phase 3, you’ll complete the writing of your dissertation and orally defend it to the program leaders.

For applied doctorate students, the dissertation may look different. In these programs, you will be required to create a solution to a real world problem.

Investigate Dissertation Structures

Since your dissertation will be a crucial hurdle to defeat, it’s important you know what you’re getting yourself into from the beginning. Do some research on dissertation structures when you’re looking at prospective schools for help narrowing down your list. Ensuring the school will do everything to help you succeed with your dissertation can make all the difference when it comes down to crunch time.

At Franklin, we’ve intentionally designed a dissertation structure to help you complete your dissertation step-by-step, beginning with your enrollment in the program . We’ve also built-in faculty mentoring and guidance, and peer-to-peer support so you’re never left to “figure it out” on your own.

For example, throughout the DHA program, you’ll develop important research skills and the necessary writing prowess to publish a dissertation as a capstone project to your studies. Your dissertation will showcase your ability to identify a topic of interest within the workplace, develop a proposed solution to a problem, and test your hypotheses in the real world.

How Long Will It Take to Earn Your Doctorate?

The answer depends on the path you choose.

The degree requires anywhere from 60 to 120 semester credit hours (or, approximately 20-40 college classes). Most Ph.D.s require the full 120 hours, while most applied doctorates are closer to the lower end of that spectrum. For example, the DBA and DHA at Franklin both require only 58 hours.

On average, a Ph.D. may take up to eight years to complete . A doctorate degree typically takes four to six years to complete—however, this timing depends on the program design, the subject area you’re studying, and the institution offering the program.

Pro Tip: Some innovative institutions, such as Franklin University, have streamlined their doctorate degree programs and offer creative transfer options. The program design, which includes an embedded dissertation and a community of support, also helps students earn their doctorate in as little as three years .

Why Choose to Earn a Doctorate?

A doctoral program is a serious commitment with a serious return on investment.

If you want to teach at a higher education institution, the degree is table stakes to get in the door. If you want industry leadership, the degree can deliver substantial credibility. And, if you’re eyeing for that top-floor corner office, the degree can be a huge differentiator.

So, which one is right for you—research or applied? Check out these five truths about Applied Doctorates .

Related Articles

Franklin University 201 S Grant Ave. Columbus , OH 43215

Local: (614) 797-4700 Toll Free: (877) 341-6300 [email protected]

Copyright 2024 Franklin University

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of doctorate in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

• associate's degree
• baccalaureate
• bachelor's degree
• first degree
• second degree
• summa cum laude

Related word

Doctorate | intermediate english, examples of doctorate, translations of doctorate.

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

white chocolate

a sweet, cream-coloured food made from cocoa butter, sugar, and milk, that is usually sold in a block

Forget doing it or forget to do it? Avoiding common mistakes with verb patterns (2)

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• English    Noun
• Intermediate    Noun
• Translations
• All translations

Add doctorate to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

Advertisement

The expansion of doctoral education and the changing nature and purpose of the doctorate

• Open access
• Published: 14 October 2022
• Volume 84 , pages 1299–1315, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Cláudia S. Sarrico 1 , 2  

8458 Accesses

26 Citations

19 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Doctorate level attainment has increased significantly in developed economies. In 2019, the average share of 25–64-year-olds with a doctorate across the OECD was around 1%. However, if current trends continue, 2.3% of today’s young adults will enter doctoral studies at some point in their life. This essay starts by describing the expansion of doctoral education. It then reflects on the causes of this growth and the consequences for the nature and purpose of the doctorate. This reflection is mostly based on published research in Higher Education in the last 50 years and the author’s work on policy analysis for the OECD on this topic. The paper finishes with a research agenda on doctoral education and the career of doctorate holders.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Increasing Importance, Growth, and Evolution of Doctoral Education

Growth and diversification of doctoral education in the united kingdom, a tale of expansion and change: major trends in doctoral training and in the doctoral population in portugal.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Doctorate level attainment has increased significantly in developed economies. In 2019, the average share of 25–64-year-olds with a doctorate across the OECD was around 1%. However, if current trends continue, it is estimated that 2.3% of today’s young adults will enter doctoral studies at some point in their life (OECD, 2019b ). This growth in doctoral level attainment has been poorly recorded and the careers of doctorate holders are not systematically tracked in most countries (graduate tracking, where it exists tends to relate to bachelor and sometimes master’s graduates, where numbers are much higher). This essay seeks to open the doorway on research into why this expansion is taking place, and what it means for all involved.

Talk about a “PhD glut” is not new. The topic was already featured in Higher Education four decades ago, in a 1982 article discussing labour market outcomes, the quality of doctoral candidates and the cost–benefit analysis of the production of more doctorate holders (Zumeta, 1982 ). Since then, concerns of an expansion in doctorate holders have not dampened growth. Demands of the knowledge economy, economic growth and innovation are frequently cited as encouraging expansion, which are bolstered by government financial incentives for universities to award doctorates and produce publications. The continued trend of expansion has fed discussion on the benefits and effects of the doctorate for the individual, organisations and society (Halse and Mowbray, 2011 ) .

The status of the doctorate today is the motivation for this reflective essay, which is grounded in the literature published in Higher Education in the last 50 years (approximately 60 articles were read on the topic in the journal for the present paper). This historical perspective is complemented by other relevant literature in the field of higher education studies (circa other 60 references were read), and the author’s participation in policy analysis regarding doctoral education, postdoctoral training and the career of doctorate holders. It analyses the reasons for the growth in doctoral level attainment and the implications of this growth. It discusses the drivers of the growth, at individual, institutional and system level. It focuses on high-level and general trends, even though we are aware of national specificities and contexts, heterogeneity in academic systems and labour markets for doctorate holders, which often mean that individual jurisdictions, and indeed some disciplines, may somewhat diverge from what is being described. The article follows from the examples of contributions to understanding the expansion of higher education from Martin Trow’s ( 1973 ) discussion of the transition from elite to mass higher education, to Simon Marginson’s ( 2016 ) reflection on high-participation systems of higher education (Cantwell et al., 2018 ).

This work focuses on the developed economies of the OECD, where doctoral education is more established. Higher education has expanded massively, but research activity (as measured by publications in indexed peer-review journals) has been, for a long time, very much concentrated in the developed economies. Of the more than 18,500 higher education institutions listed by the International Association of Universities, less than 10% of institutions had at least 50 publications indexed in Scopus, the largest bibliometric database, in the period 2007–2010. Of this small group, 82% were based in European and North-American universities, and 18% in Asia–Pacific (Sarrico & Godonoga, 2021 ), almost all based in OECD countries. The situation has changed significantly in more recent years, with de-diversification of research capacity to more countries and a growing multi-polarity of that capacity, with the notable rise of China (Marginson, 2022 ). The CWTS Leiden University Ranking 2022 includes 1318 universities from 69 countries with at least 800 Web of Science indexed publications in the period 2017–2020. Footnote 1 Nonetheless, this reflection focuses on the systems with longer established doctoral education and higher doctoral level attainment among the population.

In the conclusions, this paper offers a research agenda regarding doctoral education, postdoctoral training and the career of doctorate holders.

The expansion of doctoral education

Doctoral graduates have the highest educational attainment and are primarily trained to conduct research. Doctoral education in the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) is defined as an advanced research qualification, resulting from advanced study and original research typically offered by research-oriented universities, in both academic and professional fields, requiring the submission of work of publishable quality that is the product of original research and represents a significant contribution to knowledge in a field of study (OECD/Eurostat/UNESCO, 2015 ). Footnote 2

Statistics on doctoral level attainment presented by the World Bank data bank Footnote 3 start only in 2010. No information is available for many countries (e.g. China) and for other countries many years of data are missing (e.g. UK, Germany, France, Japan). Looking at this data set shows that in 2020 there were only 36 countries with doctoral level attainment above 0.6%, including only a few non-OECD countries (United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Malta, South Africa).

There is also no good international comparable data on the number of new doctorates being awarded in different countries. Only 5 years’ information is available for OECD countries, showing that the number of new doctorates has almost doubled in the two decades to 2017 (Fig.  1 ). Recent work underlines this growth, finding that doctoral level attainment in the OECD has increased by 25% over the 5-year period 2014–2019 (OECD, 2021a ). By comparison, research activity, a traditional occupation for doctorate holders, has grown much more slowly. Gross domestic spending on R&D, carried out by companies, research institutes, university and government laboratories grew by 18% in the last two decades (2000–2020) (OECD, 2022b ). This probably means there is not enough research activity in the economy to provide research occupations for many of the doctorate graduates being produced.

New doctorates awarded, OECD countries. Source: Auriol ( 2010 ), Auriol et al. ( 2013 ), OECD ( 2014 ), OECD ( 2019b )

The recent growth in doctorate level attainment in the OECD is well above that of tertiary education attainment: between 2014 and 2019, doctoral education grew 25% (0.93–1.16%), while tertiary education grew 12.7% (33.65–37.90%) (OECD, 2022a ). Data for countries outside the OECD is difficult to obtain, and even for the OECD there are many gaps (e.g. Japan). For instance, World Bank statistics on doctorates start in 2010 and omit many countries and many years (Fig.  2 ).

Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics (uis.unesco.org). Data as of June 2022. The percentage of population ages 25 and over that attained or completed doctoral or equivalent education. https://databank.worldbank.org/ (accessed 6 July 2022). Note: AUS, Australia; CAN, Canada; CHE, Switzerland; DEU, Germany; DNK, Denmark; FRA, France; GBR, United Kingdom; IRL, Ireland; KOR, Korea; NLD, Netherlands; PRT, Portugal; SWE, Sweden; USA, United States; ZAF, South Africa

Doctoral level attainment, selected countries.

According to the US National Science Foundation, between 2000 and 2018, the number of science and engineering doctoral degrees awarded grew on average by 9.9% per year in China, 2.0% in France, 1.4% in Germany, 5.2% in Korea, 7.1% in Spain, 5.0% in the UK and 2.8% in the USA (NSB-NSF 2022, Fig. 5, p. 8).

The doctorate is no longer an entry ticket to academia

The expansion of doctoral education seems likely to continue as governments increase funding for doctoral education in an attempt to boost competitiveness and talent pools in an internationally competitive environment. However, there are attempts to diversify away from traditional “academic doctorates” with “collaborative PhDs”, “professional doctorates”, “industrial doctorates”, or simply introducing professional development and career development opportunities. In addition, the scope of doctoral education is widening, seeking to prepare people for diverse careers and include doctorates that cross disciplinary boundaries (Powell and Green, 2007 , p. 238).

Academia can no longer employ increasing numbers of doctorate holders (OECD, 2021b ). It is unclear to what extent the labour market, especially beyond academia, is absorbing recent doctoral graduates, and how well doctoral education and postdoctoral training adequately prepare people for jobs outside academia. The debate about an “oversupply of PhDs” has reached mainstream media (The Economist, 2010 ).

New graduates surpass demand for academics at universities. A grim picture emerges of early-career academics as “cheap labour” in a “feudal system”, resting on the principles of “up or out” and “survival of the fittest” (OECD, 2021b ). Using doctoral and postdoctoral researchers to teach undergraduates also reduces the number of full-time permanent positions. Even countries with less developed higher education systems seem to have plateaued in their capacity to absorb new doctorates into permanent positions (e.g. South Africa in Mouton et al., 2021 , pp. xxiv-xxvi).

The postdoc, here defined as a fixed-term position in academia after the doctorate with no guarantee of continuation, has been the norm in many systems where permanent positions have been extremely limited (e.g. Germany and Switzerland). In other systems, entering a tenure-track with some prospect of continuation was the initial step in the academic ladder, but this has been changing over time (e.g. USA). Nonetheless, postdocs now perform a large part of university research work in many OECD academic systems, and, in some areas, the postdoc has become a de facto prerequisite to be considered for a permanent full-time job. Doctoral and postdoctoral researchers boost the research capacity of their universities and countries, but when they cannot find a job in academia, they may have difficulty transitioning to jobs outside the academic career. In some areas, the financial return on a PhD is now negative or not much different from a master’s degree, which can be attained in a fraction of the time. When controlling for self-selection into doctoral education and labour market choices after graduation, the wage premium reduces (Pedersen, 2016 ). Master’s holders accrue work experience while the doctoral researchers are pursuing their studies, increasing their relative value in the labour market. Doctorate holders may then occupy positions that only require a master’s, due to oversupply relative to the needs of the labour market, resulting in over skilling. Questions are then raised about the continuing investment in more doctoral education.

However, we know little of the career paths of doctorate holders, when and how they transition from academia to employment, and how useful their doctoral education is to their career and their life. Some may find their training so specialised that they find it difficult to find suitable work outside academia and linger there on fixed-term contracts. Some may pursue a doctorate simply for education’s sake, and enjoy the lifestyle, but in the long run they may become less satisfied, less productive and more likely to have to move to jobs beyond academia for which they had not planned.

There is a belief that there are spill over effects from knowledge being produced in universities. Nonetheless, for the individual it may not work well. People embarking on PhDs are likely to have been the best in their class, raising the question of whether a PhD is always the best use their talent. It may also be the case that the best are no longer attracted by the idea of doing a PhD, as they realise the precarity involved.

The incentives for universities and principal investigators (PIs) are not aligned with the interests of doctoral and postdoctoral researchers, who support the research endeavour and are key to keeping it going. And many governments offer funding incentives and rewards linked to performance, where the number of PhD graduates is part of the formula.

In most OECD countries, the majority of doctorate holders already work outside academia (OECD, 2015 ), and many countries have moved to a more structured environment of doctoral programmes and doctoral schools where they can offer training in skills that can be transferred to the labour market beyond academia, smoothing the transition.

The expansion of doctoral education was accompanied by changes in its nature, from an apprenticeship-type period under the supervision of a “master” to a highly structured education programme in most countries, with doctoral schools, formal processes, and a defined duration and expectations. Paradoxically, it has been accompanied by an increasingly unstructured phase of postdoctoral studies in the academic professional ladder—postdoctoral researchers are in a limbo: neither staff nor students (OECD, 2021b ), and in some fields preceded by a pre-doctoral programme of 1 to 2 years prior to entry into the doctoral programme itself. The postdoctorate position now seems to be the “apprenticeship” stage under the supervision of a senior academic, and sits between completion of the doctorate and a permanent position. A postdoctoral position was meant to be transitional and a “defined period of advanced training and mentoring in research” (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, 2014 ); instead, it became a safety net for those waiting for an academic position that is more likely than not to fail to materialise (Larson et al. ( 2013 ), Milojević et al. ( 2018 )). Institutions tend to rest their research prowess on a few tenured star researchers that head teams populated by postdoctoral and doctoral researchers (and predoctoral researchers) that feed the research endeavour. They now depend on the “permadocs” and the labour of an academic precariat to sustain it (Teixeira, 2017 ). Although many are on fixed-term contracts, they are a significant share of the research labour force, their papers obtain more citations, and they tend to publish in more prestigious journals than those on indefinite contracts (OECD, 2021b ).

This means that doctoral education and postdoctoral training is no longer necessarily a path to the professoriate. Most doctorate holders will end up working beyond academia, in business, government or the social sector—some in research occupations, although many will not. The vast majority of researchers with a doctorate in the OECD work in the higher education and the government sectors. Since in many countries, most doctorate holders work outside the academic sector, this indicates that many employed doctorate holders are not doing research. Footnote 4

The lack of positions in the academic career proper has not stopped the expansion, and many countries continue to provide incentives to universities to produce doctoral graduates and individuals to pursue doctoral studies. Under the EC-OECD STIP Compass, Footnote 5 countries mostly cite funding levers as the mechanism to increase doctoral and postdoctoral participation.

This is accompanied by a discourse that society and the economy need the advanced skills of these individuals to sustain a knowledge economy and spur innovation, and that the doctorate ought to prepare individuals for diverse careers. Employment rates of doctorate holders are systematically higher than among other tertiary level graduates in the working age population (OECD, 2015 ), but for young doctorate holders, those aged 25–34, their comparative advantage over their peers with a master’s degree tends to be more variable (OECD, 2019b ).

In addition, many doctorate graduates are not particularly young—the median age at entry is 29 on average across OECD countries (OECD, 2019b ). After a prolonged postdoctoral period in academia, many transition to employment beyond academia well into their forties, which has implications for how easy the transition will be.

The supply side strategies from governments to promote the production of doctorate holders are often not in line with demand from employment sectors beyond academia, and with the experiences of doctorate holders. Many doctorate holders that transition to employment beyond academia will not work as researchers. From a macro level, this raises the issue of inefficiency: the advanced skills of doctorate holders are not necessarily used, notably in non-research occupations (Stephan, 2012 ). It compounds the inefficiency already observed in many countries during doctoral studies, where entry rates are well above graduation rates.

For the individual, while many doctorate holders will find successful and satisfying alternative careers, they often report challenges in making the transition associated with giving up long-held ambitions of an academic career and a loss of social identity (Vitae, 2016 ). Career choices beyond academic research are mostly seen as second options, or as a signal of failure by postdoctoral researchers and their PIs and are often made quite late into the professional career of doctorate holders. Those that do transition may experience organisational culture shock, especially those who enter jobs beyond academia directly after the PhD with little or no prior work experience (Skakni et al., 2022 ).

Reasons for the growth of doctoral education

There are several explanations for the growth in doctoral education. Supply side factors relate to factors that encourage the supply of more doctorate graduates, such as policies to fund doctoral education, and reward institutions for increased production of doctorates and publications. Demand side factors increase the demand for doctorates and represent the attractiveness of doctoral education to the individual, such as the perceived career prospects, social gain or self-realisation, and to the organisations employing doctorate holders because they value their expertise and skills. Another driver is the international import of talent in a global race for competitiveness among economies.

Government policy

Governments, especially in developed economies, have embraced economic theories of the knowledge economy, targeting knowledge as fundamental to economic growth and prosperity. They have promoted postgraduate study, doctoral education and postdoctoral training to foment the development of advanced skills, knowledge generation, complex problem solving and, more generally, innovation. Research funders increasingly try to assess and incentivise the research impact of the research they fund, in terms of scientific impact, but also economic, social, cultural and environmental impact.

Funders have realised that the increased number of doctorates means they no longer will find a position in academia. Hence, policies now encourage doctoral and postdoctoral researchers to engage in some form with organisations beyond academia to encourage the next generation of researchers to explore diverse careers in other sectors (OECD, 2021b ). There is evidence, however that most continue to prefer an academic career, an attraction that often increases as students advance in their programme, even when it involves industrial contacts (Gemme & Gingras, 2012 ).

An unintended consequence of increasing the supply of research funding may be to support the aspiration to an academic career, albeit a precarious one, given the fixed-term, project-based nature of most research funding, including for those with less scientific capital and less job prospects elsewhere.

Changes in academic work

In addition to an increase supply of research funding, the nature of that funding has also changed. There is an increasing share of project-based funding relative to core basic funding, and the development of earned income streams, in addition to public appropriations and student fees, from continuing education, service provision, contract research, philanthropy and endowments. This changed academic work (Cantwell, 2011 ; Cantwell & Taylor, 2015 ), with increasing use of non-standard employment contracts and specialisation of work in both teaching and research. It gave rise to contingent instructors and postdoctoral researchers mostly dependent on fixed-term funding, to the detriment of combined teaching and research positions in the academic career proper. The expansion of doctoral education ensures a constant supply for these positions.

Demand for doctoral researchers

Even if an academic career has not become more attractive per se, given the general expansion of higher education at bachelor and master’s levels, the number of potential doctoral candidates has substantially increased. Most students pursuing a doctoral degree have a “taste for science” and are strongly attracted to an academic career, but not all (Roach & Sauermann, 2010 ). Curiously even those that had considered an alternative career often change their minds as their studies progress (Gemme and Gingras, 2012 ).

In some cases, doctoral education is also valued beyond academia. Employers of doctorate holders seem to value the technical competence of those from the hard sciences and the transferable competences from the soft sciences (Passaretta et al., 2019 ). Unemployment is generally lower for doctorate holders compared with other higher education graduates (Auriol et al., 2013 ). However, we do not know how much of this is the consequence of their doctoral education, and how much is related to their intrinsic ability to learn and work.

We know little about the companies that employ doctorate holders, but some evidence suggests that cooperation between universities and the world of business fosters the recruitment of doctorate holders, and that the effect is cumulative (Garcia-Quevedo et al., 2012 ). This suggests that fostering mobility of people and cooperation in research activities between universities and business will increase the demand for doctorate holders. However, the willingness to recruit PhDs is related to the degree of development of the economy, and especially to the R&D and technology intensity of businesses. This also explains the brain drain from less to more developed countries, as people move from less to more knowledge intensive economies.

Credentialism

Arguably, some individuals may be also searching for differentiation in a crowded graduate market in high-participation systems of higher education (Zusman, 2017 ). This form of credentialism is probably at play is some professional disciplines, such as business, public administration and health, where mid-career professionals may be using the doctorate to improve their professional status, autonomy and income rather than to respond to labour market needs or increased complexity of their jobs. Indeed, it may be also occurring in the higher education sector among other professional staff supporting students or involved in the management and administration of institutions, and operating in hybrid roles between academia and other professions. Some of these new doctorates are not compliant with existing definitions, such as the ISCED classification mentioned above, and may not be recognised as such by some organisations (see footnote 2 of this article and footnote 3 of Zusman, 2017 , regarding recognition by the National Science Foundation in the USA).

Import of international talent

On average across OECD countries, 22% of enrolled doctoral students are international or foreign students, compared to 13% at master’s level and 4% at bachelor’s (OECD, 2019b ). Doctorate holders are highly mobile and the labour market for them is globalised (Auriol, 2010 ), although mobility varies by discipline. Many countries deliver their doctorates (and increasingly their master’s) in English, although concerns about the role of minority languages are being raised in some countries, such as the Netherlands, Finland and Denmark (Powell and Green, 2007 , p. 240).

There are also issues of brain drain from poorer to richer countries, and many early-career researchers must be prepared to move to enter the academic profession. Some countries, such as the USA, rely on importing talent to feed their academic system. Migrating academics seek out better conditions in terms of salaries, quality of life, career perspectives, research organisation, balance between teaching and research, funding, and being among high-quality peers (Janger et al., 2019 ). The best, “star performers” seek the most reputable and prestigious institutions, others move to simply look for an occupation they cannot find in their home countries (Cattaneo et al., 2019 ).

Some early career researchers are indeed encouraged to have international mobility as a requisite or to improve their chances for a job in their home country (Musselin, 2004 ), although if the return is not timely reintegration can be difficult because of a loss of social capital in their home country (Cañibano et al., 2020 ).

Less developed countries like India and especially China are transitioning from being exporters of students to becoming competitors of European, North American and Australian higher education systems. It is also important to note that new doctorate holders are needed to improve the qualifications of academic staff in many systems in the developing world, where the production of doctorates has not been able to keep pace with the enrolment expansion of recent decades (Altbach et al, 2012 , p. 18).

Consequences of the growth of doctoral education

The permadoc phenomenon.

Postdoctoral training has benefits: it fosters research productivity and integration in the international scholarly community (Horta, 2009 ), while positively contributing to the possibility of working in a higher education institution and securing a tenure-track appointment. However, while taking one postdoctoral position does increase research productivity, there is little or no advantage from taking two or more (Yang and Webber, 2015 ).

Slower progression within academic careers has become more common in younger cohorts of academics, characterised by a long pre-tenure phase, with many still occupying postdoctoral positions in their forties. In some cases, this long path is even experienced by those that are recruited as assistant professors, where they may remain for most of their careers (Benz et al., 2021 ). Paradoxically, in many countries mobility from the business sector to the higher education sector is higher than the other way around (Auriol et al., 2013 ).

The emergence of the academic precariat

The early stages of the academic career are characterised by insecurity and have been so for some time now (Rosenblum & Rosenblum, 1996 ). Those outside of the career proper, on fixed-term contracts, have provided most of the instruction, and most of the research, in many systems, with no guarantee of continuing employment. The difference is that younger cohorts of academics are now faring less well in transitioning from the external to the internal labour market. Those that manage to make the transition need to be geographically mobile, self-confident and devote a high proportion of their time and effort to research and networking (Ortlieb & Weiss, 2018 ). However, not all institutions assist early-career academics with contacting colleagues abroad, provide financial support for conferences and stays abroad, and provide support with family commitments for them to be able to succeed.

Precarity also raises issues of equity, diversity and inclusion. It has been found that academics who come from the upper social class have access to higher-quality undergraduate education, subsequently progress to more prestigious research universities for doctoral education, and later report higher earnings (Chiappa & Perez Mejias, 2019 ). In addition, they can better afford the precarity associated with academia, especially in its early stages (OECD, 2021b ).

In doctoral education, as in academic employment, women are now on a parity in most fields. At the same time, women are less represented in fields that may offer more opportunities outside academia, such as engineering, manufacturing and construction, are less internationally mobile, and more often work part-time, which may hinder their prospects for advancement in the academic career. Women are also under-represented in tenure track positions, particularly when recruitment is based on invitation. All these factors may explain why women and minority groups tend to be more vulnerable to precarity (OECD, 2021b ).

To find a position, postdoctoral researchers often need to be prepared to move within and increasingly beyond their countries. This may be beneficial for the scientific endeavour, as less mobile academics have more inward oriented information exchange dynamics and lower scientific productivity (Horta, 2013 ), but it often signifies a personal toll. It often means losing the social networks necessary to access positions back home, and conditions for international researchers are often worse, in relation to access to employment contracts, right to stay and welfare benefits. It may also mean having to postpone family formation.

Academia may no longer be attractive to the most talented

The poor career prospects of academia do not cause a shortage of academic researchers, but may push the most talented to jobs beyond academia (Waaijer, 2017 ). Doctorate holders working in research are particularly satisfied with the intellectual challenges of the job (Auriol et al., 2013 ). However, younger doctorate holders in higher education are about 2.5 times less likely to be employed on a permanent basis than those working in other sectors (OECD, 2019a , p. 186). While temporary positions are increasingly common in academia, coinciding with the rise of postdoctoral positions, they are less so in business. Earnings also tend to be higher in the business sector, although there are exceptions in some disciplines (Auriol et al., 2013 ). Natural scientists and engineers are more likely to find employment in research outside academia, while social scientists find more opportunities in non-research occupations. Still, even when not in research, jobs are in most cases related to the subject of doctoral degrees and doctoral graduates tend to be satisfied with their employment situation (Auriol et al., 2013 ).

If academia is to attract and retain the best talent, funding agencies need to have dedicated provision for early career researchers, who otherwise leave for more stable and promising careers beyond academia (Bazeley, 2003 ). And should countries continue to produce more doctorate holders than academia can possibly absorb, then it is important to broaden the job skills that doctoral students acquire during their training to better prepare them for the needs of a wider job market (Cattaneo et al., 2019 ).

Questions about the quality of doctoral education

Despite the growth in doctoral level attainment, the truth is that many doctoral candidates do not complete their degrees: looking at the OECD entry rate for those under 30 and the graduation rates for those under 35, an estimated 1 in 3 drop out. Footnote 6 There are many reasons for withdrawal, including the personal situation of the candidate, but institutional factors are paramount. Institutional issues revolve around the difficulty in achieving work-life balance, and problems with socialisation, often due to a “culture of institutional neglect” (Castelló et al., 2017 ; McAlpine et al., 2012 ), as well as contact with the supervisor and exchange with other PhDs (Jaksztat et al., 2021 ). In addition, admission standards of doctoral programmes may not necessarily pursue high-quality doctoral students (Cattaneo et al., 2019 ) .

The increase in doctorate level attainment does not necessarily mean that all attain what is planned in the definition of International Standard Classification of Education for doctoral level attainment (OECD/Eurostat/UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2015 ) or the Dublin Descriptors (EHEA, 2005 ). The current level of doctoral education attainment in the population, at 1.0%, may not be matched by the level of advanced skills in the population. Less than 0.5% of the adult population in the OECD reaches the highest levels of literacy, i.e. 5 in a scale of 1 to 5, where 3 is considered the necessary level to operate in today’s society and assumed to be provided by upper secondary education (OECD, 2019c ). Level 5 description of proficiency Footnote 7 is arguably the closest to the description of outcomes achieved in doctoral level education in the Dublin Descriptors. Footnote 8

Often, doctorate holders that find themselves in employment outside academia experience an over-development of research skills relative to what is required of the job, but an under-development in personal effectiveness, management and communication skills (Waaijer et al., 2017 ), which means they may be both over- and under-qualified. These findings call for doctoral education to include not only the development of research skills but also skills in other areas relevant to the labour market. However, the premise that education should provide all the skills that the labour market requires is not universally supported. Employers are also responsible for training and developing the employees they recruit, and that responsibility should not be fully transferred from employers to the employee or education institutions (Cappelli, 2015 ).

The changing nature of doctoral education

As it has grown doctoral education has become more formalised, supervisory practice more regulated and the curriculum more explicitly structured. On the other hand, growth has also brought diversity of approaches to doctoral education, in response to evolving disciplinary practices, interactions with outside organisations and the career expectations of doctoral researchers (Pearson et al., 2008 ).

Following the crisis discourse that universities are producing too many doctorates for the few academic jobs available, the concerns with the efficiency of doctoral programmes have shifted to preoccupation with the lack of skills of doctorate holders for productive jobs beyond academia (Cuthbert & Molla, 2015 ; Kniola et al., 2012 ). This discourse presents the inevitable tension between outcomes of research prowess and the relevance of doctorates to the needs of society.

New cooperative doctoral programmes between academia and industry have emerged, which place new demands for both academia and industry, as it involves necessarily the interaction between different cultures, that need to be addressed, and that are different from other more traditional forms of knowledge transfer between academia and industry (Salminen-Karlsson & Wallgren, 2008 ). Preoccupation with the value of the doctorate to industry became common in all disciplines. In addition, doctoral researchers have also become more diverse. Many doctoral candidates are not in their twenties and have pre-existing professional experience, particularly in occupation-oriented disciplines, including in the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (HASS) (Bazeley, 2003 ). They see value in engaging with industry, within and beyond the private commercial sector (Barnacle et al., 2020 ). And in some systems, especially in applied disciplines, doctorate holders leave academia, gain professional experience, and convert that practical capital into a tenured position, or maintain parallel careers in both the corporate and academic worlds (Benz et al., 2021 ).

The calls to change doctoral education are not new (Pearson, 1996 ), and the professionalisation of doctoral education both for jobs in academia and beyond is now a perennial discussion. Enders ( 2005 ) describes the shifting paradigms for doctoral training away from the traditional so-called Humboldtian model towards the so-called professional model. On the one hand, some defend that the traditional discipline-based doctoral training is sufficiently comprehensive to accommodate the new needs of knowledge production, others that new modes of doctoral training are needed that cross discipline and organisational borders. Enders ( 2005 ) makes a compelling case that diversity of organisational and structural forms as well as different validation criteria and procedures will probably determine the future face of research training. Instead of a single role model, it would be more appropriate to recognise and value a multi-functional role of the PhD by a diversity of training approaches, i.e. one size fits all approach is not adequate.

Along the same lines Mills and James ( 2020 ) argue that doctoral collaborations with non-academic organisations (such as placements and internships, partnerships and knowledge exchange) have expanded from the hard sciences to become a feature in the social sciences as well. It does, however, raise important challenges regarding how the questioning and critique characteristic of doctoral education is met through the learning opportunities of collaborative arrangements. How these challenges are addressed and made integral to doctoral education in the social sciences is not clear.

It is not just preparation for a career outside academia that is at stake. Even preparation for an academic career needs to be wider. Coates and Goedegebuure ( 2012 ) call for “apprentice academics” to have some training and experience in several functional areas, such as research, education, integration, application, and leadership and management to prepare them for academic work. Coates et al. ( 2020 ) even question the binary categorisation of research and professional doctorates, calling for a re-design of doctoral education to accommodate the growth and diversity of this offer that is preparing people for different career trajectories.

Gu et al. ( 2018 ) have also found that the career expectations of doctoral researchers change over time, are influenced by doctoral training in their university environment, their relationships with supervisors, and their experiences of collaboration with organisations outside academia. Doctoral researchers show dissatisfaction with doctoral training that does not encourage and prepare them for diverse career paths. As such, they also conclude that the goal of doctoral training should not only be the reproduction of “academic successors” but also the cultivation of “versatile experts”.

Conclusion and a research agenda on doctoral education

Enders ( 2005 ) points out that since we must train people for the world of research, we need to ask for what “research”, and since we must train people for the world of work outside academia and science as well, then for which job roles and career trajectories should we prepare them. To answer these questions, we need to study the career paths of doctorate holders.

There is a dearth of cross-country comparative data on doctorate holders and their career paths, even though some countries already have very good longitudinal data (e.g. Survey of Earned Doctorates in the USA). Some international comparable data has been produced by the OECD-Eurostat project on the career of doctorate holders. However, that project has been discontinued, and a specific module whose purpose was to gather data on the working conditions of those who are on temporary or short-term contracts, i.e. “post-doctorates” was never implemented (Auriol, 2012 ).

Universities ought to be more transparent from the beginning of doctoral education about the diverse career paths of their doctoral graduates, and that most will not secure an academic position. The integration of research-related work experience and placements outside academia, professional development, and training of supervisors, may reduce the stigma and difficulty of transitioning to diverse careers within and beyond academia (Hancock, 2019 ). However, it is also difficult to conceive that higher education ought to take full responsibility for developing the skills that employers of doctorate holders may want, instead of the latter contributing to the professional development of the employees they recruit (Cappelli, 2015 ).

From the reflections contained in this essay, several issues emerge that merit additional further research:

What is the role of doctorate holders in the economy and society? Do they follow research careers, in what sectors of employment, in what fields of research?

How many doctorates are needed? Do we have too many or too few doctorate holders?

Why do people pursue doctoral education and postdoctoral training? What information do they possess about their job prospects, and how does that influence their career preferences?

How to better support success in doctoral education? In what ways different academic career frameworks support the careers of doctorate holders within and beyond academia?

What are the barriers and promoters of intersectoral mobility of doctorate holders? Why do doctorate holders chose a career in the higher education, government, business enterprise or private non-profit sectors? Why do they stay or leave research? When do doctorate holders transition to employment beyond academia? How does the job relate to their doctoral degree?

How to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in doctoral education and postdoctoral training?

Data availability

Not applicable.

Code availability

CWTS Leiden Ranking provides bibliometric indicators on over 1,300 universities worldwide, https://www.leidenranking.com/ (accessed 22 August 2022).

This definition includes doctorates referred by different terms, such as PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc and LL.D, with a significant component of original research work, but it excludes professional practice qualifications which include the word “doctor”, such a M.D. (medical doctor) and J.D. (juris doctor), which are graduate-entry professional degrees with no substantive original research work.

The World Bank’s DataBank is an analysis and visualisation tool that contains collections of time series data on a variety of topics, including higher education, https://databank.worldbank.org (accessed 7 July 2022).

See R&D personnel by sector of employment and qualification in the OECD Research and Development Statistics ( http://oe.cd/rds ), and distribution of doctorate holders by economic activity in the OECD work on careers of doctorate holders ( http://oe.cd/cdh ).

STIP Compass is a joint initiative of the European Commission (EC) and the OECD that aims to collect in one place qualitative and quantitative data on national trends in science, technology and innovation (STI) policy, https://stip.oecd.org/stip/ (accessed 7 July 2022) The statement here refers to the answer to the question on policies supporting doctoral education.

Entry and graduation rates represent an estimated percentage of an age group expected to enter or graduate, respectively, a certain level of education at least once in their lifetime. The OECD entry rate for those under 30 was 1.407% whereas graduation rate for those under 35 was only 1.074% for doctoral education in 2019. Data extracted on 25 Jul 2022 08:27 UTC (GMT) from OECD.Stat.

At this level, tasks may require the respondent to search for and integrate information across multiple, dense texts; construct syntheses of similar and contrasting ideas or points of view; or evaluate evidence-based arguments. Application and evaluation of logical and conceptual models of ideas may be required to accomplish tasks. Evaluating the reliability of evidentiary sources and selecting key information is frequently a requirement. Tasks often require respondents to be aware of subtle, rhetorical cues and to make high-level inferences or use specialised background knowledge.

Qualifications that signify completion of the third cycle are awarded to students who: have demonstrated a systematic understanding of a field of study and mastery of the skills and methods of research associated with that field; have demonstrated the ability to conceive, design, implement and adapt a substantial process of research with scholarly integrity; have made a contribution through original research that extends the frontier of knowledge by developing a substantial body of work, some of which merits national or international refereed publication; are capable of critical analysis, evaluation and synthesis of new and complex ideas; can communicate with their peers, the larger scholarly community and with society in general about their areas of expertise; can be expected to be able to promote, within academic and professional contexts, technological, social or cultural advancement in a knowledge-based society.

Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., Yudkevich, M., Androushchak, G., & Pacheco, I. F. (Eds.). (2012). Paying the professoriate . Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Auriol, L. (2010), "Careers of doctorate holders: Employment and mobility patterns",  OECD science, technology and industry working papers , No. 2010/04, OECD Publishing, Paris.  https://doi.org/10.1787/5kmh8phxvvf5-en

Auriol, L., M. Schaaper and B. Felix (2012), "Mapping careers and mobility of doctorate holders: Draft guidelines, model questionnaire and indicators – Third edition",  OECD science, technology and industry working papers , No. 2012/07, OECD Publishing, Paris.  https://doi.org/10.1787/5k4dnq2h4n5c-en

Auriol, L., M. Misu and R. Freeman (2013), “Careers of doctorate holders: Analysis of labour market and mobility indicators” , OECD science, technology and industry working papers , No. 2013/4, OECD Publishing, Paris.  https://doi.org/10.1787/5k43nxgs289w-en

Barnacle, R., Cuthbert, D., Schmidt, C., et al. (2020). Vectors of knowledge exchange: The value of industry engagement to HASS PhDs. Higher Education, 80 , 973–987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00528-z

Article   Google Scholar  

Bazeley, P. (2003). Defining ‘early career’ in research. Higher Education, 45 , 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022698529612

Benz, P., Bühlmann, F., & Mach, A. (2021). The transformation of professors’ careers: Standardization, hybridization, and acceleration? Higher Education, 81 , 967–985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00590-7

Bryan, K. A. (2019). Young “stars” in economics: What they do and where they go. Economic Inquiry, 57 (3), 1392–1407. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12762

Cañibano, C., D’Este, P., Otamendi, F. J., et al. (2020). Scientific careers and the mobility of European researchers: An analysis of international mobility by career stage. Higher Education, 80 , 1175–1193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00536-z

Cantwell, B., Marginson, S., & Smolentseva, A. (Eds.). (2018). High participation systems of higher education . Oxford University Press.

Cantwell, B., & Taylor, B. J. (2015). Rise of the science and engineering postdoctorate and the restructuring of academic research. The Journal of Higher Education, 86 (5), 667–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2015.11777379

Cantwell, B. (2011). Academic in-sourcing: International postdoctoral employment and new modes of academic production. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33 (2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2011.550032

Cappelli, P. H. (2015). Skill gaps, skill shortages, and skill mismatches: Evidence and arguments for the United States. ILR Review, 68 (2), 251–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793914564961

Castelló, M., Pardo, M., Sala-Bubaré, A., et al. (2017). Why do students consider dropping out of doctoral degrees? Institutional and Personal Factors. High Educ, 74 , 1053–1068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0106-9

Cattaneo, M., Malighetti, P., & Paleari, S. (2019). The Italian brain drain: Cream and milk. Higher Education, 77 , 603–622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0292-8

Chiappa, R., & Perez Mejias, P. (2019). Unfolding the direct and indirect effects of social class of origin on faculty income. Higher Education, 78 , 529–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-0356-4

Coates, H., Croucher, G., Weerakkody, U., et al. (2020). An education design architecture for the future Australian doctorate. Higher Education, 79 , 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00397-1

Coates, H., & Goedegebuure, L. (2012). Recasting the academic workforce: Why the attractiveness of the academic profession needs to be increased and eight possible strategies for how to go about this from an Australian perspective. Higher Education, 64 , 875–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9534-3

Cuthbert, D., & Molla, T. (2015). PhD crisis discourse: A critical approach to the framing of the problem and some Australian ‘solutions.’ Higher Education, 69 , 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9760-y

EHEA (2005) General report to the Bologna Follow-Up Group to the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education - Bergen 19/20 May 2005. http://ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2005_Bergen/37/9/2005_Bergen_BFUG_Report_577379.pdf (accessed 24/01/2022).

Enders, J. (2005). Border crossings: Research training, knowledge dissemination and the transformation of academic work. Higher Education, 49 , 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-2917-3

Garcia-Quevedo, J., Mas-Verdú, F., & Polo-Otero, J. (2012). Which firms want PhDs? An analysis of the determinants of the demand. Higher Education, 63 , 607–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9461-8

Gemme, B., & Gingras, Y. (2012). Academic careers for graduate students: A strong attractor in a changed environment. Higher Education, 63 , 667–683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9466-3

Gokhberg L., Shmatko N., Auriol L. (2016) Rethinking the doctoral degrees in the changing labor market context. In: Gokhberg L., Shmatko N., Auriol L. (eds) The science and technology labor force. Science, technology and innovation studies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27210-8_1

Gu, J., Levin, J. S., & Luo, Y. (2018). Reproducing, “academic successors” or cultivating “versatile experts”: Influences of doctoral training on career expectations of Chinese PhD students. Higher Education, 76 , 427–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0218-x

Halse, C., & Mowbray, S. (2011). The impact of the doctorate. Studies in Higher Education, 36 (5), 513–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.594590

Hancock, S. (2019). A future in the knowledge economy? Analysing the career strategies of doctoral scientists through the principles of game theory. Higher Education, 78 , 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0329-z

Horta, H. (2013). Deepening our understanding of academic inbreeding effects on research information exchange and scientific output: New insights for academic based research. Higher Education, 65 , 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9559-7

Horta, H. (2009). Holding a postdoctoral position before becoming a faculty member: Does it bring benefits for the scholarly enterprise? Higher Education, 58 , 689–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9221-1

Jaksztat, S., Neugebauer, M., & Brandt, G. (2021). Back out or hang on? An event history analysis of withdrawal from doctoral education in Germany. Higher Education, 82 , 937–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00683-x

Janger, J., Campbell, D. F. J., & Strauss, A. (2019). Attractiveness of jobs in academia: A cross-country perspective. Higher Education, 78 , 991–1010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00383-7

Kniola, D., Chang, M., & Olsen, D. (2012). Transformative graduate education programs: An analysis of impact on STEM and non-STEM Ph.D. completion. High Educ, 63 , 473–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9453-8

Larson, R., Ghaffarzadegan, N., & Xue, Y. (2013). Too many PhD graduates or too few academic job openings: The basic reproductive number R0 in academia. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31 (6), 745–750. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2210

Marginson, S. (2016). High participation systems of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 87 (2), 243–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.11777401

Marginson, S. (2022). Global science and national comparisons: Beyond bibliometrics and scientometrics. Comparative Education, 58 (2), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2021.1981725

McAlpine, L., Paulson, J., Gonsalves, A., & Jazvac-Martek, M. (2012). ‘Untold’ doctoral stories: Can we move beyond cultural narratives of neglect? Higher Education Research & Development, 31 (4), 511–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.55999

Mills, D., & James, D. (2020). Reconceptualising organisational collaborations in social science doctoral education. Higher Education, 79 , 791–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00438-9

Milojević, S., Radicchi, F., & Walsh, J. (2018). Changing demographics of scientific careers: The rise of the temporary workforce. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115 (50), 12616–12623. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800478115

Mouton, J., van Lill, M., Prozesky, H., Bailey, T., Duncan, M., Boshoff, N., Albertyn, C. & Treptow, R. 2021. A national tracer study of doctoral graduates in South Africa . Report to the Water Research Commission. DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and Science, Technology and Innovation Policy. Project No. 2019/2020–00288. https://www.wrc.org.za/wp-content/uploads/mdocs/3006%20final.pdf .

Musselin, C. (2004). Towards a European academic labour market? Some lessons drawn from empirical studies on academic mobility. Higher Education, 48 , 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000033770.24848.41

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2014. The postdoctoral experience revisited . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18982 .

National Science Board, National Science Foundation. 2022. Science and engineering indicators 2022: The state of U.S. science and engineering . NSB-2022–1. Alexandria, VA. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20221

OECD (2014), "Who are the doctorate holders and where do their qualifications lead them?", Education indicators in focus, No. 25, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxv8xsvp1g2-en

OECD. (2015). “Doctorate holders”, in OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2015: Innovation for growth and society . OECD Publishing, Paris . https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_scoreboard-2015-10-en

OECD. (2019a). Benchmarking higher education system performance. Higher Education, OECD Publishing, Paris . https://doi.org/10.1787/be5514d7-en

OECD. (2019b). “What are the characteristics and outcomes of doctoral graduates?”, in Education at a glance 2019: OECD indicators . OECD Publishing, Paris . https://doi.org/10.1787/8389c70e-en

OECD. (2019c). Skills matter: Additional results from the survey of adult skills. OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris . https://doi.org/10.1787/1f029d8f-en

OECD. (2021a). “Challenges and new demands on the academic research workforce”, in OECD science, technology and innovation outlook 2021: Times of crisis and opportunity. OECD Publishing, Paris . https://doi.org/10.1787/72f6f879-en

OECD (2021b), "Reducing the precarity of academic research careers", OECD science, technology and industry policy papers , No. 113, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/0f8bd468-en

OECD (2022a), Adult education level (indicator).  https://doi.org/10.1787/36bce3fe-en (Accessed on 24 January 2022a).

OECD (2022b), Gross domestic spending on R&D (indicator).  https://doi.org/10.1787/d8b068b4-en (Accessed on 07 July 2022b).

OECD/Eurostat/UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2015). “ISCED 2011 level 8: Doctoral or equivalent level”, in ISCED 2011 operational manual: Guidelines for classifying national education programmes and related qualifications . OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264228368-13-en

Ortlieb, R., & Weiss, S. (2018). What makes academic careers less insecure? The role of individual-level antecedents. Higher Education, 76 , 571–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0226-x

Passaretta, G., Trivellato, P., & Triventi, M. (2019). Between academia and labour market—The occupational outcomes of PhD graduates in a period of academic reforms and economic crisis. Higher Education, 77 , 541–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0288-4

Pearson, M. (1996). Professionalising Ph.D. education to enhance the quality of the student experience. Higher Education, 32 , 303–320.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138869

Pearson, M., Evans, T., & Macauley, P. (2008). Growth and diversity in doctoral education: Assessing the Australian experience. Higher Education, 55 , 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9059-3

Pedersen, H. S. (2016). Are PhDs winners or losers? Wage premiums for doctoral degrees in private sector employment. Higher Education, 71 , 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9901-y

Powell, S., & Green, H. (Eds) (2007). The doctorate worldwide . McGraw-Hill Education: Maidenhead.

Roach, M., & Sauermann, H. (2010). A taste for science? PhD scientists’ academic orientation and self-selection into research careers in industry. Research Policy, 39 (3), 422–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.004

Rosenblum, G., & Rosenblum, B. R. (1996). The flow of instructors through the segmented labor markets of academe. Higher Education, 31 , 429–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00137125

Salminen-Karlsson, M., & Wallgren, L. (2008). The interaction of academic and industrial supervisors in graduate education. Higher Education, 56 , 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9090-4

Sarrico, C. S., & Godonoga, A. (2021). Higher education system rankings and benchmarking. In Hazelkorn, E. and Mihut, G. (eds) Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact . Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 197–209. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788974981.00025

Skakni, I., Inouye, K., & McAlpine, L. (2022). PhD holders entering non-academic workplaces: Organisational culture shock. Studies in Higher Education, 47 (6), 1271–1283. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1876650

Stephan, P. (2012). How economics shapes science . Harvard University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Teixeira, P. (2017). “A bastion of elitism or an emerging knowledge proletariat? Some reflections about academic careers with an economic slant”, in Challenges and options: The academic profession in Europe . Springer International Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45844-1_3

The Economist (2010), Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic: Why doing a PhD is often a waste of time, Dec. 18 th .

Trow. (1973). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education . Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.

Vitae (2016), What do research staff do next? , Careers Research and Advisory Centre, Cambridge. https://www.vitae.ac.uk/vitae-publications/reports/vitae-what-do-research-staff-do-next-2016.pdf

Waaijer, C. J. E., Belder, R., Sonneveld, H., et al. (2017). 2017 Temporary contracts: Effect on job satisfaction and personal lives of recent PhD graduates. High Educ, 74 , 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0050-8

Waaijer, C. J. F. (2017). Perceived career prospects and their influence on the sector of employment of recent PhD graduates. Science and Public Policy, 44 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scw007

Yang, L., & Webber, K. L. (2015). A decade beyond the doctorate: The influence of a US postdoctoral appointment on faculty career, productivity, and salary. High Educ, 70 , 667–687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9860-3

Zumeta, W. (1982). Doctoral programs and the labor market, or how should we respond to the “PhD glut”? High Educ, 11 , 321–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00155622

Zusman, A. (2017). Changing degrees: Creation and growth of new kinds of professional doctorates. The Journal of Higher Education, 88 (1), 33–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.124394

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author was involved in the OECD Global Science Forum’s projects Reducing the Precarity of Academic Research Careers and Career Options for Doctoral and Postdoctoral Scientists referenced in the text. However, the opinions expressed in this chapter are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the OECD or its members. The author would like to thank the editors-in-chief and a coordinating editor of Higher Education for useful constructive feedback on a previous version of this article.

The author would like to acknowledge the support given by the Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (FCT), within the Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies (CIPES), project UIDB/00757/2020.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Economics and Management, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

Cláudia S. Sarrico

Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies, Porto, Portugal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cláudia S. Sarrico .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sarrico, C.S. The expansion of doctoral education and the changing nature and purpose of the doctorate. High Educ 84 , 1299–1315 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00946-1

Download citation

Accepted : 12 September 2022

Published : 14 October 2022

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00946-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Doctoral education
• Postdoctoral training
• Predoctoral
• Academic career
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

US South Carolina

Recently viewed courses

Recently viewed.

Find Your Dream School

This site uses various technologies, as described in our Privacy Policy, for personalization, measuring website use/performance, and targeted advertising, which may include storing and sharing information about your site visit with third parties. By continuing to use this website you consent to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use .

   COVID-19 Update: To help students through this crisis, The Princeton Review will continue our "Enroll with Confidence" refund policies. For full details, please click here.

Best Online Doctor of Education Programs for 2024

Online Doctor of Education programs have become as rigorous as their on-campus counterparts. For many Education Ed.D. candidates, an online degree might even be the smarter choice. Online programs offer flexibility, affordability, access to innovative technologies, students from a diversity of career backgrounds, and global opportunities.

This unranked list appears in alphabetical order.

Showing 1 - 25 of 63 results

Vanderbilt university - online doctor of education in leadership and learning in organizations, university of dayton - online doctor of education (ed.d.) in leadership for organizations, from the school, arcadia university - doctor of education in educational leadership (deel), university of south carolina - doctor of education, university of west georgia - ed.d. in school improvement, kennesaw state university - education doctorate in educational leadership (ed.d.), valdosta state university - ed.d. in leadership, florida state university - educational leadership & policy - ed.d. program, university of west florida - doctoral degree in curriculum and instruction, university of florida - online ed.d. (professional practice ed.d. in curriculum and instruction), st. thomas university - ed.d. in leadership and innovation, nova southeastern university - doctor of education (ed.d.), liberty university - online doctor of education (ed.d.) program, regent university - doctorate in education, virginia commonwealth university - ed.d. in leadership program, william & mary - executive ed.d. in educational policy, planning and leadership program, university of virginia - curriculum & instruction: ed.d. - doctor of education program, trevecca nazarene university - doctor of education in leadership and professional practice (ed.d.), johns hopkins school of education - online ed.d. program, union university - doctor of education (ed.d.), william carey university - educational leadership, drexel university - online doctorate in educational leadership and management (ed.d.), cabrini university - doctor of education (edd) in organizational learning and leadership online, spalding university - online doctorate of education in leadership (edd) program, morehead state university - doctor of education (ed.d.).

Enrollment Advisor

1-800-2REVIEW (800-273-8439) ext. 1

1-877-LEARN-30

Mon-Fri 9AM-10PM ET

Sat-Sun 9AM-8PM ET

Student Support

1-800-2REVIEW (800-273-8439) ext. 2

Mon-Fri 9AM-9PM ET

Sat-Sun 8:30AM-5PM ET

Partnerships

• Teach or Tutor for Us

College Readiness

International

Advertising

Affiliate/Other

• Enrollment Terms & Conditions
• Accessibility
• Cigna Medical Transparency in Coverage

Register Book

Local Offices: Mon-Fri 9AM-6PM

• SAT Subject Tests

Academic Subjects

• Social Studies

Find the Right College

• College Rankings
• College Advice
• Applying to College
• Financial Aid

School & District Partnerships

• Professional Development
• Advice Articles
• Private Tutoring
• Mobile Apps
• Local Offices
• International Offices
• Work for Us
• Affiliate Program
• Partner with Us
• Advertise with Us
• International Partnerships
• Our Guarantees
• Accessibility – Canada

Privacy Policy | CA Privacy Notice | Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information | Your Opt-Out Rights | Terms of Use | Site Map

©2024 TPR Education IP Holdings, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The Princeton Review is not affiliated with Princeton University

TPR Education, LLC (doing business as “The Princeton Review”) is controlled by Primavera Holdings Limited, a firm owned by Chinese nationals with a principal place of business in Hong Kong, China.

• Dictionaries home
• American English
• Collocations
• German-English
• Grammar home
• Practical English Usage
• Learn & Practise Grammar (Beta)
• Word Lists home
• My Word Lists
• Recent additions
• Resources home
• Text Checker

Definition of doctorate noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

• She's studying for her doctorate.
• He's completed his doctorate on bees.
• She's doing a doctorate in ancient history.
• The applicants all have doctorates from good universities.
• a doctorate from Cornell University
• a doctorate of divinity
• engineering
• doctorate from
• doctorate in
• doctorate of

Take your English to the next level

The Oxford Learner’s Thesaurus explains the difference between groups of similar words. Try it for free as part of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary app

Johns Hopkins Medicine’s chief diversity officer is no longer in the role two months after she wrote a newsletter identifying people with “privilege” and sparking backlash.

In the January newsletter from the Baltimore hospital and research center’s diversity office, Dr. Sherita Golden wrote that “privilege” was the “word of the month,” defining it as “a set of unearned benefits given to people who are in a specific social group.” Those social groups were categorized as white people, heterosexuals, cisgender people, men and Christians, among others.

Republican politicians and conservative media outlets seized the email as an example that diversity, equity and inclusion work is discrimination paid for with tax dollars. U.S. Rep. Andy Harris, Maryland’s only Republican congressman, described the diversity memo as racist and called for Golden’s termination.

The email was posted online by an account called “End Wokeness” and went viral on X, formerly known as Twitter, with about 69,000 likes as of Wednesday and attracting the attention of Elon Musk and Donald Trump Jr.

Golden, a vice president and professor of medicine, issued an apology in January for defining “privilege” and retracted it.

“The intent of the newsletter is to inform and support an inclusive community at Hopkins, but the language of this definition clearly did not meet that goal,” Golden wrote. “In fact, because it was overly simplistic and poorly worded, it had the opposite effect of being exclusionary and hurtful to members of our community.”

Supporters of Golden and her work criticized Hopkins Medicine’s response to the pushback, particularly Hopkins’ statement that the definition of privilege ran “counter to the values of our institution and mission.”

Two petitions were created to show support for Golden. In an open letter signed by nearly 700 staff and students, Hopkins leadership was asked why the definition is inconsistent with Hopkins’ values and described the backlash as “unfair and unwarranted attacks” against Golden.

“It is important for our institution to respond to assaults on our commitment to DEI with courage and conviction,” the letter’s authors wrote.

Dr. Theodore DeWeese, dean of Hopkins Medicine’s medical faculty, and Kevin Sowers, the president of the Johns Hopkins Health System, announced Tuesday that Golden decided to step down from her role as vice president and chief diversity officer after “a great deal of reflection.” She will continue to work as professor of endocrinology and metabolism and diabetes researcher.

“…Like many of you, we wanted her to stay in her role,” DeWeese and Sowers wrote in an email to the Johns Hopkins Medicine community.

Inez Stewart, Hopkins Medicine’s chief human resources officer, will lead the diversity, inclusion and health equity office while a national search for a new diversity chief is underway.

More in Education

SUBSCRIBER ONLY

Carroll county times | carroll school board to consider classroom cellphone ban at wednesday meeting.

Education | Maryland’s education ‘Blueprint’ struggles to expand pre-K

NAACP urges student-athletes to reconsider Florida colleges after state eliminates DEI programs

Politics | Maryland’s 6% sales tax is due for an expansion, top legislative leader says

• Open access
• Published: 08 March 2024

Graduate medical education well-being directors in the United States: who are they, and what does the role entail?

• Larissa R. Thomas 1 ,
• Jonathan A. Ripp 2 &
• Jennifer G. Duncan 3  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  254 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

88 Accesses

Metrics details

Institutional Graduate Medical Education (GME) Well-being Director (WBD) roles have recently emerged in the United States to support resident and fellow well-being. However, with a standard position description lacking, the current scope and responsibilities of such roles is unknown. This study describes the scope of work, salary support, and opportunities for role definition for those holding institutional leadership positions for GME well-being.

In November 2021, 43 members of a national network of GME WBDs in the United States were invited to complete a cross-sectional survey that included questions about job responsibilities, percent effort, and dedicated budget, and a free text response question about unique leadership challenges for GME WBDs. The survey was analyzed using descriptive statistics for quantitative data and thematic analysis for qualitative data.

26 members (60%) responded. Most were physicians, and the majority identified as female and White. Median percent effort salary support was 40%. A small minority reported overseeing an allocated budget. Most respondents worked to improve access to mental health services, oversaw institution-wide well-being programs, designed or delivered well-being content, provided consultations to individual programs, met with trainees, and partnered with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. GME WBDs described unique challenges that had implications for perceived effectiveness related to resources, culture, institutional structure, and regulatory requirements in GME.

There was high concordance for several key responsibilities, which may represent a set of core priorities for this role. Other reported responsibilities may reflect institution-specific needs or opportunities for role definition. A wide scope of responsibilities, coupled with limited defined budgetary support described by many GME Well-being Directors, could limit effective role execution. Future efforts to better define the role, optimize organizational reporting structures and provide funding commensurate with the scope of work may allow the GME Well-being Director to more effectively develop and execute strategic interventions.

Peer Review reports

With national calls to action in the United States to comprehensively address clinician well-being as largely a systems issue, institutions are building infrastructure to support organizational well-being beyond individual-level interventions [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. In 2017, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) revised its Common Program Requirements (CPR) to address well-being in the clinical learning environment [ 4 ]. In alignment with national frameworks for addressing well-being [ 2 , 5 ], these requirements not only direct a focus on efforts to improve individual resilience and mental health, but also emphasize the need to promote a culture of well-being while enhancing efficiency to maximize time for meaningful patient care.

The Chief Wellness Officer (CWO) role previously evolved in response to the need to integrate well-being work into C-Suite-level decision-making and strategic planning [ 6 , 7 ]. Similarly, the emphasis on institutional responsibility to support resident and fellow well-being has led to a proliferation of institution-level positions, often termed “GME Well-being Directors” (WBD), who are dedicated to augmenting GME program director efforts to enhance resident and fellow well-being. While there are some broad parallels between GME Well-being Director and CWO roles, GME WBDs have unique challenges and responsibilities, in part because GME trainees and Offices of Graduate Medical Education are uniquely situated within institutional structures. Additionally, while residents and fellows have similar driver dimensions of well-being as other physicians as outlined by Shanafelt and Noseworthy [ 8 ], residents and fellows also face unique challenges that can exacerbate burnout. Stressors associated with the dual role of learner and worker during residency training, including long hours, lack of control/autonomy, competing priorities between work and education, and cognitive load, create significant workload demands. Additionally, social supports are important for residents who often move to a new location for training [ 9 , 10 ]. Finally, residents and fellows are vulnerable to mistreatment due to their position within the hierarchy of the clinical system [ 11 , 12 ].

To meet ACGME mandates to address these challenges and threats to GME well-being, GME WBD faculty roles have rapidly emerged without a “roadmap” to guide the scope of work and strategy for the role. The Collaborative for Healing and Renewal in Medicine (CHARM) GME Well-being Leaders Network (WLN), established in 2019, is a peer community that was developed to share best practices among those holding institutional GME well-being leadership positions. Initially, the GME WLN grew through informal networks to establish a learning community for individuals in this emerging role, then has continued to expand through outreach via professional organizations. As this community grew, the group members noted lack of defined job responsibilities for their newly emerging roles, leading to the desire for a member survey to elucidate this information. Additionally, member discussions noted that some dimensions of leadership challenges that they encountered were not fully captured in existing literature on well-being leadership strategy and the CWO role. Here, we report findings from a survey of this network related to GME WBD job responsibilities, describing current scope of work, salary support and perceptions of unique leadership challenges. Based on these findings, we also describe opportunities to optimize the role in order to allow the WBD to achieve maximal effectiveness as a strategic leader.

As of October 2021, the CHARM GME WLN included 73 faculty and staff representing 57 institutions in the United States. We sent a cross-sectional, descriptive Qualtrics survey by email to 43 members within the GME WLN who held an institution-level GME well-being leadership position in November 2021. Those who had only department or program-level roles or who worked only with students, faculty, or other staff were excluded. Those who had broad institution-level well-being roles that were inclusive of GME were included. Questions were developed by the study leads based on literature describing the roles of the CWO [ 6 ], the ACGME Common Program Requirements for Well-being [ 4 ], and a review of prior discussion topics that had arisen in CHARM WLN group meetings. The timing of the survey coincided with group interest in defining evolution of roles post-pandemic. The final survey focused on job responsibilities, percent effort, and dedicated budget. The survey also included a free text question inquiring about leadership challenges for GME WBDs perceived as unique compared to those faced by well-being leaders responsible for other groups (for example, attending physicians or students). Several reminders were sent via email to eligible participants. Quantitative responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Two of the authors, who are also part of the GME WLN (JD and LT) used thematic analysis to group the qualitative responses. Themes were member-checked with the rest of the GME WLN at a meeting to verify resonance. This survey was deemed exempt by the UCSF Institutional Review Board.

Who is the GME well-being director?

Twenty-six of 43 members with an institution-level GME well-being position responded (response rate 60%), representing 26 different institutions. Among respondents, 21 (81%) were female; 5 (19%) reported having a racial/ethnic identity other than white. Fourteen (54%) had an MD/DO degree, 7 (27%) had education degrees, and 5 (19%) had psychology, counseling, or social work degrees. Sixteen (62%) practiced clinically, and 10 (38%) were mental health professionals. Of 14 with an MD/DO degree, 11 practiced in medical-based specialties, 1 in a surgical-based specialty, and 2 in hospital-based specialties (ACGME defined groups [ 13 ]). Twenty (77%) worked at university-affiliated institutions, 2 (8%) at community-based institutions and 4 (15%) at hybrid or other institutions. Eleven (42%) had an institutional role solely dedicated to GME well-being, with no other well-being role or institution-level role in GME. For the remaining respondents, 6 (23%) had an institution-level GME role that included well-being as part of it but also included other responsibilities (e.g. DIO), 5 (19%) had an institution-level well-being role that included GME and other constituent groups (e.g. UME), and 4 (15%) had other roles such as co-director of mental health services. Most GME WBDs (85%) had funded roles, with percent salary support ranging from 5 to 100 (median 40%, mode 50%). A minority (4, 15%) reported having an unfunded institution-level role. Only 4 (15%) reported overseeing an allocated budget.

GME well-being director responsibilities

For primary responsibilities, most respondents indicated working to improve access to mental health services, led institution-wide well-being programs, designed or directly delivered well-being content, provided consultations to individual program leadership, met with groups of trainees, and partnered with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts (Table  1 ). Most also indicated a reporting structure whereby they reported either to the Designated Institutional Official (DIO) or other institutional leaders. A majority also reported overseeing the institution’s approach to GME well-being, ensuring compliance with the ACGME CPRs for well-being, preparing for ACGME Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER) visits [ 14 ], chairing a GME well-being committee, overseeing well-being surveys, and partnering with learning climate/mistreatment efforts. Less commonly, WBDs served on a medical staff well-being/impairment committee, oversaw mental health services, facilitated group reflection sessions, or led faculty development offerings. It was uncommon to provide direct individual or group mental health support, lead diversity or mistreatment efforts, or serve as a confidential ombudsperson for the institution.

Perceived challenges in the role of GME well-being director

GME Well-being Directors perceived several challenges as unique for those who lead work in GME well-being compared to those who lead well-being efforts for other groups. We grouped these perceived challenges into four broad themes: resources, culture, institutional structure, and regulatory requirements (Table  2 ). Resource challenges included issues related to budget, staff support, and space/time available for initiatives limited by tight trainee schedules. Cultural challenges centered around prioritization of well-being, a focus on individual well-being rather than workplace/systems issues, and hierarchy challenges. Challenges with institutional structure included lack of authority and influence of the GME WBD to create change, poor communication among institutional well-being leaders, and complex institutional (hospital vs. school of medicine) structures. Finally, regulatory challenges were reported with competing requirements between ACGME, specialty boards and institutional needs.

Among current GME WBDs, there is a high level of concordance for many responsibilities. Certain responsibilities, such as leading the strategic approach to well-being, establishing best practices, assessing trainee well-being, and consulting with training programs, could be considered a core set of responsibilities. Overall, the broad portfolio described by many WBDs, coupled with a lack of clearly defined budgetary support for the position, has potential implications for limiting the GME WBD’s effective role execution [ 15 ]. Less common responsibilities may relate to specific institutional needs and could represent opportunities for improved scope definition. For example, to allow GME WBDs to focus on strategic work, responsibilities such as in-depth content delivery to specific programs may best be delegated to individual program well-being leads who have commensurate support for this work. Furthermore, because the GME WBD is usually situated within the Office of Graduate Medical Education, it is also possible that roles and responsibilities that involve highly confidential or potentially disciplinary interactions with individual residents and fellows may introduce a conflict of interest that could negatively impact the director’s effectiveness as a system-level advocate. For this reason, some less-commonly held responsibilities, such as serving as an ombudsperson, providing direct mental health care, and serving on a medical staff well-being/impairment committee, perhaps should be delegated to other faculty or staff in institutions that have such capacity.

The low proportion of underrepresented racial/ethnic identities in our sample merits exploration of strategies to enhance diverse representation in this role and the need to partner with leaders in DEI. Additionally, as medical educators seek to train a diverse workforce representative of the broad population of patients they serve, attention to specific well-being needs of historically excluded groups to foster inclusion and belonging is also a pressing issue in GME [ 16 ]. While GME WBDs less commonly lead DEI or mistreatment efforts, most do indicate that they partner with DEI leaders and initiatives. Such partnerships can be a starting point for addressing well-being needs and impacts that may result from intersectional identities.

The unique challenges of working in GME are important to consider as roles and responsibilities are defined, and to determine the GME WBD’s optimal position in the organization to enable effective collaboration. Our GME WBD survey respondents outlined leadership challenges that they perceived were unique for their work, as compared to those tasked with leadership of well-being work for other populations such as students or faculty. While some of these challenges may also be faced by leaders in other domains outside of well-being (for example, those working in diversity, equity and inclusion, or those working in faculty development), unique aspects of these challenges are commonly encountered in graduate medical education work. Our respondents noted that these challenges were also often coupled with a lack of authority or institutional positioning to effect change. For example, the WBD may not have a seat at the table for important institutional decisions that affect trainee well-being, and rarely does the GME WBD have authority to enact or mandate a change at the institutional level. Additionally, the short time span spent in GME training can lead health systems to unconsciously or actively prioritize resources for longer-term employees over residents and fellows. Conversely, the turnover of trainees can also be protective against institutional complacency as new trainees advocate for changes to improve their experience.

Many of the GME WBDs had limited salary support and few had oversight of a budget. This finding may be related to historic underfunding of salary support for education roles, as well as limited independent budget support common in GME offices. Additionally, even when such positions are funded, the GME WBDs reported feeling asked to “do it all,” i.e., being tasked with design, implementation, and content delivery to programs. Being tasked with these responsibilities at the level of individual training programs leaves many GME WBDs feeling stretched in their capacity to oversee a strategic approach to developing effective interventions at the institutional level, particularly given the number and diversity of training programs. Such a task load for well-being leaders can make it challenging to design programming or interventions that meet the needs of a high proportion of the target group [ 7 , 15 ].

Our paper describes typical current roles of the GME WBD, as well as challenges in role execution and deployment of effective interventions related to salary support, available program budget, the unique and time-limited nature of GME training, institutional structure, and regulatory requirements. Taken together, these findings can begin to suggest a consensus definition around this emerging role and ways to optimize the role for future success. We therefore outline below further considerations for next steps and an ideal future state for role definition, financial and administrative support, and institutional position within the organizational chart that would allow for effective partnerships for role execution.

First, to support scope definition, we propose an effort to clearly delineate whether the GME WBD is what we term an “actor ” or an “advocate ” for a given domain. " " responsibilities can be considered those that most naturally fall under the purview of the GME WBD, as opposed to other institutional leaders, and importantly, are also domains over which

the GME WBD has agency to make changes within their own sphere of influence and chain of command. Actor responsibilities are the strategic work of the GME WBD. In contrast to actor roles, "advocate" roles are those for which the GME WBD can be expected to provide advice, feedback, or influence, but ultimately does not have authority, agency, or funding to implement a change. Informed by the survey responses, we propose a potential consideration for categorization of actor vs. advocate roles for the GME WBD in Table  3 .

Next, GME WBDs need salary support and resources commensurate with their responsibilities, given their role in strategic planning and implementation [ 15 ]. There are many reasons why a particular institution may make the case to fund GME well-being work, and each well-being leader should consider their unique institutional needs and climate in considering how to “make the case” for additional institutional investment ( 7 , 15 , 16 , 17 ). For example, the ACGME Section VI.C requirements [ 4 ] are a regulatory mandate that has spurred initial resource investment in many institutions, with subsequent investment justified in order to set aspirational goals. The so-called “moral imperative” to support well-being, the desire to support high quality patient care by supporting clinician well-being, and the “tragic case” imperative may be other motivating factors for institutions to fund well-being roles for GME trainees and other groups [ 15 ]. Our survey suggests that for most large training institutions, adequate salary support will need to be at least 20%, but may need to be as high as 40–50% depending on the scope of work and expected outcomes. Additionally, while independent control of a budget is not a requirement for this position, having some discretionary funding and administrative support may allow the WBD more autonomy in executing initiatives such as assessment tools, community-building activities, and mental health supports. While such recommendations apply to larger university-based institutions, smaller institutions may begin to initially resource this role by combining it with existing work; for example, by protecting a portion of someone’s time to work on well-being who is already funded to do “well-being-adjacent” work such as quality improvement or medical education (program director, associate program director, designated institutional official).

Finally, our findings support prior recommendations for institutional well-being leadership collaborations that cross disciplines and training levels. In an aspirational organizational structure, the GME WBD would ideally oversee or liaise with dedicated well-being leads within individual training programs or departments, while interfacing with both the institutional well-being leads (i.e., CWO) and DIO. Such partnerships would give the GME WBD a seat at the table to enhance role effectiveness, and could allow institutional alignment on strategy, messaging, and implementation for key well-being priorities across the organization [ 7 , 15 ].

Limitations

This study is a small cross-sectional sample of 26 individuals who were members of a learning community, and therefore is limited in its comprehensiveness. The majority of respondents were from university/academic institutions, and therefore this study may be less applicable to community institutions. Nevertheless, some were from community or hybrid institutions, and the data represent 26 different institutions across the US. The data presented here include early descriptive information about a newly emerging role. Since the time of this survey, this role has proliferated: the CHARM GME Well-being Leaders Network alone, which is not inclusive of all positions in the United States, now has more than 140 members, the majority of whom have roles as GME well-being directors (internal data). The continued expansion of this role since the time of this survey suggests that while some institutional leaders may remain hesitant to establish such roles, ongoing regulatory mandates, a sense of moral imperative, and a desire to support clinician well-being to ensure high quality patient care will likely continue to lead the growth of this role, regardless of direct evidence of a financial return on investment ( 7 , 15 , 16 , 17 ). Based on challenges that GME well-being leaders continue to face, we believe that these results remain helpful not only for role definition and benchmarking information but also for initiating conversations about directions for future work.

GME WBDs have an essential role in leading a strategic institutional approach to address unique well-being needs for residents and fellows. With the role initially emerging in response to regulatory mandates, it will benefit from further scope definition, funding commensurate with scope of work, and institutional support and buy-in to ensure role effectiveness in leading strategic work. Ultimately, the current national landscape and interaction of national and local policies and funding streams have direct impacts on the extent to which theWell-being Director can implement transformative change. Because local resource limitations can often lead to stagnation or de-prioritization of financial investment in systems interventions to improve GME well-being, national policies or guidelines with greater specificity and regulatory changes are ultimately necessary to expand resources that support systems change for GME trainees, faculty and staff.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to confidentiality reasons, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education

Collaborative for Healing and Renewal in Medicine

Clinical Learning Environment Review

Common Program Requirements (for graduate medical education)

Chief Wellness Officer

Diversity, equity, and inclusion

Designated Institutional Official

Graduate Medical Education

Well-being Director

Well-being Leaders Network

National Academies of Sciences. Taking Action Against Clinician Burnout: A Systems Approach to Professional Well-Being [Internet]. 2019. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25521/taking-action-against-clinician-burnout-a-systems-approach-to-professional . Accessed 19 Sept 2023.

Thomas LR, Ripp JA, West CP. Charter on Physician Well-being. JAMA. 2018;319(15):1541–2.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bodenheimer T, Sinsky C. From Triple to Quadruple Aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(6):573–6.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

The ACGME Common Program Requirements. 2020. https://www.acgme.org/programs-and-institutions/programs/common-program-requirements/ . Accessed 19 Sept 2023.

WellMD & WellPhD. The Stanford Model of Professional Fulfillment™. 2016. https://wellmd.stanford.edu/about/model-external.html . Accessed 19 Sept 2023.

Shanafelt T, Farley H, Wang H, Ripp J, CHARM CWO, Network. Responsibilities and Job Characteristics of Health Care Chief Wellness Officers in the United States. Mayo Clin Proc. 2020;95(11):2563–6.

Ripp J, Shanafelt T, The Health Care Chief Wellness Officer.: What the Role Is and Is Not. Acad Med. 2020/04/24 ed. 2020;95(9):1354–8.

Shanafelt TD, Noseworthy JH. Executive Leadership and Physician Well-being: nine organizational strategies to Promote Engagement and reduce burnout. Mayo Clin Proc. 2017;92(1):129–46.

Philibert I. Resident perspectives on duty hour limits and attributes of their learning environment. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14(Suppl 1):7.

Article   Google Scholar  

Raj KS. Well-being in Residency: a systematic review. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8(5):674–84.

Finn KM, O’Connor AB, McGarry K, Harris L, Zaas A. Prevalence and sources of Mistreatment experienced by Internal Medicine residents. JAMA Intern Med. 2022;182(4):448–50.

Hu YY, Ellis RJ, Hewitt DB, Yang AD, Cheung EO, Moskowitz JT, et al. Discrimination, abuse, harassment, and Burnout in Surgical Residency Training. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(18):1741–52.

Department of Information Services, ACGME. Data Resource Book: Academic Year 2021–2022. 2022. https://www.acgme.org/globalassets/pfassets/publicationsbooks/2021-2022_acgme__databook_document.pdf . Accessed 19 Sept 2023.

ACGME. Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER). https://www.acgme.org/what-we-do/initiatives/clinical-learning-environment-review-cler/ . Accessed 19 Sept 2023.

Shanafelt T, Trockel M, Ripp J, Murphy ML, Sandborg C, Bohman B. Building a program on Well-Being: Key Design considerations to meet the unique needs of each Organization. Acad Med. 2018;1.

Boatright D, London M, Soriano AJ, Westervelt M, Sanchez S, Gonzalo JD, et al. Strategies and best practices to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion among US Graduate Medical Education Programs. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(2):e2255110.

Shanafelt T, Goh J, Sinsky C. The business case for investing in Physician Well-being. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(12):1826–32.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the members of the CHARM Graduate Medical Education Well-being Leaders Network for building a learning community for this emerging role.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Medicine at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, 1001 Potrero Ave 5H, 94110, San Francisco, USA

Larissa R. Thomas

Departments of Medicine, Medical Education, Geriatrics, and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA

Jonathan A. Ripp

Department of Pediatrics, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri, USA

Jennifer G. Duncan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LT, JD, and JR developed the study concept. LT and JD designed the survey, analyzed and interpreted the data, and were major contributors in writing the manuscript. JR contributed to design of the survey and reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Larissa R. Thomas .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

UCSF IRB study 21-34866 reviewed as exempt (see attachment). Because the study was approved as exempt, signed consent was not required (see https://irb.ucsf.edu/exempt-consent-templates-and-guidance#:~:text=For%20exempt%20research%20that%20involves,required%20for%20non%2Dexempt%20research ). However, participants were asked to participate and confirm their agreement to participate with an email invitation and information sheet approved by UCSF IRB.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Thomas, L.R., Ripp, J.A. & Duncan, J.G. Graduate medical education well-being directors in the United States: who are they, and what does the role entail?. BMC Med Educ 24 , 254 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05243-2

Download citation

Received : 12 October 2023

Accepted : 28 February 2024

Published : 08 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05243-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Graduate medical education
• Physician well-being
• Resident physicians
• Physician wellness
• Chief wellness officer
• Academic leadership

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]