Since the implementation of the Bologna process and the Lisbon strategy, there has been an increase of the interest in higher education and in doctoral education in Europe. This political process aims to create not only a European area of higher education, but also research European area. Doctoral education is considered to be one of the keys to innovation and to the development of societies. The implementation of the proposals that emerged from the meetings of the ministers responsible for higher education (MMHE) and the European association universities (EUA), brought a new look to the third cycle (Dublin descriptor, 2004; Bergen framework of qualifications, 2005), and to the Doctoral education and supervision (ten principles of Salzburg, 2005). Within this context elements such as doctorate completion time, student's profile, skills and competence acquired in that period and mobility between institution assumed a greater importance (London Communiqué, 2007;Leuven Communiqué, 2009).In Portugal, it was only during the last decade that researchers began to publish papers whose object study is doctoral education, the quality of supervision of doctoral research, supervisor and student profile and relationship. In this context, these research article pretend to characterize and analyse how the two aspects of doctoral education, monitoring and evaluation, are institutionally implemented in the third cycle at NOVA Lisbon University (UNL) and what implications may have on the success rate and completion time. The regulations of the third cycle in the nine schools that constitute the UNL and public annual reports will be analyses enabling to highlight some data.

This paper intends to present a preliminary study focusing doctoral education in NOVA Lisbon University. This University is less than fifty years old and it is growing, but a slight decrease in the doctoral population was observed in the last years, the completion times are not the ideal and attrition exists. So it is important to know the characteristics of the doctoral population of the University, in terms of profile and main difficulties, envisaging what can be done to promote lower attrition and shorter completion time. Using a national database (RAIDES) and public institutional documents, it was possible to initiate a research that aims at characterizing not only the student population, but also the supervision practices, monitorization and evaluation.

Doctoral education can be seen as a conclusion of postgraduate Education and the highest achieving degree, remaining in the higher education area domain, or moves further towards the research area as the first stage of research careers (doctoral training). In this sense, it's the bridge between two areas, the education system and the research system. It is the particular characteristic that makes doctoral education so important to a developer and innovative society. In Portugal only a few years ago, the doctoral education started being a research object. To underpin the knowledge about doctoral education at Universidade Nova de Lisboa, research aimed to capture the supervisor conceptions and perceptions was implemented. This paper aims to describe what was found and what was, in the context of a Portuguese university (that doesn't demand as rule supervisors have a pedagogical or even a supervision course (formation)), unpredicted and unexpected. The first effect of this research was to start supervisors' self-reflection about their practices and aims of supervision. The second was the emergence of difficulties assumed by the supervisors during the supervision process, not only related to the institution, but also to the students' motivation and engagement in the research process and the perception of the necessity of development skills to manage conflicts.

Studies regarding doctoral education can focus the PhD student, the supervisor, higher education institution (policy, curriculum, professional career support, culture, among others). PhD students, supervisors and higher education institution, constitute three keys for the same door (doctoral education), and without one of them, the door can´t be well open. Choose which of them should be analyzed is the researcher responsibility, as present data and look carefully to it. During the last years' doctoral education and the doctoral supervision process at UNL as been studied, looking to PhD students, supervisors and institution [1-5]. In the present research, the focus is on supervisor perception. It is important to know supervisor opinion, to attempt and captures their perceptions regarding the doctoral supervision process. When the supervisor thinks and responds to surveys regarding supervision, he/she is presenting an image of himself/herself. This study occurred among the PhD supervisor population at a Science engineering school (Faculdade de Ciências Tecnologia) at Universidade Nova de Lisboa, a Portuguese Higher education institution, with a footprint in the research area. It was possible to capture the image that reflected in the mirror when the supervisor looked. The unexpected image reflected is of a researcher and not a supervisor. When they look to their doctorates, they generally see future technicians/ qualified workers and not a future researcher. Nonetheless, they consider that to finish the PhD, doctorates have to acquire the research profile. This mismatch is consistent with the reality, where attrition exists and many students think to live the academy after the enrollment in the PhD.

In the last decade with the Bologna implementation, doctoral supervision gained a new emphasis and emerged as crucial for developing the European research area. Research, on doctoral supervision practices, and the supervisor ideal profile was carried out in a TOP 10 young European university, at Universidade Nova de Lisboa. The results show that meetings (individual or in groups) are the most implemented practice. Usually, students present orally, to a supervisor, the research that they already made regarding the initial work plane. Two supervisors' profiles emerge from the students' voices, the real and the ideal. The ideal supervisor profile that emerges from the questionnaires features supervisors who take students care, give feedback on work on time, and are honest and critical.