This paper compares the learning experiences of full‐time PhD students in 28 Education Departments and 31 Chemistry Departments in British universities. A questionnaire composed of two major dimensions of the learning experiences, supervision and research environment for doctoral students, was distributed to about 2,200 students. It is found that Chemistry departments are seen as offering better doctoral education as perceived by students than Education departments on most counts, especially regarding academic culture of facilitation, intercultural facilitation of research for foreign students and research facilities in research environment for doctoral students. Supervision is perceived to be more satisfactory in Chemistry than in Education especially in aspects of supervisor’s knowledge, supervisor’s research workload, supervisor’s student‐load and supervisor’s helpfulness in finding funding. A theoretical framework of the Teamwork and Individualist research training structures to discuss the possible causes of these findings is offered. It is proposed that disciplinary diversity in effectiveness of doctoral education is engendered by the two distinct research training structures.

This paper examines the educational implications of research collaboration between university and industry for the research training of doctoral students. It is concerned with the issues of how research training is constructed in such collaborations and what might be the effects of collaboration on doctoral students' learning. The study adopts a knowledge perspective. Three different dispositions of knowledge are identified: ‘expert’, ‘utilitarian’ and ‘commercialized’. Doctoral students' experiences were examined in relation to two aspects of research training – industrial involvement in supervision and academic freedom – in university–industry collaboration in the field of life sciences. Thirty-five in-depth interviews were carried out at BioCity Turku in Finland with 16 doctoral students, 14 of their supervisors and 5 PhD graduates. Four major types of PhD research collaboration were discovered, characterized as ‘Financial’, ‘Interactive’, ‘Kangaroo’ and ‘Appendant’. The significance of each type is discussed in relation to different knowledge dispositions. Drawing on the research findings, suggestions are offered for constructing successful research training programmes through university–industry collaboration.

The evidence about the relationship between research and teaching at the level of doctoral education is far from conclusive. The focus of this study is to examine how teaching and research are related at doctoral level, especially when students' voices are heard, in two contrasting higher education systems — France and the UK. Models from Schimank and Winnes, and Clark were used to analyse the contrasting research and teaching configurations at institutional level in France and the UK. France has a Pre‐Humboltian system of research and teaching, whilst the UK has a Post‐Humboltian one. Two empirical studies were then drawn on: to measure teaching, a questionnaire composed of two major dimensions of research training experiences, supervision and research environment, was distributed to full‐time doctoral students in Economics & Management and Chemistry in France and was compared to a survey carried out earlier in Education and Chemistry in the UK. To measure research, the result of the CNRS (National Centre of Scientific Research) research classification in France was used. In the UK, the corresponding measurement, RAE score (Research Assessment Exercise) was adopted. Strikingly similar findings were found in the two countries. First, there is little relationship between the departmental research performance and the quality of doctoral education as experienced by PhD students in either country. Next, this lack of significant relationship is found across all three disciplines. Thirdly, more consistent results were observed in France than in the UK. There is in‐depth discussion with regard to these findings.

This analytical paper aims to examine trust and research atmosphere in higher education in the case of UK. It takes an economics perspective and draws on a conceptual framework developed by Hallén and Sandström (1991). It argues that the current Higher Education reform risks making the research atmosphere move from 'trustful' towards 'opportunist'. The UK government has recently taken a new turn with regard to its research and funding policies for universities: changing from a supply to a demand model, with an emphasis on research impacts. Initiatives, such as Research Excellence Framework (REF), can have adverse effects on trust and research atmosphere in higher education. Without trust, the integrity of scientific enquiry in higher education is undermined. This paper therefore investigates the detrimental impacts of such turn of research and funding policies on higher education. A call is made for real politics in higher education.

IntroductionDoctoral education has gained the attention of higher education studies. Part of the reason for this, at least in Europe, lies in the growing awareness of the importance of research in knowledge production in universities and in a wider context of the knowledge economy. But this is not the whole story. The main focus of this article is on the diversity of the perceptions, training and quality of scientific inquiries in doctoral education. The experiences of doctoral students and the question of what underlies their complexity will be analysed. The cross-national study will examine the different theoretical conceptions of this topic. Important questions are: do doctoral students in different subjects share the same experiences? How are the differences, if any, manifested in the UK and France? Do these correspond to each other in the two countries? Issues relating to how home and international students and male and female students in different subjects perceive their research training experiences are also examined. I shall seek answers by drawing upon my recent studies on doctoral students of Economics and Management and Chemistry in France and an earlier one of Education and Chemistry in the UK.