Traditional doctoral training models remain heavily focused on preparing PhD candidates for academic careers, despite clear evidence that over 80% of graduates transition into industry or non-academic sectors. This disconnect leads to significant challenges, including the underdevelopment of interdisciplinary, entrepreneurial, and transferable skills essential for diverse career paths. Structural rigidity, financial instability, and an academic culture resistant to acknowledging non-academic career trajectories exacerbate these issues. Additionally, the lack of industrial experience among faculty members limits their ability to guide students effectively toward industry roles. This article critically examines these gaps, emphasizing the psychological and systemic barriers that hinder reform. It highlights the necessity of rethinking doctoral training to include global mobility, leadership development, and practical skill-building. Preliminary frameworks for integrating industry-relevant competencies into doctoral programs are also discussed, paving the way for long-term career sustainability and better alignment with the demands of the modern workforce.
Dr. Javad Zarbakhsh, Cademix Institute of Technology
Table of Contents
Introduction
Doctoral training programs have long been heralded as the pinnacle of higher education, equipping individuals with the expertise to push the boundaries of knowledge and address society’s most complex problems. However, as global labor markets evolve, these programs face increasing scrutiny for their inability to prepare graduates for sustainable careers, particularly outside academia. Despite their advanced qualifications, many PhD holders struggle to adapt to interdisciplinary and practical demands, leaving them underprepared for non-academic career paths.
Recent studies, including those by Jackson (2016) and Marginson (2016), highlight the growing gap between doctoral training and labor market needs. While traditional doctoral programs excel at fostering research excellence, they often lack focus on transferable skills, entrepreneurship, and global mobility. These limitations hinder graduates’ ability to secure diverse career opportunities, resulting in underemployment and dissatisfaction among many PhDs.
This article critically examines the structural, financial, and cultural challenges inherent in traditional doctoral training models. By focusing on gaps in skill development, barriers to international mobility, and misalignments with non-academic career demands, the article seeks to highlight the pressing need for reform. Toward the conclusion, preliminary frameworks for integrating leadership, cultural adaptability, and international exposure into doctoral programs will be explored, offering a pathway for aligning training models with the demands of a globalized labor market.
The Academic Mindset: Preparing PhD Candidates for Academia While Ignoring Industry Realities
One of the most significant issues in traditional doctoral training models is the persistent assumption that PhD candidates are primarily being prepared for academic careers as university researchers or professors. This mindset prevails despite clear evidence that only a small fraction of PhD graduates—often less than 20% in many disciplines—secure long-term positions in academia. The vast majority, over 80%, transition into industry or alternative sectors, yet doctoral programs remain heavily focused on equipping students with skills and knowledge relevant primarily to academic environments.
Psychological Origins of the Problem
The roots of this issue lie in the psychology of senior professors and the academic culture they perpetuate. Most doctoral programs are designed and supervised by tenured faculty members whose professional identities are deeply tied to academia. Having spent their entire careers within the university system, these professors often view academic success—measured by research outputs, tenure, and recognition within scholarly communities—as the ultimate goal. This bias shapes the training they provide, often neglecting the realities of career trajectories outside academia.
For many professors, the notion that most of their doctoral students will leave academia is difficult to reconcile with their own experiences. Some may even perceive it as a failure of the academic system or their mentorship. As a result, there is often an implicit or explicit resistance to acknowledging the necessity of preparing PhD candidates for non-academic careers. This resistance perpetuates a cycle where doctoral training focuses narrowly on academic research, leaving graduates ill-prepared for industry demands.
Ignoring the Industrial Transition
The disconnect between academic preparation and industry realities is particularly evident in the skills prioritized during doctoral training. Academic programs emphasize publishing papers, securing grants, and developing deep expertise in a specialized field. While these skills are essential for academic careers, they have limited applicability in many non-academic roles, where interdisciplinary collaboration, practical problem-solving, and adaptability are more highly valued.
Despite growing awareness of the limited availability of academic positions, many professors still approach doctoral training with the implicit assumption that all candidates are potential future academics. This approach overlooks the fact that most PhD graduates will not pursue or succeed in securing tenure-track positions. For example, recent data from the OECD (2020) highlights that across disciplines, less than 15% of PhD graduates eventually attain permanent academic roles. This stark reality underscores the need for a fundamental shift in how doctoral programs are designed and delivered.
The Need for Professors with Industrial Experience
A key factor in addressing this challenge is ensuring that professors themselves possess a strong understanding of industry realities. Faculty members with industrial experience or a history of collaboration with non-academic sectors are better equipped to guide their students toward diverse career paths. These professors can offer insights into the transferable skills and competencies valued in industry, fostering a more balanced approach to doctoral training.
However, the current system often discourages or devalues industrial experience among academic staff. In many universities, hiring and promotion criteria prioritize traditional academic achievements—such as publication records and research grants—over practical experience or industry engagement. This creates a feedback loop where faculty members lack the perspective needed to prepare students for careers outside academia. As a result, PhD candidates are frequently left to navigate the transition to industry on their own, often with little understanding of what is expected in non-academic roles.
Psychological Barriers to Change
The reluctance to adapt doctoral training models also stems from psychological barriers within academia. Professors may feel that acknowledging the necessity of industrial preparation undermines the prestige of their discipline or the academic system as a whole. For some, it may be difficult to reconcile the idea that their students, trained in advanced research methodologies, are better suited to roles outside the university than within it.
This resistance is further compounded by a lack of incentive structures within universities to support change. Without clear rewards for incorporating industry-relevant skills into doctoral programs or fostering collaborations with non-academic sectors, faculty members may feel little motivation to deviate from traditional approaches. This inertia perpetuates a system where PhD candidates are trained for roles that most will never occupy, leaving them ill-equipped for the careers they ultimately pursue.
The Case for Reform
Addressing this challenge requires a cultural and structural shift within academia. Universities must recognize the necessity of preparing PhD candidates for diverse career trajectories and provide incentives for professors to integrate industry perspectives into their teaching and mentoring. Hiring practices should prioritize or at least value industrial experience among faculty members, ensuring that doctoral training reflects the realities of both academic and non-academic environments.
Additionally, doctoral programs should incorporate structured opportunities for students to gain exposure to industry, such as internships, collaborative research projects, and entrepreneurial training. These initiatives can help bridge the gap between academic preparation and industry demands, ensuring that graduates are equipped to succeed in a wide range of careers.
By addressing the psychological and structural barriers that perpetuate the academic-centric focus of doctoral training, universities can better align their programs with the realities of the modern workforce. This shift is not only essential for the career success of PhD graduates but also for the long-term relevance and impact of higher education in a rapidly changing global economy.
Structural and Financial Limitations of Doctoral Training Models
The rigidity of traditional doctoral training structures represents a major barrier to career sustainability. Most programs emphasize deep specialization within a narrow field, which, while valuable for advancing research, leaves graduates ill-equipped to navigate interdisciplinary or applied contexts. Furthermore, the financial model of doctoral education often exacerbates these challenges. Many candidates rely on precarious funding arrangements, such as short-term research grants or teaching assistantships, which create financial instability and limit their ability to explore professional development opportunities beyond their academic focus.
The European context provides a unique lens for examining these limitations. While initiatives like the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) aim to enhance doctoral training through mobility and skills development, their reach remains limited. Financial disparities between institutions and regions within Europe further contribute to uneven access to quality training and resources. For example, doctoral candidates in Eastern Europe often face fewer opportunities for industry engagement or interdisciplinary collaboration compared to their counterparts in Western Europe.
Gaps in Interdisciplinary and Entrepreneurial Skill Development
Modern labor markets demand professionals who can integrate knowledge across disciplines and think entrepreneurially, yet traditional doctoral programs rarely prioritize these skills. Research by Boud and Solomon (2001) underscores the importance of work-based learning and interdisciplinary collaboration in preparing graduates for diverse career pathways. However, most doctoral curricula remain siloed, focusing exclusively on research outputs rather than practical applications or broader problem-solving.
Entrepreneurial skills, such as project management, networking, and innovation, are particularly underdeveloped in traditional programs. While some European universities have introduced initiatives like innovation hubs or entrepreneurial training workshops, these efforts are often treated as extracurricular rather than integral to the doctoral journey. This marginalization of entrepreneurial skills further limits the adaptability of PhD graduates in non-academic environments.
The Necessity of International Mobility in Doctoral Education
Global mobility is increasingly recognized as a critical component of doctoral training, offering candidates the opportunity to develop cultural adaptability, build international networks, and gain exposure to diverse research environments. However, integrating mobility into doctoral programs remains challenging due to financial, institutional, and personal barriers.
Programs such as Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe have made significant strides in promoting mobility across the European Union, yet participation rates remain uneven. Candidates from underfunded institutions or non-EU countries often struggle to access these opportunities due to visa restrictions, language barriers, or lack of institutional support. Additionally, the bureaucratic complexity of coordinating international exchanges often discourages both students and faculty from pursuing these initiatives.
The lack of international mobility also limits doctoral candidates’ exposure to global research practices and labor market dynamics. For instance, a candidate trained exclusively in one region may find it difficult to adapt to the collaborative, interdisciplinary culture of European industries, which often prioritize team-based innovation over individual research contributions.
Challenges in Aligning Doctoral Training with Non-Academic Careers
One of the most significant criticisms of traditional doctoral training is its misalignment with the demands of non-academic careers. While academia values deep specialization and publication records, industries prioritize practical problem-solving, teamwork, and the ability to adapt to dynamic market conditions. This divergence creates a skills mismatch that leaves many PhD graduates struggling to transition into industry roles.
The issue is particularly pronounced in Europe, where labor markets vary widely across regions. Northern European countries, such as Germany and Sweden, have strong industry-academic partnerships that facilitate smoother transitions for PhD graduates. In contrast, Southern and Eastern European countries often lack such infrastructure, making it harder for graduates to leverage their academic training in non-academic settings. Furthermore, cultural attitudes toward PhDs in industry differ significantly, with some regions perceiving doctoral graduates as overqualified or too specialized for generalist roles.
Preliminary Frameworks for Reform
Addressing the gaps in doctoral training requires a fundamental rethinking of program design. Preliminary frameworks suggest that integrating interdisciplinary coursework, entrepreneurial training, and international mobility into doctoral programs alongside the integration of the candidates into career acceleration programs offered in industry can significantly enhance career outcomes. Leadership development and cultural adaptability should also be prioritized, ensuring that graduates are equipped to navigate the complexities of global labor markets.
One promising approach is the adoption of hybrid models that combine academic rigor with industry engagement. For example, the European Industrial Doctorates (EID) program under Horizon Europe encourages joint supervision by academic and industry mentors, allowing candidates to gain practical experience while completing their doctoral research. Expanding such initiatives and tailoring them to diverse regional contexts could pave the way for more sustainable doctoral training models.
Conclusion
Doctoral training programs, as they currently exist, fall short of preparing graduates for long-term career sustainability. Structural rigidity, financial instability, and a lack of focus on interdisciplinary and entrepreneurial skills limit the adaptability of PhD holders in a rapidly evolving labor market. Challenges in integrating international mobility and aligning training with non-academic career demands further exacerbate these issues, particularly within the European context.
By critically examining these barriers, this article underscores the urgent need for reform in doctoral education. While preliminary frameworks, such as those emphasizing leadership, cultural adaptability, and international exposure, offer promising directions, meaningful change will require coordinated efforts from academia, industry, and policymakers. Only by addressing these systemic challenges can doctoral training programs fully prepare graduates for the diverse opportunities and complexities of the modern workforce.
References
- Jackson, D. (2016). “Skill mastery and the PhD graduate: A mixed-methods study of PhD graduates’ employability skills and employment outcomes.” Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 473–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.999319
- Marginson, S. (2016). “The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems.” Higher Education, 72(4), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0016-x
- OECD. (2020). Education at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en
- Boud, D., & Solomon, N. (2001). Work-based learning: A new higher education? Routledge.