DFIR point toward a more flexible and research-focused PhD education

Dear staff

At DFIR's annual meeting, we discussed DFIR's preliminary recommendations for modernising PhD education in Denmark. There has subsequently been some discussion of these recommendations, not least related to the current hearing on The Danish Ministerial Order on the PhD Programme.

I think there are many good points in the recommendations, not least the proposal to make the programme more flexible with a duration of up to four years.

There is no doubt that the PhD programme is a success in Denmark. Universities graduate many PhDs every year, and they are well qualified and find attractive jobs. However, there are also challenges when we talk about the PhD programme, which is often reduced to: ECTS, publications and milestones (and teaching hours). This is understandable, but also annoying, as a PhD programme should be a period where you learn to think independently, take academic risks and create knowledge that actually moves something.

I therefore think that DFIR's preliminary recommendations address an important need: More flexibility so that the PhD programme can provide more room for experimentation, missteps and sufficient time to write a dissertation that meets international standards.

In my experience, a PhD programme is often challenged in the same aspects: There is a lack of time to develop ideas, the confidence to admit doubts and change tracks, and ultimately time to complete manuscripts. When these elements are not in place, the PhD easily becomes a task to "deliver on" instead of a learning space that moulds a good PhD student.

That's why it makes sense to me when DFIR proposes liberalising The Danish Ministerial Order on the PhD Programme: Flexible prescribed periods (180-240 ECTS, i.e. the possibility of up to four years), a clear minimum for research time (at least 150 ECTS) and a lower minimum for courses (down to 15 ECTS). These are not lower ambitions, but a way to ensure that there is actually room for immersion, missteps and the sidetracks that are sometimes exactly where the breakthrough lies - both when it comes to achieving results and mastering research.

But how is it possible to fund an extra year for an experimental PhD student, for example? I sat at a table with a representative from a large public foundation and there was support for an extra year. There just needs to be enough convincing arguments in favour of the extra year. I sense that grant providers are very interested in PhD students succeeding and also that they can compete with international postdocs if they want to continue along the research path. It can be difficult to compete on the academic level when the PhD programme in many other countries is four to five years with fewer requirements for courses and teaching.

To me, DFIR's recommendations point to a clear direction: protect research time, enable flexibility in practice, and recognise multiple pathways to a strong PhD contribution. If we can create more time for immersion, more realistic space in the prescribed period (up to four years where it makes sense), and time to complete the dissertation, then I believe more PhD programmes will create both better research and more robust PhDs.

It will be interesting to see if DFIR's recommendations will influence the new ministerial order.