Doctoral supervisors at Uppsala University are required to complete a three-week compulsory pedagogic training titled “Supervising Doctoral Students”. One of the tasks is to read a book/paper on supervision and research education, and write a reflective journal based on the selected content.

Working at the Department of Chemistry–Ångström Laboratory, I immediately decided to choose a paper related to my subject, “The Goal of Doctoral Education in Chemistry: Faculty Perspectives”, published in the Journal of Chemical Education, American Chemical Society (J. Chem. Educ. 2024, 101, 3050–3061).

This paper summarizes and evaluates the faculty’s perspectives on the overarching goals of doctoral education in chemistry (DEC) through comprehensive national-wide faculty interviews conducted in the US. Six interrelated goals were identified: two primary goals (preparing students to be competitive for future careers and cultivating independent scientists) and four secondary goals (fostering expertise, nurturing critical thinkers, generating novel research, and contributing to institutional rankings). Further analysis yielded three key insights: preparing students for a career and preparing students to be independent scientists are convergent goals; students may be receiving imbalanced preparation for their actual careers; faculty expressed varying levels of confidence in identifying program goals.

Significant point (from the paper): According to a commissioned report from the American Chemical Society (ACS), the goal of DEC is to educate students to be adept at addressing societal challenges and imparting knowledge to succeeding generations. Many (specific) goals, including generating new knowledge, advancing technology, promoting society advancements, and broader national project of employment, are pursued by DEC.

My own reflection: It is interesting to compare the DEC goal between the US and the Swedish education systems. Doctoral education in Sweden is regulated by the Higher Education Act (1992:1434) and the Higher Education Ordinance (1993:100). These are supplemented by the following local regulations: Guidelines for doctoral studies at Uppsala University (UFV 2022/728), Admission and grading regulations for doctoral studies and study programmes at Uppsala University (UFV 2022/729) and Guidelines for doctoral (third cycle) education at the Faculty of Science and Technology (TEKNAT 2021/301). According to the Higher Education Act, doctoral education shall develop the knowledge and skills needed to be able to conduct research independently. Through supervision and writing of the thesis, the doctoral student shall be prepared for a scientifically independent and critical professional role within areas in which a high level of scientific knowledge and research abilities are essential. These goals are generally aligned with the American DEC goals. This consensus emphasizes the importance of producing graduates with breadth and depth of knowledge and skills for future independent careers.

Significant point: While all participants emphasized the crucial role of faculty mentorship in DEC career preparation, the extent of this preparation often depends on the student’s research advisor. This variability is concerning, as not all faculty prioritize career preparation, potentially leaving students uninformed about available careers or ill-prepared for them…There is a misalignment between those careers for which faculty prepare students and those genuinely available…The annual number of Ph.D. chemistry job-seekers includes more than 3,000 newly awarded chemistry doctoral degrees in addition to an unknown number of postdocs and existing faculty. This is in contrast to approximately 550 to 600 research-focused and teaching-focused academic careers being advertised each year (in the US).

My own reflection: Faculty mentorship plays a critical role in shaping students’ career paths, where students rely heavily on supervisors for guidance, networking, and professional development. Ideally, supervisors should align career goals with the students, making sure that all students receive adequate exposure to both academic and non-academic career paths. In reality, however, some supervisors may not prioritize the latter for their students, or they do not have sufficient experience themselves with non-traditional career trajectories. Here, it would be nice for institutions to offer career support based on their alumni network and/or collaborators outside academia. Meanwhile, teaching experience during DEC greatly benefits students’ future career development, as it provides necessary training to develop skills in communication and mentoring. According to the general study syllabus, doctoral students who teach should undergo thorough pedagogic training for higher education. A five-week Academic Teacher Training course (7.5 credit) is often included in doctoral students’ study plan.

Significant point: Literature demonstrates the importance of both breadth and depth in students’ training as numerous research and/or society challenges transcend conventional disciplinary boundaries. However, a potential limitation arises if DEC mandates single-advisor, single-project assignments, limiting exposure to breath.

My own reflection: I fully agree with the authors’ concern: mandating a single-advisor, single-project structure can be very limiting for doctoral students. They may not gain the broader perspective needed to tackle multi-faceted challenges, with knowledge from data science, ethics, environmental studies, or public policy. In this regard, co-supervisors may often bring new perspectives to the DEC, widening the scope of expertise. Doctoral students are also encouraged to work on side projects or engage in broader research initiatives. This will provide a balance between the depth of expertise in a primary research field and the breadth of knowledge and skills across related areas, better preparing students for the complexity of societal challenges.

Significant point: Participant 5 clearly states that their university’s goal for the program was different than their own; to get good metrics for university rankings…Balancing the pursuit of institutional prestige with the goals of DEC poses an intriguing facet of the discourse surrounding chemistry programs. The interview indicates that the institution’s ranking doesn’t really impact whether institution rank is part of the institution’s/program’s goal.

My own reflection: This is an interesting point. Indeed, high subject ranking attracts more high-quality prospective students while offering better employability for graduates. However, the associated prestige tends to emphasize metrics like research funding, publication output, and faculty reputation, which does not necessarily reflect the quality of student training or the long-term success of DEC programs. It is crucial that the program should prioritize student success over purely institutional prestige. The holistic development of students, e.g., equipping them with research skills, fostering mentorship, and preparing them for a wide array of career opportunities, should be the fundamental focus of DEC.

Significant point: The need for tailoring training programs to meet these goals is evident, highlighting the importance of individualized career development plans and mentorship to navigate these diverse pathways effectively.

My own reflection: At Uppsala University, such an individualized career development plan is known as the individual study plan (ISP). The principal supervisor, in consultation with the professor responsible for doctoral studies (FUAP), is responsible for drawing up an ISP prior to the student’s admission. Such a document shall contain a timetable for the doctoral studies, a specification of how supervision is organized, and a description of the undertakings of the doctoral student and the department during the period of studies. The ISP must be revised at least annually in collaboration between the doctoral student and their supervisor. I recently finished revising the ISPs with my two PhD students. The revision of ISP offers an excellent opportunity for us to sit down and reflect on each other’s performance and make logical and achievable goals for the year to come.