Call for Papers: ZFHE 21/4

Posted on 2026-05-09

Call for papers, ZFHE 21/4:

Collaborative Doctoral Programs as Innovative and Hybrid Spaces for Professional Development: Governance, Career Paths, and Supervision at Interfaces and in Areas of Tension

Edited by P. Reinbacher, B. Böckem & A. Pausits

BACKGROUND

Cooperative doctoral programs—that is, doctoral models in which universities collaborate with other universities, non-university research institutions, companies, or public organizations—are a current and relevant topic for higher education research for several reasons (UniWiND, 2019; Borrell-Damian, 2009). They exemplify the changes in the academic qualification system, in which traditional university doctorates have long since ceased to be the only option for the development of early-career researchers (EUA, 2010; European Commission, 2011). With the growing importance of inter- and transdisciplinarity, application-oriented research, and the efforts of many institutions to systematically organize knowledge transfer, new forms of shared responsibility and joint supervision are emerging (OECD, 2020; Rogga & Zscheischler, 2021).

From the perspective of higher education research and development, cooperative doctoral programs bring key areas of tension into sharp focus: the quality and independence of scholarly work, professionalization and role clarification in (co-)supervision, governance and resource management in inter-institutional research partnerships—all of these promise broader skill sets and new career options, but also reveal lines of conflict at interfaces, such as in selection procedures and supervision arrangements, in power and status asymmetries, or in the delicate balance between scientific and applied logics, or between theory and practice (Science Council, 2023; Krempkow et al., 2022; Lee & Green, 2009; Borrell-Damian, 2009; UniWiND, 2019).

Currently, initiatives in Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and at the pan-European level are setting important priorities—consider, for example, programs such as the FWF’s doc.funds.connect and the two calls for proposals on “Educational Innovation Requires Educational Research” by the BMB and the BMBWF, the federal government’s project-based grants in the programs “P-1 Doctoral Programs (2017–2020)” as well as “P-1 Mobility Support for Doctoral Candidates and Further Development of the Third Cycle (2021–2024)” and their successors from swissuniversities, or the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions under Horizon Europe 2021–2027, as well as the Doctoral Networks (formerly Innovative Training Networks) for funding excellent projects in which the European University Institute is involved.

Furthermore, these programs reveal structural developments: greater differentiation within the doctoral system, the integration of new actors into the promotion of early-career researchers, and the trend toward organizing doctoral studies in a manner more closely tied to projects and third-party funding (Torka, 2018; UniWiND, 2019). Here, one can observe how institutional cultures, supervision practices, and expectations regarding doctoral performance are changing, and what consequences this has for both academic careers and career paths outside the university and academic system (Bridle et al., 2023; Geppert et al., 2025).

Thus, cooperative doctoral programs offer a vivid case study, for example, for questions of quality, equity, governance, and innovation in the higher education system (EUA, 2010; European Commission, 2011)—and they constitute an area in which current, global transformation processes are particularly concentrated at various levels.

OBJECTIVE OF THIS ISSUE

This call invites submissions that empirically, conceptually, or comparatively analyze cooperative doctoral programs at the macro, meso, and micro levels, thereby contributing to an understanding of governance, equity, and innovation in the doctoral system. For orientation, we structure potential topics along strategic-political (macro), organizational-institutional (meso), and practice-oriented (micro) dimensions; supplemented by cross-cutting themes such as quality assurance and evaluation, gender and diversity, internationalization, and digitalization.

The following topic areas are not exhaustive but are intended to serve as an initial guide and to highlight potential entry points for further, thematically relevant contributions:

  1. Macro-level: Strategic and higher education and science policy dimensions

1.1 Power and status asymmetries between universities and universities of applied sciences (FH/HAW/PH), e.g., regarding roles, interpretive authority, resources, or the right to award doctoral degrees.

1.2 Science vs. applied logic: Shifts in the understanding of research orientation, the relationship between basic and applied research.

1.3 Systemic and profile effects: Consequences for the profile development of higher education types/sectors, interdisciplinarity, and knowledge and technology transfer.

  1. Meso level: Governance, organization, and framework conditions

2.1 Governance and funding models: Responsibilities, decision-making authority, processes, transparency; success factors and typical pitfalls.

2.2 Legal/structural prerequisites: formal and informal conditions for sustainable anchoring (e.g., responsibilities, contracts, rules, resources).

2.3 Institutional regimes and traditions: effects of different doctoral regulations, accreditation requirements, and organizational routines/cultures.

  1. Micro-level: Supervision, qualification, and operational practices

3.1 Co-supervision in practice: models, functionality, tensions; roles and responsibilities, support needs; pitfalls and success factors.

3.2 Conflict management: division of responsibility, mediation, procedures, and practices for handling conflicts.

3.3 Dual Affiliation of Doctoral Candidates: Effects on social integration, identity, academic socialization, and career paths.

4. Cross-cutting themes

4.1. Internationalization (e.g., cross-border collaborations, mobility, recognition, education export as a potential risk).

4.2. Digitalization (e.g., digital or hybrid supervision and collaboration, data, database, and infrastructure issues).

4.3. Gender & Diversity (equal opportunity, care/workload situations, inclusion, bias in supervision/selection).

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Borrell-Damian, L. (2009). Collaborative Doctoral Education: University-Industry Partnerships for Enhancing Knowledge Exchange. DOC-CAREERS Project. European University Association (EUA).

Bridle, H., Vrieling, H., Cardillo, M., Araya, Y., & Hinojosa, L. (2013). Preparing for an interdisciplinary future: A perspective from early-career researchers. Futures 53, 22–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.09.003

European Commission. (2011). Principles for Innovative Doctoral Training. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation. https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/policy_library/principles_for_innovative_doctoral_training.pdf

Geppert, C., Pausits, A., Mitterauer, L. & Hofer, M. (2025). To leave or not to leave? Expectations, factors, and trajectories of academic careers in the light of doctoral program reforms. Studies in Higher Education 50 (8), 1777–1796, https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2401943

Krempkow, R., Harris-Huemmert, S., Langemeyer, I. & Hunke, S. (Eds.) (2022). Quality in the Promotion of Young Researchers and the Cooperative Doctorate. Quality in Science (QiW) 16 (3+4).

Lee, A. & Green, B. (2009). Supervision as metaphor. Studies in Higher Education 34 (6), 615–630, https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802597168

Marti, S. & Peneoasu, A.-M. (2026). Policies in doctoral education: Navigating geopolitical change and technological acceleration while advancing Europe’s society and competitiveness. European University Association (EUA) Council for Doctoral Education (EUA-CDE). https://eua.eu/publications/reports/policies-in-doctoral-education-navigating-geopolitical-change-and-technological-acceleration-while-advancing-europes-society-and-competitiveness.html

Rogga, S. & Zscheischler, J. (2021). Opportunities, balancing acts, and challenges – doing PhDs in transdisciplinary research projects. Environmental Science & Policy 120, 138-144, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.03.009

UniWiND. (2019). Diversity through Cooperation – Recommendations of the UniWiND Executive Board on PhD Programs with Partner Institutions. https://www.uniwind.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Stellungnahmen_Positionen/2019-UniWiND_Promotionsverfahren_mit_Partnereinrichtungen.pdf

Torka, M. (2018). Projectification of doctoral training? How research fields respond to a new funding regime. Minerva 56 (1), pp. 59–83, http://www.jstor.org/stable/45211326

German Research Council. (2023). Structuring of the Doctoral Program in the German Higher Education System. Position Paper (Drs. 1196-23). https://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/2023/1196-23.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=14

About the Journal

The ZFHE is a peer-reviewed online journal for scholarly articles with practical relevance to current issues in higher education development. The focus is on didactic, structural, and cultural developments in teaching and student learning. Particular attention is given to topics that are innovative and still open to various approaches.

The ZFHE is published by a consortium of European scholars. Further information: https://www.zfhe.at.

Submission Guidelines

Articles may be submitted in three different formats in German or English:

A research article should meet the following criteria:

  • addresses a systematic question within trans-, inter-, or intra-disciplinary contexts;
  • takes a research gap as its starting point;
  • demonstrates extensive engagement with the scholarly discourse;
  • employs a robust methodological approach;
  • includes a reflection on the author’s own work;
  • presents the research methodology;
  • employs a method that is well-suited to answering the research question;
  • presents the scholarly discourse in a reflective manner;
  • offers clearly recognizable added value or a contribution to answering the research question or to the research discussion;
  • consistently follows relevant citation rules (APA 7 style, current edition);
  • comprises between 20,000 and 33,000 characters (including spaces, as well as the title page, bibliography, and author information).

A research-led development contribution should meet the following criteria:

  • offers a higher education development perspective with a solid research foundation;
  • discusses and analyzes a systematic problem in teaching development
  • is a scientifically grounded “institutional research” contribution
  • is supported by a literature review;
  • clearly addresses the communication between academia and practice and/or the connection between the two poles of “research and development”;
  • consistently follows relevant citation rules (APA 7 style, current edition);
  • comprises between 20,000 and 33,000 characters (including spaces, cover page, and bibliography and author information).

A development article should meet the following criteria:

  • addresses a specific issue in higher education development at the author’s own institution;
  • practical need;
  • is embedded in the academic discussion and literature (without, however, claiming to provide a comprehensive literature review);
  • offers suggestions for teaching and higher education development, including recommendations for action where appropriate;
  • follows a systematic and transparent structure (e.g., no obscure references to specifics and details in a practical field);
  • identifies generalizable aspects and factors in the sense of theory formation;
  • clear considerations regarding transferability;
  • Research gaps are identified
  • consistently follows relevant citation rules (APA 7 style, current edition);
  • is between 20,000 and 33,000 characters in length (including spaces, as well as the title page, bibliography, and author information).

Schedule

  • July 2026 – Deadline for submission of the complete manuscript: Please upload your manuscripts in anonymized form to the ZFHE journal system (https://www.zfhe.at) under the appropriate section (Research Article, Research-Guided Development Article, Development Article) of Issue XX; to do so, you must first register as an “Author” in the system.
  • Mid-September 2026 – Feedback/Reviews: All contributions will be evaluated using a double-blind review process (see below).
  • Mid-October 2026 – Revision Deadline: If necessary, authors may revise their contributions by this date in accordance with the critiques and recommendations from the reviews.
  • December 2026 – Publication: In December 2027, the finalized contributions will be published at https://www.zfhe.at and will also be available as a print publication.

Review Process

All submitted articles are evaluated for their scientific quality through a “double-blind” peer-review process. The editors of each issue propose the reviewers for the respective thematic focus and assign the individual articles to the reviewers; they also decide on the acceptance of the articles. The selection of reviewers and the review process for each thematic issue are overseen by a member of the Editorial Board.

Formatting and Submission

To save valuable time when formatting contributions, we ask all authors to use the template available for download on the ZFHE website from the outset:

ZFHE Template German

 

ZFHE Template English

The texts must be editable and available, for example, in the formats Microsoft Word (.doc), Office Open XML (.docx), Open Document Text (.odt), or as plain text (.txt); please do not submit PDF files. Contributions are initially required in an anonymized version to ensure the double-blind review process. Please remove all references to the authors from the document (including in the document properties!). After a positive review result, this information will be reinserted.

Any questions?

For questions regarding content, please contact:

Paul Reinbacher (paul.reinbacher@ph-ooe.at), Beate Böckem (beate.boeckem@zhdk.ch), and/or Attila Pausitz (attila.pausits@donau-uni.ac.at)