What Will a PhD Look Like in the Future? Perspectives on Emerging Trends in Sustainability Doctoral Programs in a Time of Disruption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this perspective paper, we aim to provide insights that can help academic institutions and transdisciplinary doctoral programs position themselves within a changing research landscape and prepare for future disruption. We are a group of eight first-year, transdisciplinary doctoral students at the University of Waterloo, representing diverse disciplinary perspectives and gender and cultural experiences. In the process of orienting ourselves as sustainability researchers, we conducted collaborative workshops to critically examine our intellectual and disciplinary positionality by reflecting on the question: What will a PhD look like in the future? Amid this process, the coronavirus pandemic happened, causing a major disruption to our research activity and personal lives. What began as a reflective process on doctoral research shifted toward a more substantive and far reaching discussion about disruption and academia. Through our workshops we identified four emerging trends in the domain of sustainability scholarship that are shaping the future of the academic experience: shifts from disciplinarity to transdisciplinarity; researchers as knowledge holders to knowledge brokers; researcher competencies as bounded to boundary-less; and metrics of success as citation impact to societal impact. We also identified three broad trends in the context of academia that were accelerated by the coronavirus pandemic and may be exacerbated by future disruptions: (1) increasing virtualization of research and teaching; (2) increasing need for flexibility of academic structures and processes; and (3) growing economic and socio-political uncertainty. We offer concrete recommendations that encourage doctoral students and programs to play a more fundamental role in solving complex challenges in a disrupted academic and social landscape. We conclude with our vision of the PhD student of the future as one who thrives in transdisciplinary settings, links society and science through knowledge brokering, spans boundaries between multiple epistemologies to communicate and collaborate through uncertainty, and prioritizes societal impact.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.068 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".