In 2011, the European Research Area (ERA) outlined several principles of innovative doctoral training such as research excellence; exposure to industry and other relevant employment sectors; transferable skills training; and quality assurance (Vittorio 2015). Similar policies and guidelines can also be found in doctoral education across the globe, where the request for innovation and societal collaboration is urgent (e.g. Association of American Universities 1998/2017; Australian Council of Learned Academies 2016; HEQSF 2013; Swedish Government Bill, 2008, 2009, 2016). At the same time, it is known that the general conditions for innovation vary across countries (Meeus & Edquist 2006), and that global policy trends are construed and organised differently at national level in doctoral education (Andres et al. 2015). Combined with the fact that gender differences have been found in many studies on doctoral education in general (Jones 2013), it is significant to ask: What are the contextual and gendered conditions for doctoral students to develop their innovative and collaborative capability?

In our first approach to this problem field, we will present preliminary results from our analysis of some conditions at macro level in Sweden and South Africa. From a comparative perspective, we will elucidate how expressions of innovation, societal collaboration, gender and related concepts have occurred and converged in their national policies and guidelines on doctoral education in the 21^st century. We will use summative content analysis for analysing data, which implies an interpretative process of “identifying and quantifying certain words or content in a text with the purpose of understanding the contextual use of the words or content” (Hsieh & Shannon 2005, p. 1283).

Comparing Swedish and South African doctoral education is well justified. Doctoral education is highlighted as a means to increased innovation and collaboration with society in the national policies of both countries. However, they also differ in their organisation of doctoral education, and their societal needs (e.g. for the South African context, see: National Planning Commission 2011). We assume that these differences should reflect nationally diverse ways to conceptualise innovation, societal collaboration, gender and related concepts in policy documents on doctoral education. Also, such a comparative perspective enables deeper understanding of the contextual conditions in Swedish doctoral education.

For the purpose of this conference, we will delimit our literature review to Swedish studies on doctoral education. While such studies are generally rare (Elmgren et al. 2015), they are almost non-existent in relation to innovation and collaboration. Some of these studies are rather focused on research policies and institutional conditions in general (Langfeldt et al. 2015; Stensaker & Benner 2013), than on doctoral education per se. Others are more concerned with doctoral students’ conditions for societal collaboration in practice (Andræ Thelin 2009; Bienowska & Klofsten 2012; Heldal 2016; Lundqvist & Benner 2012; Bienkowska, Klofsten and Rasmussen 2016; Wallgren 2007). However, when it comes to studies on innovation, there is dearth in the research literature. But we do know that doctoral students’ creativity is not always encouraged (Brodin 2015, 2016, 2017), and that other scholars have expressed similar concerns (Wingren 2015). Such results matters, as meta-analyses show a strong correlation between individuals’ creativity and innovation and also that contextual factors influence their innovative output (Sarooghi, Libaers & Burkemper 2015). We also know that concepts such as independence, critical thinking, and communication skills are frequently associated with innovation and collaboration (Cobo 2013). Thus our will include such related concepts in our analysis.  

This conference contribution aims at distributing our study to a Swedish audience, while the same results will be presented at the international Quality in Postgraduate Research conference (QPR) in Adelaide, 17-19 April 2018.

The purpose of this thesis is to explore the phenomenon of critical thinking in scholarship as regards its meanings, conditions, and development using a hermeneutic phenomenological approach. This exploration takes its departure in ancient Greece, following a historical movement of the phenomenon up to present day perspectives on critical thinking, revealing a range of different meanings and conditions. Thus, the reader is invited to follow my synthetic meaning constitution of the phenomenon of critical thinking as it appears in different philosophical and educational texts. Through this gradual process of meaning constitution it is shown that the scholarly critical thinker is in one way or another concerned with abstract relationships, in order to either master, understand, or change the world. These underlying interests may, in turn, be derived from the critical thinker’s sense of responsibility towards God, nature, society, and humanity as a whole. It also appears that even though critical thinking in scholarship is traditionally framed within rational and principle based thinking, the development of the meaning of critical thinking is on its way to new dimensions. Besides rationality, other qualities of critical thinking are highlighted, such as reflective thinking, emotions, creativity, imagination, and intuition. Despite the fact that research on critical thinking has started to move in new directions, educational policy documents implicitly conceptualize critical thinking in traditional terms. This means that the phenomenon is captured within its own instrumentality, with no further concern for its possible ends. The same circumstance can be noted in relation to contemporary perspectives on critical thinking, which tend to focus on the process of critical thinking, since critical thinking is implicitly understood as an assurance of attaining normatively good ends. However, critical thinking is a phenomenon that is future oriented, involving its intention and possible ends. Against this background, it is therefore argued that critical thinking receives its most critical feature when intention, process and end constitute a constructive interrelated whole.