PhD formula – industrial doctorates.
The pros and cons based on the experiences of universities from France.
In Europe, there is a great diversity of interpretations about what an „industrial doctorate” means and how it gets implemented. Therefore, it would be hazardous to define it further than what the European Commission already intended it to be at first : an initiative to promote private public partnerships (PPP) for research and innovation, and especially at its roots – the doctorate.
There are well-known differences between national systems (regulations, policies, etc.), between entrepreneurship and academic traditions or simply differences existing between sectors and cultures. However, a lot of commonalities and genuine knowledge coming from the very first public concerned by the matter, the Early Stage Researchers (ESR) themselves, can be usefully summoned. And especially, when it comes to understand (at the very least) what the forecasted great diversity of PPP schemes found by European nations, should and should notinclude.
This session will be twofold :
1. On one hand, the moderators will start brush out the very basics European early stage researchers, across all disciplines, mostly agreed-on. That is to say on what a PhD, whereas academic, industrial or the mix of both, should and should not include. From that basic understanding, we will take a case study, the „CIFRE conventions” which are frameworks, in France, for PPP at a doctoral level
2. On the other hand, both the contrasts and similarities between this basic understanding of what a modern doctoral training should and should not include, and these „CIFRE conventions”, could be used by the participants themselves as a common framework to analyze and scout for new ideas within their knowledge of different national systems. Every bit of knowledge will be important, starting from their own experiences as ESRs to some regional and national concerns they may know about. The idea being not to use the framework presented as an example but, rather more, as a thinking tool that can (and will) be left behind on the way.
A third time will see the moderators grouping and organizing all recommendations, in order to offer a summary to the last round of comments from the public.