One foot in academia and one in work-life – the case of Swedish industrial PhD students

Introduction

The importance of doctoral education is recognized in contemporary society and there is an emerging interest for university–industry collaboration in doctoral education (Bernhard and Olsson, 2020; Bin et al., 2016; Borrell-Damian et al., 2010, 2015; Gustavsson et al., 2016; Jones, 2018; Roolaht, 2015). Doctoral education has rapidly expanded, encouraged by higher education policies (Hasgall et al., 2019; Santos and Patricio, 2020) and transformed along with societal needs and labor markets for PhDs, as doctoral education today does not merely aim for academic careers (Jones, 2018; Malfroy, 2011; Valencia-Forrester, 2019). The transition of doctoral education also reflects the ongoing transformation of higher education institutions (HEI) toward an entrepreneurial approach with increased interaction and collaboration with industry, community and governments (Altbach et al., 2019; Blessinger and Stockley, 2016; Giones, 2019; Gomes et al., 2005; Klofsten et al., 2019) often referred to as academic engagement (Perkmann et al., 2021), strategic alliances (Elmuti et al, 2005) or industry alignment (Wildy et al., 2015). Previous research emphasizes that when increasing industry involvement in doctoral education, there are issues to consider both for university and industry as expectations on research impact may differ (Caley et al., 2021; Valentin and Shane, 2014). The traditional focus of knowledge creation in academia is gradually transitioned as the value of knowledge creation in and together with industry is acknowledged (Gomes et al., 2005; Jones, 2018). Universities should act as a provider of trained researchers, although universities often struggle with low completion rates of traditional doctoral education, i.e. PhD (Littlefield et al., 2015; Roos et al., 2021). The doctorate degree covers skills and tools that are essential to all sectors of contemporary society (Cohen et al., 2016; McCarthy and Wienk, 2019). There is, thus, an increased interest in collaborative doctoral education as industry employees need to expand their knowledge and skills (Borrell-Damian et al., 2010, 2015; Gill and Mullarkey, 2015; Grimm, 2018; Jones, 2018; Roolaht, 2015) along with the continuous up-skilling demands of the workplace (Blessinger and Stockley, 2016). University–industry interactions in doctoral education are of importance for mutual life-long learning by integrating workplace learning and research redeveloping work practices related to new concepts, technologies and organizational principles (Bölling and Eriksson, 2016; Olsson et al., 2021). The workplace is viewed as a learning space, in which interactions increase levels of knowledge, skills and expertise among employees (Billett, 2004). Accordingly, there is a rise of alternative forms of doctoral education based on collaboration between academia and work–life especially with focus on the workplace. Different concepts, and forms of doctoral education collaboration with industry exist world-wide e.g. professional doctorate (Fulton et al., 2022; Jones, 2018; Lee et al, 2009; Wildy et al, 2015) business doctorate for executives (Gill and Mullarkey, 2015), hybrid trajectories of doctoral students (Santos and Patricio, 2020) and industrial PhD education (Berg and McKelvey, 2020; Bernhard and Olsson, 2020).

Recent academy adaptations of different hybridized models for doctoral education call for further research following the emerging new landscape of doctoral educations (Bernhard and Olsson, 2020; Borrell-Damian et al., 2015; Jones, 2018; Lee et al., 2009; Wildy et al., 2015). The present study seeks to correspond to this research gap by exploring alternative doctoral educations in Sweden, here industrial PhD students referring to students who originate from and are fully employed in industry (company or organization) while pursuing their PhD education, i.e. the company is investing in an employee to become a PhD (Bernhard and Olsson, 2020). There are, hence, dual goals for industrial PhD education collaboration, i.e. individual skill and knowledge enhancements as well as increased organizational competence and access to contemporary research. Previous research stresses that industrial PhD students act as brokers of knowledge, spanning the boundaries between academia and industry networks, unlocking new research opportunities (Assbring and Nuur, 2017; Berg and McKelvey, 2020; Gustavsson et al., 2016; Kunttu et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2009; Thune, 2009), while at the same time struggling with dual cultures and expectations (Kihlander et al., 2011; Bernhard and Olsson, 2020). Industrial PhD students may be viewed as key stakeholders embodying the informing flows, i.e. interactions between industry and university and between industry and research, offering opportunities for validation and testing of empirical results and models (Bernhard and Olsson, 2020). Existing research applying the concept of industrial PhD education are e.g. programs in informatics and engineering in Sweden (Berg and McKelvey, 2020; Bernhard and Olsson, 2020; Kihlander et al., 2011), engineering and health science in Portugal (Tavares et al., 2020), engineering and automotive manufacturing in Germany (Grimm, 2018) and programs as policy tools for university–industry collaboration in Estonia and Denmark (Roolaht, 2015). However, research on industrial PhD education is limited and there are calls for more empirical studies regarding collaborative arrangements for mutual learning (Bernhard and Olsson, 2020; Kihlander et al., 2011; Santos and Patricio, 2020).

Work-integrated learning (WIL) is a transdisciplinary approach for collaboration between academia and work–life, an umbrella term for a range of university initiatives and forms to integrate theoretical knowledge with practice work bridging research, higher education and practice for mutual learning outcomes and preparing students for the transition into work–life (Bates, 2008; Bernhard et al., 2018; Billett, 2004, 2009, 2014; Bowen and Drysdale, 2017; Gellerstedt et al., 2018; Olsson et al., 2021; Patrick et al., 2008; Rampersad, 2015). Valencia-Forrester (2019) stresses that there is a need to apply WIL since integration of industry experience in PhD education may increase the employability of PhDs. WIL is here applied as theory and a model for university–industry collaboration aiming at knowledge exchange, learning and research. Thus, the aim of this study is to explore the benefits and barriers for learning in industrial PhD education through the perspectives of industrial PhD students. A WIL approach is applied to identify key issues that university and industry need to consider promoting mutual learning:

Theoretical framework

A WIL perspective may embrace different approaches to learning, where theoretical and practical knowledge and experiences are integrated across educational as well as work–life and civil society contexts (Billett, 2009). Learning is a result of the social interactions in and around practices; people learn when they engage in everyday activities and interact with others (Billett, 2014) i.e. the social contexts are of importance for learning [Lave and Wenger, 2005 (1991); Hoel and Christensen, 2020].

WIL is often defined as an educational strategy in which students combine conventional academic learning with some periods of time at workplaces (industry) of relevance to a program of study and careers (Eames and Coll, 2010) . The WIL concept in higher education has developed over time and covers today education, collaboration and research (Bernhard and Olsson, 2020; Olsson et al., 2019; Gellerstedt et al., 2015; Harteis et al., 2014). In higher education, WIL may be categorized as:

• co-op, the traditional cooperative education model (Barbeau, 1973; Franks and Blomqvist, 2004), often referred to as sandwich education (Ward and Jefferies, 2004) or internships (Sovilla and Varty, 2004);

• case, using practice as inspiration;

• imprint, bringing practice to class;

• tools, using professional tools;

• field, bringing class to practice (Gellerstedt et al., 2015); and

• industrial PhD education (Bernhard and Olsson, 2020).

All categories of WIL are based on the fundamental idea of a tripartite collaboration between academia, students and industry integrating knowledge and skills from academia and work–life.

Research on WIL merges learning and working examining the relationships between them as joint collaborations and interactions for learning (Billett, 2014; Harteis et al., 2014). Furthermore, research shows that theory and practice complement each other and enrich learning (Björck and Johansson, 2019). Adults continue to learn and develop through their occupational practice or workplace (i.e. life-long learning) hence, the industry settings need to be “legitimized, understood more fully and on their own terms as environments in which individuals come to participate and learn” (Billett, 2014, p. 690). Furthermore, as industrial PhD students often are mid-life professional students there is a need to proceed from the pedagogical discourse of adult learners (andragogy) when designing an industrial PhD education (Caley et al, 2021; Cohen et al., 2016) to capture the full potential of WIL.

WIL has the potential to provide direct benefits not only for work–life and academia, but also for a wider community as well as creating synergy between theory and practice (Gellerstedt et al., 2015; Olsson et al., 2021). WIL is mainly applied in undergraduate degrees and supported by industry and governments (Valencia-Forrester, 2019). Academic supervisors in PhD education stress that WIL brings forth students with greater maturity and improved research skills (Garza and Jones, 2017), while employers benefit by accessing work-ready students (Phillips, 2014). WIL students are often more psychologically prepared for work–life (Purdie et al., 2013), with a stronger professional identity (Jackson, 2013) and have career benefits regarding early career job advancement and higher salary (Gellerstedt et al., 2015). Apart from the pedagogical learning benefits, WIL also forms the basis for collaboration and interactions between higher education and industry (Olsson et al., 2019). Thus, the WIL approach needs to adjust to the development of contemporary society and there are calls for more innovative applications of WIL as well as including broader, sector-wide research incorporating the perspectives of students, universities, industry and global perspectives on the future (Bowen and Drysdale, 2017; Bernhard and Olsson, 2020; Valencia-Forrester, 2019; Zegwaard and Rowe, 2019). The role of WIL in PhD education or third-cycle education is less explored compared to undergraduate education (Bernhard and Olsson, 2020; Valencia-Forrester, 2019). Thus, there is a need for more research on collaboration between university and industry with a focus on industrial PhD students as they are active in the university–industry intersection (Bernhard and Olsson, 2020). Furthermore, previous research stresses that there are dual knowledge gaps of career development options as industry employers have limited insight into the value of engaging a PhD graduate, while PhD graduates are often uninformed of employment opportunities outside of academia (McCarthy and Wienk, 2019), which further strengthens the need for future studies within this research field.

The WIL approach is in this study combined with the Informing flow framework, originating from Gill et al. (2016) to illustrate and analyze university–industry collaboration with the perspective of industrial PhD students. The framework has been practiced in previous university–society collaboration studies with focus on WIL and doctoral education (Bernhard et al., 2018; Bernhard and Olsson, 2020). The informing flow framework is applied since it is closely related to the WIL approach stressing transdisciplinary work and exchange of knowledge among actors to break down boundaries that hinder interactions, flows of knowledge and learning and the relationship between individuals and organizations. The informing flow model is, thus, a strategic tool to identify and assess individual and organizational interactions related to informing channels and forms based on the premises of growing complexity of society and growing participant diversity of the stakeholders. Key stakeholders are categorized as students’ community, research community, community of practice (industry) and academia (Gill et al., 2016).

As illustrated in Figure 1, industrial PhD students are placed in the center of the framework overlapping all key stakeholders, thus, embodying the informing flows between practice and university, and between practice and research. Furthermore, they are part of informing flows within practice, research and student communities (Bernhard and Olsson, 2020). Here, the collaboration is viewed as a cross-fertilization not only of disciplines but also of industry and academia, theory and practice related to industrial PhD education and workplace learning. Hence, this collaboration provides good opportunities for practical as well as conceptual development of workplace learning.

Methodology

Based on the purpose of this study, this research is conducted as an explorative qualitative study focusing on industrial PhD students’ perspectives across three disciplines at a Swedish university profiling in WIL. Qualitative method was chosen to understand people’s [industrial PhD students’] experiences, beliefs, opinions, attitudes, behavior and interactions expressed in their own words. Using qualitative interviews include flexibility and, thus, semistructured interviews as format was applied (Bryman, 2008) to conduct the study in an explorative manner. In addition, documents such as national statistics on PhD education in Sweden, PhD education curricula and university policy documents were studied to fully understand the empirical settings before the data collection was undertaken.

An initial qualitative study of a small sample of five industrial PhD students and five employers from industry was conducted in 2019–2020 (Bernhard and Olsson, 2020). This study is a subsequent study to broaden and deepen the research problem by covering industrial PhD students in various educational phases, adding more disciplines as well as more industrial contexts.

Findings

This section presents the benefits and barriers for learning in industrial PhD education through the lens of industrial PhD students who are acting in the intersection of academia and work–life.

Discussion

This article contributes to the under-researched field of industrial PhD education by demonstrating the importance of university–industry collaboration in doctoral education. The learning benefits and barriers are highlighted through the lens of the industrial PhD students who are acting in the intersection of academia and work–life. By applying a WIL approach, key issues that university and industry need to consider promoting mutual learning are identified. In contrast to earlier research on industrial PhD education that mainly focused on learning outcomes and educational experiences, this explorative study gives voice to industrial PhD students’ perspectives. As pointed out above, existing research agrees on that industrial PhD students act as brokers of knowledge and span the boundaries between academia and work–life (Assbring and Nuur, 2017; Berg and McKelvey, 2020; Bernhard and Olsson, 2020; Gustavsson et al., 2016; Kunttu et al., 2018; Thune, 2009). Undoubtedly there are several benefits due to industrial PhD students having one foot in academia and one in work–life. The main benefit for learning is proximity and access for learning. Inclusion in academia as well as in industry enables the industrial PhD students’ embodying and integrating the university–industry collaboration in accordance with the idea of WIL. Most of the interactions between industry and academia pass through the industrial PhD students (Figure 1). Furthermore, as the industrial PhD students are experienced practitioners from industry, they possess contextual understanding and tacit knowledge that give opportunities to integrate theory and practice during their entire PhD education that may support industry and academia (Figure 1). Industrial PhD students are highlighting the WIL perspective when generating learning and new knowledge during the PhD education as interactions and flows of information between all key stakeholders [students’ community, research community, community of practice (industry) and academia (Figure 1)]. This kind of interactions, hence, offer multiple learning opportunities, innovations (Berg and McKelvey, 2020) and may also advance societal impact of PhD student research (Gustavsson et al., 2016; Olsson et al., 2021). Besides inclusion in the research community, students’ community and academia support the industrial PhD students’ ability to critically reflect and review their own workplaces by integrating theory and practice. A university–industry collaboration should be prepared to deal with unexpected societal circumstances to keep and sustain the relation and its benefits. Seen from international studies it is beneficial with an adaptable PhD education, i.e. resilient, and adaptive to societal changes transforming along with societal needs (Giones, 2019; Gomes et al., 2005; Fulton et al., 2022; Malfroy, 2011; Santos and Patricio, 2020; Valencia-Forrester, 2019). Hence, industrial PhD education may fulfill this based on close interactions between academia and industry capturing contemporary phenomena and or challenges to explore. In this study, the COVID-19 pandemic exemplifies an adaptable PhD education. User-friendly virtual platforms are, thus, important for complex interactions such as university–industry ones to build and sustain relations around industrial PhD-education. To sum up, the respondents state that the benefits are closely related to communication, proximity and inclusion. Furthermore, there are important lessons learned regarding communication from the pandemic that may strengthen future academia and industry interactions.

Despite identified benefits, there are also barriers for learning for industrial PhD students. By far the most articulated barrier is the perceived limited understanding of employers of the industrial PhD students’ entire work situation. This may result in conflicts of interest regarding e.g. work schedule and workload. The interactions between academia and industry (Figure 1) hence, need to be strengthened throughout the entire PhD education and to support the industrial PhD student and not counteract the identified benefits. The benefit of having one foot in academia and one in industry is also a challenge balancing and switching between different roles which means working part-time and dealing with opposite goals, expectations and dual cultures (Kihlander et al, 2011). This may be even further challenging if the employer has limited understanding of PhD education. Most industrial PhD students accentuate feeling alone during PhD education, thus, lack of belonging and identity is a challenge. Hence, the benefit of belonging to both university and industry mentioned above, is also experienced as a disadvantage, which has been further intensified during COVID-19 with restricted travel and only virtual connections (Andal and Wu, 2021; Donohue et al., 2021; Wang and DeLaquil, 2020). Again, the interactions between academia and industry need to be strengthened to support the belonging and identity of the industrial PhD students, especially in the early phases of the PhD education (Figure 1). Deficient collaboration agreements generate barriers for learning for industrial PhD students related to financing, administrative bureaucracy and conflicts of interests between academia and industry. Based on these results, it can strongly be argued that financial agreements including more than two organizations e.g. research projects, have a negative impact on the industrial PhD students who are struggling with the feeling as outsiders and not belonging anywhere. In addition, unlike traditionally enrolled academic PhD students who are often struggling to find employment in academia or industry after graduation, industrial PhD students are employed. Yet, industry needs to have a long-term perspective with agreements including work promotion opportunities to keep and engage the graduated industrial PhD student in relevant work position to use and retain knowledge and skills. Seen from the academia perspective, it is beneficial to keep the relation with the industrial PhD student after graduation by part time involving them in education and or research projects, i.e. extending WIL for academia and industry beyond graduation. Furthermore, ethical dilemmas affecting learning such as data access, ethical research principles (Roos et al., 2021), dissemination of research results and safety during data collection, need to be recognized and dealt with in accordance with the research community by both academia and industry (Figure 1). Accordingly, academia and industry must invest time and energy in relationships to reach an understanding of each other’s expectations and limitations regarding e.g. funding, research topics, data access, dissemination of research findings and societal impacts. Thus, there is a need for increased communication and continuous interactions (informing flows) between academia and industry to promote mutual learning during the entire industrial PhD education.

To achieve identified learning benefits and deal with barriers in industrial PhD education collaboration, there are issues that academia and industry need to consider since the industrial PhD student should not alone be responsible of bridging academia and work–life. Thus, the interactions between these academia and industry need to be strengthened throughout the entire PhD education which is illustrated with the bold arrow in Figure 2. Both academia and industry must have detailed insights into industrial PhD education to recognize and fully exploit these learning benefits while building mutual relationships, sustaining and resilient collaboration over time promoting a future workforce of researchers with skills, practices and learning capabilities applicable in contemporary society.

Based on the present study, the following key issues are recommended to reach a sustainable industrial PhD education collaboration:

• Academia needs to establish a shared point of departure to sort out and identify mutual expectations and limitations of the collaboration and mutual learning related to the design of industrial PhD education.

• Academia and industry should plan and carry out continuous activities, meetings and dialogues to support industrial PhD students’ learning throughout the entire education.

• Academia and industry should develop detailed collaboration agreements when industrial PhD students are enrolled to avoid financial and ethical dilemmas.

• Academia and industry have a shared responsibility to plan and continuously conduct activities to follow up industrial PhD students’ progress, entire workload, completion and dissemination of research results promoting mutual learning.

• Academia and industry have a shared responsibility to strengthen, legitimize and communicate the industrial PhD students’ belonging and identity in both academia and industry.

• Industry needs to develop strategies for work promotion or career opportunities and life-long learning after PhD graduation to reach the full potential of the investments in the industrial PhD student.

Conclusion

This explorative study contributes advancing the current knowledge of contemporary academy adaptations of different hybridized models for doctoral education following the emerging new landscape of doctorate educations with focus on Swedish industrial PhD students with one foot in academia and one in work–life. A WIL approach is applied to highlight key issues that academia and industry need to consider promoting mutual learning. Implications for sustainable industrial PhD education collaboration are highlighted as recommendations for academia and industry. Both academia and industry must invest time and energy in relationships to understand each other’s expectations and limitations for supporting industrial PhD students’ learning. Furthermore, this study contributes a WIL approach to PhD education to illustrate collaborative interactions and mutual learning opportunities for academia and industry. Industrial PhD students are generating new knowledge and transferable skills during their PhD education for academia and work–life embracing two different worlds. Continuous support from academia and industry is needed throughout the entire PhD education promoting a future workforce of researchers with skills, work practices and learning capabilities applicable in contemporary society. The results of the present study argue for the need to transform PhD educations along with society to promote a future workforce of researchers with skills and new work practices applicable in work–life.

The limitations of this explorative study are acknowledged as the study covers industrial PhD students’ perceptions, one single university and three disciplines of PhD education. Thus, future research is encouraged to cover the perspectives of industry (workplace) and academia, additional disciplines/universities to further enrich the studied phenomenon and identify and learn from good practices. Comparative studies of traditionally enrolled PhD students and industrial PhD students are also of interest for future research as a new landscape of PhD education is emerging. Quantitative methods and large national or international samples to reveal industrial PhD students’ progress, finishing rates and gender compared to traditional PhD students may also be of interest for future research.