Jari Hämäläinen
Professor of industrial mathematics, Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology (LUT)
In a bold move to accelerate research output and strengthen the country’s innovation ecosystem, Finland is launching a sweeping reform of its doctoral education system. Backed by additional €255 million, a four-year pilot programme will test new models for training PhDs. With 1,000 fully funded doctoral researcher positions the initiative marks the most significant shake-up of Finland’s third-cycle education in decades. But the reform also raises crucial questions about quality, equity, and the future of research careers. Prof. Jari Hämäläinen from LUT discusses these challenges.
The Ministry of Education and Culture has allocated an additional EUR 255 million to Finnish universities for piloting new practices in doctoral education from 2024 to 2027, aiming to. This competitive funding was distributed through the Research Council of Finland, and it created 1,000 three-year doctoral researcher positions across 15 thematic consortia. The number of positions varies significantly: ranging from 16 for Particle and Nuclear Physics, to 100 each for the themes of Mathematics in Sensing, Imaging, Modelling, AI, and 152 for Precision Cancer Medicine, for example. Most positions were filled in August 2024, with the rest recruited in early 2025. Selected doctoral researchers are expected to complete their studies and research within three years and obtain their doctoral degree within four years, provided they have full funding and are not required to undertake teaching or other duties.
The doctoral education pilots are part of the initiative to increase Finland’s R&D funding to 4% of GDP by 2030. In short, the aim is to educate doctorates in three to four years for R&D roles outside academia, contributing to Finland’s global competitiveness.
National Harmonisation and changes in requirement
The pilots are not true pilots if everything is predetermined. Certain official study regulations required revision for new doctoral researchers starting their programs in late 2024 or early 2025. Each university has its own doctoral educational regulations due to university autonomy in Finland, but universities wanted to harmonize their regulations based on common national recommendations. Therefore, the Council of Rectors of Finnish Universities (Unifi) established a Doctoral education reform development working group (chaired by Director of Graduate School Annu Perttunen, University of Oulu) and Doctoral education reform steering group (chaired by Vice President Jari Hämäläinen, LUT university).
The groups finished their work in June 2024 by publishing the national recommendations (see: The future direction of doctoral education in Finland – Recommendations for developing doctoral education). The report gives guidelines e.g. from recruitment and admission to final examination of a thesis, from learning outcomes to the amounts of study points and scientific publications, and from supervision to strategic importance of doctoral training in the Finnish universities.
Since the publication of the report, Finnish universities have updated their own regulations. Although some variations persist, even within individual universities and among their faculties, there is now greater transparency regarding each other’s practices. Basically, the recommended minimum is to have 30 ECTS studies, publish 3 peer-reviewed scientific publications and carry out doctoral studies and research in 3 years. It is yet to be determined if the minimum requirements will be adopted in such a way that traditions of demanding more than the minimum do not continue.
Pros and cons of the doctoral pilot programme
Funding could have directly been given to universities instead of thematic consortia
Funding was allocated to large national thematic consortia rather than directly to each of the 13 Finnish universities. The call for proposals led to 44 consortium proposals involving most of the Finnish universities in each of the proposals. Thus, the call required up to 572 sub-proposals prepared in the universities (calculated as 13 times 44) instead of 13 university-level proposals only. The programme had a clear employment impact already in the preparation phase.
New doctoral researcher positions were oddly distributed at one university. As an example, my own university, LUT, received totally 44 positions: 14 positions for applied mathematics and but none for energy technology. This was due to fact that LUT is a member of a national Flagship on applied mathematics but there does not exist a Flagship on energy in Finland. Despite being a leading university in energy technology research and doctoral education in Finland, this doctoral programme received no positions. Allocation of the 44 positions to LUT’s doctoral programmes would have been different based on our own priorities. I am a professor of applied mathematics, and I say this.
A university is typically a member of multiple consortia. For instance, LUT is involved in seven consortia. Each consortium independently seeks new innovative ideas to develop doctoral education; however, ultimately, a university will decide its own doctoral education regulations. This creates a “matrix organization” consisting of 15 consortia and 13 universities in the development of doctoral education in Finland.
Where the right consortia funded?
Already before launching the call for proposals, it was decided that 800 positions will be distributed between the so-called Flagship themes (Flagship programmes have been selected and funded by the Research Council of Finland) but the Flagships had to compete against each other. The rest of the positions, 200 only, were allocated based on a free competition outside the Flagship themes. The Flagships are scientifically excellent, but they might not be the most important fields for Finland’s economy and competitiveness in line with the goals to increase R&D investments to 4 % of GDP or compare to Finnish export or to needs of the job market. It is also notable to notice that some fields, social sciences and humanities, for example, got almost none of the positions. Medicine, natural sciences and engineering are naturally important fields, but they should not dominate.
Do we generate two classes of doctoral researchers?
The funding was seen to create two groups of doctoral researchers: those with ample funding and those without, but still, both groups should aim at graduating in 3-4 years within the same regulations. We all agree that it is very positive to offer full funding for doctoral researchers but there are worries about what happens after the pilot without additional funding. Already the Salzburg recommendations in 2005 stated that doctoral candidates are professional early-career researchers and therefore, in my opinion it is simply fair to pay salary for them.
Academic quality vs. fast track to degree?
Probably the strongest criticism raised against the goal to finalize doctoral studies in 3-4 years: there was concern that future doctorates may not achieve the same learning outcomes as those who spend 5-7 years in their doctoral studies. The question of what the learning outcomes of a doctorate are is an important one. Additionally, are these outcomes consistent across all scientific fields? What is the “added value” of a doctoral degree compared to a master’s degree e.g. in engineering sciences, business studies, medicine or in humanities? Regarding the duration of doctoral studies, how many years are required to attain the necessary learning outcomes while concurrently working full time as a doctoral researcher?
Interestingly, Finnish business schools claim that doctorate graduates should be ready for assistant professor positions right after graduation. In natural and engineering sciences, however, graduates generally complete a doctorate quickly and then spend four years as postdoctoral researchers before seeking assistant professor positions. It seems that there are differences between different scientific fields.
No teaching duties, nor need to apply for funding
First, it sounds like heaven doing doctoral research without teaching duties or applying for scholarships or other funding, but is it?
Limited experience in teaching presents a challenge for doctoral students’ future skills. Effective teaching ability requires training, and lacking this training can have long-term impacts on their careers, particularly for those pursuing academic paths toward professorships. In addition, it is hard to think about an academic career without writing project proposals. We simply need to learn to teach and to write the proposals. If not included in doctoral training, they should be part of postdoctoral career development.
Doctoral degree as a driving license
I view a doctoral degree as a “driving license“. We aren’t typically expert drivers at 18, but we learn by driving. Similarly, a doctorate allows for an independent research career without supervision. While postdocs still benefit from experienced colleagues and networking, they no longer require a formal supervisor like doctoral students do.
In my opinion, individuals who obtain their doctoral degree around the age of 30 are more likely to secure roles and positions in the industry with greater ease compared to those who achieve their doctorate at the age of 35-40. I mean that most engineers go to industry after their Masters’ degrees at the age of 25 or so. After 10 years they have already gained good positions in industry. A Ph.D. who has spent 10 more years in a university doing doctoral studies, might find it difficult to go to a team lead by a M.Sc. with longer work experience and but having a lower degree. Instead, doing doctoral studies in 3-4 years and going to industry at the age of 30 does not meen too long work-life experience difference to those having only M.Sc. It is easier to adapt to a R&D team.
Evaluating the experiment – The future of doctoral training
By the end of 2027, we will evaluate how many of the doctoral researchers in the pilots have earned their doctoral degrees within three years. Subsequently, at the conclusion of 2028, we will assess those who required four years to complete their degrees. Regrettably, there are always some individuals who do not complete the program. Simply all cannot do doctoral studies for many reasons. The pilot will change regulations for all doctoral students, not just those with salaries from the pilot programs. We will also examine how the pilot program affects the overall development of doctoral education in Finland in line with the goal of increasing R&D investments to 4% of GDP by 2030.
