“Particular elements of the system have been challenging”

At its heart, the ISP functions as a disciplinary instrument. If a student fails to meet expected milestones, the ISP allows the institution to restrict access to supervision and resources. While such a mechanism may be necessary in rare cases of sustained neglect or dysfunction, the current design overreaches.

The ISP often includes elements like research descriptions, publication plans, and even draft papers—content that rightly belongs within the realm of academic freedom. Requiring faculty approval for these intellectual choices risks undermining both the autonomy of the student and the academic judgment of the supervisor. Why, for instance, should the selection of a course or change in research direction require formal approval if both student and mentor agree it is necessary?

This system imposes annual checkpoints based on a vision of doctoral education as a managed process with deliverables, rather than a long, often unpredictable path of intellectual development. A better approach would be to abandon the ISP as a universal instrument and instead make it a facultative one—used only when problems arise.

A streamlined alternative might be a probationary mechanism: if concerns are raised—perhaps by the student, supervisor, or PhD program coordinator—then a defined mentoring framework is triggered. Expectations are set, followed up at three-month intervals, and the case is closed once progress resumes. Such a system would serve the same oversight purpose, but without compromising trust, autonomy, or the open-ended nature of research.

The Quality Assurance (QA) process is perhaps the most idiosyncratic of all. Even the term ”assurance” suggests a fundamental misunderstanding—that the doctoral student is a fragile entity in need of structured oversight, rather than an emerging scholar exercising autonomy. In practice, QA often requires students to complete midterm reviews, present their work in seminars, and undergo external assessments. But this framing gets the purpose of a PhD exactly backward.

“A doctoral degree is meant to certify that someone can conduct independent research. A functional researcher actively seeks feedback, welcomes critique, and engages with peers. Mandating this through QA doesn’t encourage those behaviors; it distorts them.”

A doctoral degree is meant to certify that someone can conduct independent research. A functional researcher actively seeks feedback, welcomes critique, and engages with peers. Mandating this through QA doesn’t encourage those behaviors; it distorts them. When voluntary practices like seminars or peer feedback are turned into bureaucratic checkpoints, they cease to be formative and instead become performative. What should be an act of intellectual engagement becomes a box to tick, a potential hurdle, or even a source of anxiety.

More fundamentally, QA misplaces responsibility. It must be the PhD student alone who carries responsibility for the quality of the research. Institutions and supervisors are there to provide resources, guidance, and an environment conducive to growth. They are not guarantors of the outcome. Yet QA seems to imply otherwise.

Worse still, QA rarely touches what truly needs scrutiny. The ability to supervise is not assigned based on pedagogical merit, but typically on a professor’s success in acquiring external research funding. That is unlikely to change through incentives or penalties tied to vague quality metrics. We allocate research resources according to academic performance for good reason. Trying to retroactively impose educational metrics only creates confusion and resentment.

Instead, QA should focus not on students or individual supervisors, but on the administrative systems that shape the mentoring process. If it evaluated policies, incentives, and structural support, it would quickly reveal many of the underlying problems in the current setup.

Co-supervision rules, finally, suffer from a fundamental confusion of responsibility and authority. Each doctoral student is formally assigned both a main supervisor and at least one co-supervisor. While the intention is to ensure academic continuity and provide multiple perspectives, the structure often lacks any real division of labor or clarity of purpose.

Instead of being assigned a concrete role, co-supervisors are given a rank. This leads to an identity vacuum—one that must be filled not through collaborative mentorship, but through a vague assertion of status. The co-supervisor is not tasked with joining the research effort as an active colleague, contributing their own expertise, supporting the student, or constructively challenging the mentor. Instead, the role often becomes a search for purpose within a hierarchy that offers no clear function.

In dysfunctional environments, this results in fragmented authority and diffused responsibility. Supervisory roles become symbolic rather than substantive. And without clarity, co-supervisors may either disengage entirely or overstep in ways that generate conflict. But effective supervision requires something very different: mutual trust and clearly defined responsibility. One can only be held accountable for what one has the authority to influence.

There is a better way. Rather than assigning supervisory titles with no real substance, give postdocs and junior faculty protected time to engage in doctoral projects. Let them contribute as peers, and active researchers supporting and mentoring PhD students through collaboration, not control. This would not only improve supervision but also strengthen the collegial fabric of the research environment.

A Provocative Question
I voiced my concerns about these regulatory frameworks, and was asked:

“If you struggle so much with this, why are you here in Sweden?”
It is a fair but revealing one. My answer is straightforward: I am here because I believe in the Swedish system. I am here because this is a place where critical dialogue is possible, where intentions matter, and where institutional self-correction is still valued. Sweden has the potential to offer the best doctoral education in the world, precisely because we are willing to discuss what isn’t working. The ideals of openness, autonomy, and intellectual independence that underpin our reputation must not be lost to well-intended but poorly designed bureaucratic tools.

“The ideals of openness, autonomy, and intellectual independence that underpin our reputation must not be lost to well-intended but poorly designed bureaucratic tools.”

This article is my contribution to that conversation. I believe that if we listen carefully, acknowledge where we’ve gone wrong, and act courageously to improve, we can transform what is currently a rigid and, for many, demoralizing system into one of the most empowering academic journeys available. That’s how we cultivate not just researchers, but independent thinkers—scholars capable of challenging orthodoxy, resisting conformity, and becoming voices for society rather than echoes of its institutions.

Let us not raise followers, but stewards of knowledge who question, innovate, and lead with integrity.

Dr. rer. nat. Arend Hintze

Professor in Data Analytics

Department of Information and Technology

Dalarna University