The METEOR Policy Brief (intermediate) was developed within the framework of the METEOR – Methodologies for Team Working in Eco-Outwards Research project, funded by the Horizon Europe programme. The publication presents key findings, lessons learned, and policy recommendations emerging from the implementation of the project.
Building on comparative research and practical experience gathered throughout the project, the report examines how doctoral education can better prepare researchers for contemporary research and innovation environments, where interdisciplinary collaboration, engagement with societal challenges, and diverse career pathways are becoming increasingly important.
The report includes:
- An overview of the METEOR approach to researcher development, combining face-to-face activities, online learning, peer mentoring, and experiential training focused on real-world challenges.
- An examination of five key structural tensions shaping doctoral education and research careers, including disciplinary specialisation versus systemic awareness, academic versus portfolio careers, and individual versus collaborative models of knowledge production.
- Recommendations for universities, research organisations, and policymakers, highlighting the importance of creating time and space for alternative forms of training, strengthening institutional collaboration, expanding peer-support mechanisms, and embedding proposal-development skills into doctoral education.
The policy brief provides a practical lens on six structural tensions that shape doctoral training and research careers and recommendations in this regard:
1. in-depth disciplinary knowledge vs systemic awareness: METEOR’s evidence base suggests that addressing this is not only about adding more courses. The policy recommendation is to increase attention to the transition into doctoral education, including induction programmes, pastoral care and peer support and to treat early proposal-writing/problem framing as a supported learning process (with peer feedback, clearer guidance, and early check-ins) rather than an individual hurdle.
2. discipline-related research skills vs transversal skills: authors of the brief recommend to promote learning activities directed towards increasing and broadening transversal skills and to protect time for these activities and embed them into doctoral training structures, so they are not crowded out by overload and invisible work.
3. long-term academic tenure vs portfolio careers: METEOR’s evidence base reinforces the structural side of this tension: across countries, doctoral training remains predominantly academic-focused even though many graduates will pursue careers outside traditional academic tenure pathways. This produces a recurring “career preparation gap”, where graduates often feel underprepared for non-academic contexts and for hybrid roles that combine research with policy, innovation, or organisational work. The policy recommendation is to foreground the proposal creation process as a learning activity in doctoral education.
4. eco-inwards vs eco-outwards research ecosystems: the policy brief recommendation is to apply a broader range of criteria to academic career progression and reward systems, moving away from an emphasis on publications towards more consideration of real world impact and to treat problem framing, stakeholder mapping and impact planning as a legitimate part of doctoral training.
5. top-down vs bottom-up funding regimes: the policy brief recommendation is to integrate evaluation into doctoral training and HE staff professional development (including proposal assessment literacy) with protected time and guidance.
6. individualised researcher development pathways vs collaborative, cross-boundary knowledge production: the policy brief recommendation is to make collaborative, cross-boundary practice a recognised and supported component of doctoral and ECR development (protected time, structured peer-group formats and recognition for team-based outputs alongside individual progression.
METEOR projects’ participants become more aware of these tensions and better able to navigate them as they move forward.
Across all six tensions, the policy message is pragmatic: meaningful improvement does not primarily depend on extensive curriculum redesign. It requires opening time and space for alternative forms of training and support, strengthening collaboration and exchange between institutions, and treating key capacities as learnable competences for both doctoral researchers and higher education staff. This supports not only better doctoral experiences and broader career readiness, but also more outward-facing, challenge-driven research cultures aligned with the wider research-and-society ecosystem.
