Abstract
Doctoral seminars represent a central component of doctoral education, providing a forum for critical reflection and intellectual development within a safe and collegial environment. Yet, seminar cultures can be shaped by hierarchical structures, power dynamics and unwritten norms that may foster vulnerability and exclusion. Because seminar cultures differ across disciplines and institutions, the present study identifies and examines three aspects that can either facilitate or constrain active participation and scholarly growth: the presence or absence of an appointed discussant, the format of engaging with a written text versus a verbal presentation, and the degree of openness of the seminars.
Introduction
In contemporary education and professional life, there is an increasing emphasis on the development of generic skills; the capacity to analyse and interpret complex contexts, construct coherent arguments, collaborate effectively and communicate with clarity both orally and in writing.
1
One of the key purposes of doctoral seminars is to cultivate and strengthen these competencies. As Öberg
1
observes: Academy needs to speak clearly about the generic skills that are trained around the seminar table in doctoral education, so that this hotbed for creativity, analysis and argumentation does not decay but is nurtured and developed in the future. (p. 72)
Background and content
The central idea of the seminar is that it should serve as a space that fosters growth and learning through active participation. This aligns with the Latin root semen, meaning “seed”, and -arium, meaning “place”, originally referring to a nursery – a place for nurturing growth. According to the Swedish Dictionary, a seminar is defined as a form of higher education involving active student engagement. Thus, the seminar rests on the fundamental premise that intellectual development depends upon interaction with others, 2 making dialogue an essential component. Academic dialogue can be understood as a foundational form of scientific conversation, 3 but the seminar is not merely a form of conversation; it also constitutes a physical and intellectual space in which research quality can be critically examined within a supportive environment among peers – an environment characterized by professionalism, participation, and responsibility. 4 The seminar should therefore not be regarded solely as a pedagogical format, but as a setting for individual reflection on one's own and others’ learning, 5 offering opportunities for personal and scholarly growth. 6 It is both a site for collective learning and a forum for articulating diverse perspectives, thereby generating new insights. Cronqvist and Maurits 3 emphasize that the seminar should be “a place for high thoughts and learned conversations, a space where learning and research go hand in hand and where collegiality is practiced in a truly democratic and open spirit” (p. 9). Such a vision presupposes a culture and creative climate that encourage openness, curiosity, and mutual respect.
However, many have experienced the opposite. PhD seminar cultures have, at times, been characterized by hierarchies, power relations and unwritten rules, all of which may foster vulnerability and exclusion – conditions that are antithetical to learning. For instance, Addae and Kwapong 7 report that some doctoral students perceive seminars as arenas for discrediting their work and silencing their voices, thereby perpetuating passivity and voicelessness in an intimidating environment. Similarly, a review of a Swedish higher education institution revealed that several academic settings lacked the kind of vibrant seminar culture that is essential to high-quality doctoral education. 3 The doctoral student ombudsman at the same institution cautioned that doctoral candidates risk becoming victims of a researcher-centred academic ideal, where the notion of the individual “genius” is glorified – an ideal that stands in stark contrast to the collective pursuit of knowledge that lies at the heart of a healthy seminar culture. 8 This researcher-centred worldview may also manifest in supervisors’ direct discouragement of doctoral students from participating in seminars, urging them instead to focus narrowly on “producing” research.
Reflection and discussion
What, then, is required to create the good seminar – one that resists becoming an arena for domination, academic positioning, and the exercise of power? The seminar leader clearly plays a crucial role in ensuring that the seminar climate remains open and non-judgmental, yet the responsibility does not rest with the leader alone. All participants share the obligation to listen with openness, empathy and authenticity, engaging not only to comprehend how others perceive and relate to issues, but also to create space for the articulation of their own perspectives. 9 In this sense, good seminar practice entails listening to the substance of others’ contributions without judgment and posing questions that help the collective inquiry advance. Equally important is careful preparation, connecting one's own reflections to those of others, and contributing to the dialogue in ways that respectfully move the conversation forward. A shared understanding of the seminar's purpose and goals is also essential, accompanied by ongoing dialogue about these aims – particularly when new doctoral students or supervisors join the group. In the field of Caring Sciences at Swedish universities, a variety of seminar traditions have evolved. Within these traditions, we have identified three distinct forms and structures that can either foster or hinder active participation and scholarly development.
Appointed opponent – or not?
One key aspect that varies across seminar cultures concerns whether a designated doctoral colleague is appointed as opponent to lead the discussion, or whether the entire doctoral collegium engages collectively in it. Some institutions argue that appointing an opponent provides valuable opportunities for doctoral students to practice both opposition and response, thereby developing essential scholarly skills. However, this format also carries the risk that the remaining participants assume a more passive, spectator-like role during the seminar. In some institutions, acting as an opponent even confers academic credit, which introduces an element of assessment. This, in turn, may shift attention away from the seminar's foundational principles of collegial peer review and mutual learning. When the role of opponent becomes primarily about asking the “right” questions or demonstrating one's competence for evaluation purposes, the genuine dialogical and developmental spirit of the seminar may be undermined. There are, of course, sound pedagogical reasons for ensuring that all doctoral students gain experience as both opponent and respondent, preferably on multiple occasions, because such practice fosters important academic abilities. Nonetheless, a structure centred primarily on individual performance risks neglecting the core idea of the seminar as a space for collective learning and shared intellectual exploration. 5
An alternative approach is to forgo the appointment of a designated opponent and instead encourage all participants to engage actively in discussion, offering constructive and critical reflections. This model allows a greater diversity of voices to be heard and thus reflects a broader range of perspectives. The advantage of such a structure lies in its inclusivity: different participants contribute through distinct writing and reasoning styles, enriching the dialogue and deepening collective understanding. However, as Jons 9 notes, this form of seminar practice also entails certain challenges. When the collective discussion becomes particularly dynamic or “strong”, there is a risk that the role of the seminar chair may correspondingly be weakened. It is therefore crucial that the seminar leader(s) have the confidence and willingness to relinquish some control and authority, allowing the dialogical process to unfold organically. 5
Presentation or reading?
A further dimension in which seminar practices vary across universities and disciplines concerns whether the discussion is grounded in a presentation delivered by the doctoral student or in a draft that participants have read in advance. Beginning with a presentation has the advantage that participants are not required to prepare beforehand, and the ensuing discussion typically unfolds at a conceptual level, focusing on the issues raised during the presentation and the dialogue that follows, rather than on the written text itself. Conversely, basing the seminar on a pre-circulated text offers distinct benefits. When participants read the work in advance, they gain a deeper understanding of the study's background, theoretical framing and problematization, enabling them to provide more specific and constructive feedback. Moreover, reading a colleague's draft can serve as an important source of inspiration, illustrating alternative ways of integrating theory, empirical material and methodology in one's own writing.
A format that combines both advance reading and presentation is the so-called Piteå model. 10 In this structure, participants submit written comments on the text beforehand, which are then compiled by the doctoral student. The student subsequently determines which comments to prioritize for discussion, thereby shaping the content and direction of the seminar. In this way, the seminar's form and focus are effectively owned by the doctoral student. This model has proven successful in challenging traditional seminar hierarchies and redistributing agency to the doctoral student.
Should the seminar be open to all interested participants?
A recurring question in discussions of seminar culture concerns whether doctoral seminars should be open to all interested researchers, beside the seminar leader(s) and the supervisors of the doctoral student whose work is being discussed. There are, of course, arguments in favour of open doctoral seminars where all researchers are welcome to participate. Proponents of this model often claim that “doctoral students need to be tempered” and that such exposure is essential for them to learn “what is right”, as external scholars can provide critical perspectives on the text. A counterargument, however, is that doctoral students generally possess strong abilities to pose both critical and constructive questions – skills that are honed precisely within the safe and collegial environment of the seminar. They are typically well acquainted with relevant theories, methodologies and disciplinary practices. In contrast, within an open seminar format, the learning focus may shift away from the doctoral students themselves. There is a risk that more senior academics assert an “interpretive privilege”, dominating the discussion and defining what is deemed “correct”. A more reasonable premise is therefore that doctoral seminars should be conducted as spaces for dialogue and reflection within a psychologically safe environment. The primary aim should be to enable doctoral students to practice and develop their capacity for argumentation, critique, and mutual learning – free from the pressures of external judgment.
Another reason for adopting this stance derives from our own experiences of participating in seminars where senior researchers have dominated the discussion – either by asserting their views as fait accompli or by arriving unprepared and using the seminar to advance their own research agendas, regardless of their relevance to the doctoral students work. We have also observed instances in which senior researchers perceived it as their role to “interrogate” doctoral students, challenging their comments by asking, for example, what theoretical or empirical foundations underpinned their statements. Such practices can create uncertainty and shift the balance of power away from the doctoral students toward the senior academics. Dahlgren 5 offers further evidence of this dynamic, referring to an evaluation of a discipline at a Swedish university in which doctoral students reported that some senior researchers were excessively critical and negative. As a result, few doctoral students dared to speak openly, particularly when their views diverged from those of the participating professors. Dahlgren 5 also underscores the importance of acknowledging the inherent power asymmetry between doctoral students, supervisors and senior researchers, and the responsibility of the seminar leader to establish a constructive and respectful tone. The role of the seminar leader is therefore of central importance in shaping a culture that promotes learning, participation and mutual respect.
It is also essential that doctoral students are given opportunities to test and refine their argumentative skills and to receive critical feedback on their work beyond the confines of the doctoral seminar. Such opportunities arise within various research environments, interdisciplinary settings and through conference presentations. Moreover, in accordance with the formal learning outcomes for the doctoral degree, students must develop the capacity to communicate their research to audiences both within and outside the academic community. In this regard, the ability to ask constructive questions and to provide clear, well-reasoned responses becomes an asset, and one that can be practiced and strengthened through regular seminar participation.
To conclude, we wish to emphasize that the doctoral seminar should constitute a safe space for learning – a setting that encourages open dialogue, critical reflection and mutual respect. At the same time, doctoral students need to engage with diverse perspectives and intellectual traditions throughout their education. Exposure to scrutiny in other contexts, such as other research environments, graduate schools and research, stays both within and beyond the home institution, will further contribute to their academic growth and professional development.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We are most grateful to the PhD students at the Faculty of Health Sciences, Kristianstad University for critical reflections and input on the preliminary text.
Authors contributions
Anna-Karin Edberg had the main responsibility for drafting the manuscript with intellectual input from Albert Westergren and Maria Haak. All authors read and approved of the final version of the manuscript submitted for publication.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.