International Dialogue on Doctoral Education: Danila Pavliuk at the QPR Conference in Australia
Held in Adelaide every two years for over three decades, QPR brings together researchers from around the world to discuss the future of doctoral education, academic careers and research training.
Adelaide has long served as the conference's permanent venue and is considered one of Australia’s major university centres. It is home to the University of Adelaide—a member of Australia’s prestigious Group of Eight universities—as well as the University of South Australia and Flinders University. All three institutions have traditionally supported the organisation of the conference.
Danila Pavliuk described the event as one of the largest academic conferences he had attended, with an estimated 700–1,000 people present at the opening session alone.
Exploring Boundaries in Doctoral Supervision
At the conference, Danila presented two studies. The first was titled “Coffee, ‘Small Favors’, and Power: Where Should Doctoral Supervision Draw the Line? Evidence from Paired Surveys in Russia,” which he co-authored with Nikita Smirnov and Evgeniy Terentev, examined the boundaries between formal and informal practices in doctoral supervision.
Based on survey data from doctoral students and supervisors at six Russian universities, it explored attitudes towards informal interactions and the extent to which students are expected to undertake tasks beyond their dissertation work. The findings suggest that students planning academic careers tend to be more accepting of such practices, while more experienced supervisors are more likely to favour clearly defined professional boundaries.
The audience was particularly interested in Russian doctoral supervision practices. Many questions concerned how easy it is to change supervisors in Russia and how frequently this occurs. Participants were also interested in the dynamics of these relationships. I explained that our data do not show a direct connection between either formal or informal relationships and doctoral outcomes. What matters more is whether the expectations of doctoral students and supervisors align,” noted Danila Pavliuk.
The study was conducted within the broader international academic cooperation project, “Transformation of Doctoral Education in China and Russia”, jointly implemented by the HSE Institute of Education and the Institute of Education at Tsinghua University. One of the project’s key research areas focuses on doctoral supervision practices and the comparative analysis of supervisor–student relationships in Russia and China.
Such comparisons are valuable because they show how national academic traditions shape expectations regarding supervision. In China, relationships between supervisors and doctoral students are often closer and more personal than in Russia. This is partly connected to the tradition of shimen, rooted in Confucian culture, in which supervisors are viewed not only as academic mentors but also as important figures of personal support within the academic community.
Why Dissertation Topics Matter
In his second presentation, “Do Thesis Topics Matter? How Topic Characteristics Shape Doctoral Experience and Confidence in Defence”, examined how the characteristics of a dissertation topic influence the doctoral experience and students’ confidence in successfully defending their theses.
The study found that personal interest in a dissertation topic is the strongest predictor of confidence in successfully defending a thesis and is associated with higher engagement across nearly all aspects of doctoral education. Another important factor was the degree to which the dissertation topic aligned with the supervisor's and their department's research agenda, although this effect was weaker than the impact of personal interest.
Contrary to common expectations, continuing a bachelor's or master's thesis topic into doctoral studies showed no statistically significant relationship with doctoral confidence or experience.
Following the presentation, discussions continued informally with conference participants.
After the second presentation, several participants approached me to discuss the findings. A researcher from New Zealand described how doctoral education is organised there. Reading about collective supervision in academic papers is one thing, but hearing directly from colleagues that doctoral students in Australia or New Zealand often have two or three supervisors—sometimes from different universities or even countries—is completely different. It gives a very different perspective,” said Danila.
A Global Conversation About Doctoral Education
The three days of the conference were exceptionally intensive. Interest in doctoral education extended beyond the plenary sessions, with even the parallel sessions typically attracting around 50 participants.
I was struck by the level of engagement at the conference,” Danila reflected. “What makes it especially remarkable is that the focus was not on education in general, but on doctoral education—a highly specialised topic. Yet people from Europe, China, Japan, Singapore, the United States, and many other countries gathered in one place, united by a shared research interest in doctoral studies.”
He was particularly impressed by the attention given to early-career researchers:
Although I am only at the beginning of my academic career, I had the opportunity to meet many people during the sessions, at the welcome dinner and during informal conversations. We discussed doctoral education, academic practices, and the differences between countries. Most striking of all was the fact that the conference president explicitly encouraged participants to engage with young researchers, students, and doctoral candidates, since it is they who will shape the future academic agenda and research community. It was striking to hear this stated so openly, and it really worked.”
QPR is known not only for its strong academic programme but also for its networking opportunities. According to Danila, it is the combination of substantive discussions and an open atmosphere that makes the conference particularly valuable for young scholars. Adelaide, one of Australia’s major wine regions, also provided an ideal setting for informal conversations about the evolving nature of doctoral education across different countries.
