Paper short abstract:

This paper aims to show the relevance and applicability of Sen's Capabilities Approach to doctoral education by bringing to the forefront not only the individual functionings and capabilities but also the institutional context.

Paper long abstract:

Doctoral education programs contribute to the growth of a nation by enhancing research and innovation capabilities, creating a future workforce, and driving economic growth. It also contributes to the individual's personal development. According to (Friedrich-Nel & Kinnon, 2017), the goals of doctoral education are threefold: to help the doctoral student produce a good quality thesis that adds to the existing knowledge base; to develop the doctoral student into a future researcher with the required attributes and research skills; to provide the academic community with an active contributing member. These goals translate into the development of key doctoral graduate attributes, as outlined by Senekal et al. (2022): knowledge, research skills, communication, organizational, managerial and interpersonal skills, higher-order thinking abilities, and active citizenship.

To achieve these goals and to form the ‘capabilities’ and ‘achievable functionings' as described by Sen, doctoral scholars need to be provided with genuine opportunities (Walker, 2010). A multitude of factors such as institutional policies, research culture, infrastructure, financial resources, along with the quality of supervision from faculty advisors shape the opportunities and quality of the educational environment for doctoral scholars. Unfortunately, there is a big difference between the quality of doctoral programs based on these very aspects. Such disparities hinder progress and development in doctoral graduate capability and potential contribution. In India, there are significant differences in the types of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). The broad classification is – Central Universities, State Universities, Private Universities, Deemed Universities, Institutes of National Importance, and Open Universities. Further, the differences lie in the level of their access to resources, levels of autonomy, and even funding. Few institutions, such as institutes of national importance, are the recipients of the major share of research funding. This leaves the majority of HEIs struggling to obtain basic equipment and resources, including access to journals - an essential requirement for research.

HEIs also have distinct cultures, which are difficult to define because of their complexity and dynamicity. Previous research shows that doctoral education is seen to be more influenced by the disciplinary or departmental culture rather than the over-arching institutional culture (Golde, 2005). Culture, especially for doctoral scholars, manifests through their socialisation within the institutional setting, with peers, and with faculty members (Bragg (1976). According to Nambiar (2010), the downside of institutional culture is that it can restrict the growth of capabilities. Drawing on Nambiar’s observation, we can say that institutional cultures hold the potential to hinder the development of doctoral students' capabilities.

In my research, I focus on the doctoral journey of students pursuing PhD in Management in India. My study aims to shed light on the complexities, challenges, practices, support structures, and the research environment that is navigated by doctoral scholars within different institutional setups. It also aims to understand how the context-specific issues in Indian HEIs foster or hamper the progress of doctoral scholars. This paper aims to show the relevance and applicability of Sen's Capabilities Approach to doctoral education by bringing to the forefront not only the individual functionings and capabilities but also the institutional context.

While Sen's work on the Capability Approach offers a rich framework for understanding individual well-being and agency, its focus on welfare economics and ethics does not directly address the role of institutions in shaping those capabilities (Nambiar, 2010). Therefore, my interest in looking at this study from the lens of the Capabilities Approach is twofold. Firstly, by extending the capability approach to the role of institutions, we can understand how policies both at the UGC level and institution level, impact scholars' opportunities for success. Secondly, I attempt to create a framework for institutions that allows them to evaluate their current practices and create or support an environment where doctoral scholars can ‘thrive’, develop their capabilities and achieve their full potential.

Keywords: Doctoral Education, Doctoral Journey, Management Scholars, Indian Higher Education Institutions, Capabilities Approach