UK Universities Turn to Collaboration to Strengthen Doctoral Skills Training Amid Global Competition

The Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) has published a timely discussion piece examining how UK universities can work together to enhance doctoral skills training. Authored by John Miles, CEO of Inkpath, the piece argues that collaborative approaches offer a practical path forward for institutions facing mounting pressures from rising global competitors, particularly in Asia, while striving to deliver high-quality researcher development under tight budgets.

Doctoral education in the United Kingdom has evolved significantly over recent decades. What was once largely an apprenticeship model centred on individual supervision has expanded to include structured training in transferable skills, career development and interdisciplinary approaches. Funders such as UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) have played a central role through schemes that encourage partnerships between institutions.

Pressures Shaping Doctoral Provision Today

UK universities operate in an increasingly competitive environment. Chinese institutions have climbed rapidly in global rankings, prompting concerns about the United Kingdom’s position in attracting top doctoral talent and research funding. At the same time, expectations placed on doctoral programmes continue to rise. Students and funders alike seek stronger preparation for both academic and non-academic careers, better support for wellbeing, and opportunities to develop digital and interdisciplinary capabilities.

These demands stretch existing resources. Individual universities often find it difficult to offer the full breadth of training required without duplication of effort or gaps in provision. Collaboration emerges as one response that can deliver efficiencies while preserving institutional distinctiveness.

One-to-Many Models: The UKRI Template

Many existing collaborative initiatives follow a one-to-many structure. UKRI’s Doctoral Training Partnerships (DTPs) and Centres for Doctoral Training (CDTs) bring together groups of universities, sometimes with non-academic partners, to deliver funded studentships and coordinated training. These arrangements have been renewed multiple times, demonstrating their value in pooling expertise and resources.

While effective for the cohorts they directly support, such models have inherent limits to scale. A large multidisciplinary partnership might serve several hundred students across its lifetime, yet the benefits do not automatically extend to all doctoral researchers across the country. Creating a truly national infrastructure would require substantial central investment that may not be feasible in the current funding climate.

Photo by carmen dominguez on Unsplash

Many-to-Many Collaborations: A More Scalable Alternative

The HEPI discussion highlights the potential of many-to-many models, in which partner institutions contribute training opportunities to one another on a reciprocal basis. Rather than a single lead organisation directing provision outward, each university shares selected elements of its offer while retaining control over its distinctive strengths.

The Bloomsbury Postgraduate Skills Network provides a working example. Conceived by University College London and operating as a partnership of peer institutions, the network allows doctoral researchers at member universities to access skills training delivered across the group. This approach focuses sharing on generic elements such as professional development and research methods, while discipline-specific or locally distinctive training remains the responsibility of the home institution.

Benefits include reduced duplication, greater interdisciplinary interaction, and richer peer-learning opportunities that single-institution programmes may struggle to replicate. Researchers gain exposure to different institutional cultures, which can enhance both their research and their career readiness.

Overcoming Practical Barriers Through Shared Infrastructure

Operationalising many-to-many collaboration at scale presents challenges. Universities typically run different administrative systems, booking platforms and data standards. Without shared tools, coordination can rely on email chains and spreadsheets, creating administrative burdens for staff and confusion for students.

Digital platforms designed specifically for multi-institutional delivery can address these issues. By providing a common layer for opportunity discovery, booking and reporting, such tools distribute administrative effort while allowing each partner to retain autonomy over its own provision. The result is a devolved model that avoids the need for a powerful central bureaucracy.

Investment in governance and shared infrastructure is required, yet the scale remains far smaller than that needed for a fully centralised national programme. When implemented effectively, these networks enable groups of universities to combine strengths and compete more effectively on the international stage.

Broader Benefits for Students, Institutions and the Sector

Collaborative training networks can improve doctoral completion rates and wellbeing by widening access to support. They foster interdisciplinary exchange and help create a more coherent national offer. Importantly, they allow universities to collaborate without surrendering their individual identities or distinctive research cultures.

For the sector as a whole, effective collaboration may itself become a competitive advantage. Institutions that demonstrate the ability to work together efficiently can attract talent and funding while delivering better outcomes for researchers. This aligns with wider policy goals around efficiency, equality of opportunity and preparation for diverse careers.

Photo by Darya Tryfanava on Unsplash

Stakeholder Perspectives and Implementation Considerations

University leaders, researcher developers and funders all have roles to play. Institutions must identify which elements of training lend themselves to sharing and which should remain local. Clear governance arrangements and data-sharing agreements are essential. Funders can support such initiatives through targeted funding streams that reward collaborative approaches.

Early adopters report that success depends on starting with willing partners, focusing on high-demand generic skills, and using technology to manage complexity. Pilot projects can demonstrate value before wider rollout.

Looking Ahead: Collaboration as a Strategic Imperative

The HEPI discussion concludes that collaboration is no longer merely desirable but necessary for UK universities seeking to maintain excellence in doctoral education. In a world where global competitors are investing heavily, the ability to pool resources intelligently offers a pragmatic route to higher standards without unsustainable cost increases.

Many-to-many models, supported by appropriate digital infrastructure, point toward a future in which networks of universities can deliver training that is both efficient and enriching. This approach preserves the diversity of the UK higher education landscape while enabling collective strength.

Universities interested in exploring such partnerships can examine existing examples such as the Bloomsbury Postgraduate Skills Network and consider how shared platforms might fit their own contexts. The conversation initiated by HEPI provides a valuable starting point for institutions looking to strengthen their doctoral offer through cooperation.