展望
无论在人文学科还是自然科学领域内，学术研究都在朝着传统学科间的边界推进，朝着全新且令人惊喜的交叉领域发展。广博的知识面和促进有效合作的技能是成功的必要条件。博士项目对知识广度与合作技能的培养引发了对一对一的学徒制这种传统博士生指导模式的质疑。CID 主张保留学徒制的积极方面——频繁的互动、有意识的模仿和相互的责任。在新的培养框架内，学生是多位导师的学徒（一对多），在原则上学系内所有成员都为每一位成员的成功负有职责（多对多）。我们在项目报告中对共同体中的学徒制模式进行了详细的阐释（Walker等，即将发表）。
培养学生在快速变迁的世界中为学者、教师和公共知识分子的职业生涯做准备，显示出某种关注重点的转变，博士生训练的终极目标从对独立性的强调转移至为建立自信、增强能力以及合作的技能和实践。对于如何平衡个人努力和团队合作，自然科学与人文学科都有重要的见解。我们在CID 的工作明确表明，所有博士项目——无论哪个学科——都需要后退一步来审视各自学科的实践和假设。
欧洲各国及澳大利亚近来改革博士生指导标准所做的努力取得了令人瞩目的成就，这些成就在美国高度分权的高等教育体系中可能很难达成。尽管如此，要保持卓越，就需要对现行的实践和长久以来的传统进行批判性的审视。博士生教育的目标——培养能够创造新知识、推进新认识的学者——依然不变。然而，我们的研究表明，当学生步入一个令人兴奋却又不可预知的未来时，该如何支持他们，我们有许多东西需要相互学习——跨越学科、跨越国界。我相信，这样的未来将为博士项目研究提供新的路径，探索的自由与合作研究相辅相成是培养下一代学者的关键。
参考文献
[1] Becher, T. and Trowler, P. R. (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories, second edition, Philadelphia: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
[2] Bell, R. K., Hill, D. and Lehming, R.F. (2007) The Changing Research and Publication Environment in American Research Universities, Working Paper SRS 07-204, Arlington, VA: Division of Science Resources Statistics, National Science Foundation, at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srs09204/.
[3] Golde, C. M. (2007a) Signature practices and disciplinary stewardship: observations from the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate, ADE Bulletin, 16-23, 141-142.
[4] Golde, C. M. (2007b) Signature pedagogies in doctoral education: are they adaptable for the preparation of education researchers?, Educational Researcher, August-September: 1-8.
[5] Golde, C. M. and Walker, G. E. (eds) (2006) Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education: Preparing Stewards of the Discipline, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.(https://www.daowen.com)
[6] Huber, M. and Morreale, S. (2002) Disciplinary Styles in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Exploring Common Ground, Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education and Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
[7] Lunsford, A. A. (2006) Rethinking the Ph. D. in English, in C.M. Golde and G. Walker (eds), Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education: Preparing Stewards of the Discipline, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 357-369
[8] McGuinness, A. C. (1999) The States and higher education, in P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl and P. J. Gumport (eds), American Higher Education in the Twenty-first Century: Social, Political and Economic Challenges, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 183-215.
[9] Parry, S. (2007) Disciplines and Doctorates: Higber Education Dynamics 16, Dordrecht: Springer.
[10] Prewitt, K. (2006) Who should do what: implications for institutional and national leaders, in C. M. Golde and G. E. Walker (eds), Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education: Preparing Stewards of the Discipline, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 23-33.
[11] Stacey, A. M. (2006) Training future leaders, in C. M. Golde and Walker G. E. (eds), Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education: Preparing Stewards of the Discipline, San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass, pp.187-206.
[12] Thorgood, L., Golladay, M. J. and Hill, S. T. (2006) U.S. Doctorates in the Twentieth Century, Washington, DC: National Science Foundation Division of Science Resources Statistics, at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06319/pdf/ nsf06319.pdf.
[13] Walker, G. E., Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Bueschel. A. C. and Hutchings, P. (forthcoming) The Formation of Scholars: Doctoral Education for the 21st Century, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.