博士生教育开始以知识为重转向以能力建设为核心，博士生能力建设出现在我国的政策话语中。2013年，教育部、国务院学位委员会印发了《一级学科博士、硕士学位基本要求》，标志着我国研究生教育质量有了“国家标准”，该标准从获取知识能力、学术鉴别能力、科学研究能力、学术创新能力、学术交流能力五大方面规定了研究生培养的能力。能力一词也经常出现在师生交流中，既是自我评估也是对他人的评价。著作等身、治学踏实、博览群书、思维深邃、见解独到、能言善辩等都是对博士生学术能力的评价。
本研究聚焦博士生学术能力，旨在探究博士生学术能力的构成要素、提升过程和影响因素，试图从教育社会学的视角深化对学术能力内涵及其提升过程的解释，并找到博士生学术能力提升的影响机制。本研究采用混合方法研究，秉持实用主义方法论，根据研究问题选择合适的研究方法。本研究围绕博士生学术能力的构成要素、提升过程和影响因素这三个研究问题进行资料收集，既包括质性资料，也包括量化资料。质性资料包括政策文本和访谈文本，量化资料包括两次问卷数据。第一个研究问题按顺序型（sequential）设计分两阶段进行，第一阶段通过质性数据（43份政策文本、18份访谈文本）和量化数据（362份问卷），探索并归纳出博士生学术能力的初步构成。第二阶段通过量化数据（981份问卷），验证并最终得出博士生学术能力的构成，以此设计出《博士生学术能力量表》。第二个研究问题按并列型（concurrent）设计，质性数据（8份访谈文本）和量化数据（981份问卷）共同回答博士生学术能力的发展过程。第三个研究问题按顺序型（sequential）设计分两阶段进行，在文献和质性数据（8份访谈文本）的基础上找到学术能力的影响因素并提出假设模型，再通过问卷数据（981份问卷）验证此假设模型是否成立。
本研究的结论包括：第一，博士生学术能力是贯穿在博士生培养始终、制度性的、规范化的规定，体现在博士生如何对知识进行获取、运用、吸收、生产和传播；在动态发展过程中进行阶梯化、网络化发展，最终凝结成个体身上的知识储备、精神风貌、学术习惯。博士生学术能力具有历史发展性与多元性、规范性和普遍性、阶梯发展性和人力资本化的特征，具体包括知识掌握能力、知识运用能力、知识吸收能力、知识生产能力和知识传播能力五大构成。在此基础上设计的《博士生学术能力量表》结构良好，在社会科学和自然科学的博士生群体当中都适用。
第二，博士生学术能力在差序关系星群中提升。从提升结果方面，博士生的学术能力均略有提升，其中知识掌握能力提升幅度最大，知识生产能力提升最小。从提升过程方面，博士生学术能力的提升过程具有社会性。一方面，博士生既处于知识生产转型与以能力为导向的全球博士教育改革中，也处于国内“双一流”建设的国家神话中，论文发表规定渐渐从博士生教育评估中抽离出来，成为影响博士生行动的制度化结构。另一方面，博士生处于同形化培养的差序关系星群中，与导师（组）形成领舞、伴舞、共舞、独舞的第一层序学术关系，与导师之外教师、文献作者、同辈群体等关键他人形成“打交道”、“处关系”的第二层序学术关系，并通过认知、投资、投入三个过程与关键他人发生互动，获取关系中的知识、观点、技能等，从而提高自身学术能力。
第三，导师支持行为能正向影响博士生学术能力的提升，博士生学术职业认同和团队学术氛围在导师支持行为和博士生学术能力关系中起到双中介作用。博士生品质在导师支持行为与博士生学术能力关系间起调节作用，越是缺乏一定品质的博士生，导师支持行为越多就越能提升博士生的学术能力：具备高品质的博士生，导师支持行为的作用没这么明显。博士生科研时长正向影响博士生学术能力，每周科研时长小于50小时，学术能力的提升情况随着科研时间投入而增加；50-70小时科研投入，学术能力没有提升；一旦超过70小时，学术能力的提升明显。博士生在知识掌握能力、知识运用能力、知识吸收能力、知识传播能力上的提升与科研成果发表无关。但是知识生产能力每提升一个单位，有科研成果者再次发表成果的胜算率比无科研成果者高出85%。
在实证研究的基础上，本研究对博士生培养单位提出以下建议：第一，明确培养目的，学术支持与学术评价相匹配；第二，加强教师队伍建设，打造学术共同体；第三，导师智育和德育并举，注重师生关系匹配。

In the policy discourse, doctoral education is experiencing a change in orientation from being ‘knowledge’ oriented to ‘capability’ focused. In 2013, China added to the basic requirement for the master and doctorate level degree suggesting graduate students need to develop the capability of knowledge, evaluation, research, creativity and communication. The terminology of ‘capability’ is also emerged in daily conversation, representing the evaluation of self and others. For example, a competent doctoral student is usually characterized as publication-productive, erudite, insightful or eloquent.

This research focused on academic capability of PhD students, exploring its components, development and influences through a sociological lens in order to  understand the nature of ‘academic capability’, via identifying how it develops and what key factors influence its development. Mixed method research was employed with ‘pragmatism’ as its philosophical foundation. This approach suggests that the choice of research methods should be associated with the research questions. Quantitative data and qualitative data were collected in terms of three key research questions: 1) What are the components of academic capability? 2) How does it develop? 3) What does key factors influence its development? Qualitative data consisted of institutional policies and PhD student interviews. Quantitative data were collected by means of two questionnaires. In order to answer the first research question, sequential design was used in two phases: 1) Qualitative data (43 policies and 18 interviews) and quantitative data (362 surveys) were collected to summarize the primary components of academic capability; 2) Additional quantitative data (981 surveys) were collected to test the validity Of the academic capability components structure identified in phase one. An ‘Academic Capability Scale’ was also designed in this phase. In order to answer the second research question, concurrent design was required to collect qualitative data (8 interviews) and quantitative data (981 surveys) simultaneously and explored the process of academic capability development. In order to answer the third research question, a hypothesis was initiated through literature and interviews (8 interviews). Quantitative research (981 surveys) followed to test the validity of the model afterwards.

There are three conclusions from the research. Firstly, academic capability of doctoral students is an institutional normative dimension throughout the doctoral program. PhD students’ capabilities is represented in five dimensions: the knowledge of mastery, utilization, internalization, production and diffusion. It develops through forms of social networking, and students develop different levels of skills, which together form individuals’ knowledge reservoirs, demeanors and habitus. Academic capability of doctoral students was found to be historically diverse, normative and pervasive, and developed through a number of stages as well as formed a sort of human capital. In addition, the ‘Academic Capability Scale’ design was statistically sound and informed by both social science and natural science.

Secondly, the academic competence of PhD students develops in the different constellation of others. From the perspective of outcome, it showed that academic capability is mildly improved, making knowledge mastery the most improvement, whilst knowledge production the lowest. From the prospective of process, the process of academic capability improvement is sociology related. For one thing, PhD students are in the context of global doctoral education reform based on capability building and the context of institutional myths of the project of ‘double world first rate construction’ in China. The rules of publication are gradually extracted from doctoral education evaluation and become the most institutional factors to impact doctoral student behavior. For another, PhD students were found to be in different constellations of relationship. They interacted with their supervisors in the primary relationship, developing a relationship of ‘leading the dance’, ‘supporting the dance’, ‘co-dancing’ and ‘solo dancing’. They also interacted with faculty, authors and peers in a secondary relationship, forming a relationship of either a ‘nodding acquaintance’ or ‘deep bonding’. Within the constellations of relationship, doctoral students experience the process of cognition, investment and involvement, obtain knowledge, skills and values, and develop academic capability of their own.

Thirdly, supervisor support can positively influence the development of PhD student academic capability, as well as team cultures and academic profession identity have mediating effects between supervisor support and PhD student academic capability. PhD student quality positively moderates the relationship between supervisor support and PhD student academic capability: supervisor support is more effective in dealing with low quality students while less effective with high quality ones. Working hours positively influence PhD student academic capability. They have a positive correlation when working hours are less than 50 hours a week. Between 50 and 70 hours a week, there is no improvement of academic capability. Once 70 hours a week is surpassed, there is positive correlation again. Doctoral students' knowledge of mastery, utilization, internalization, diffusion have no relations with publications, but with an unit increase of knowledge production, students with publications would be more likely (85%) to publish than those with no publications.

Issues for graduate schools are raised based on this empirical study. First, the purpose of doctoral education should be clearly defined, and academic support should be better matched with academic evaluation. Secondly, faculty skills and qualities should be strengthened to enhance the development of an academic community. Third, Supervisors should be both knowledgeable and moral purpose oriented, paying attention to having resonance with students.