Measured success and unspoken loss in China’s STEAM doctoral education

STEAM doctoral education promises to connect technical expertise with humanistic reflection, yet this aim becomes fragile when training is organised around measurable outputs. Drawing on 34 semi-structured interviews across seven research-intensive Chinese universities, the study examines how evaluation metrics shape the roles available to arts, humanities and social science perspectives within STEM-related doctoral work. Biesta’s concepts of qualification, socialisation and subjectification provide the primary framework, supported by Foucault’s account of governmentality. Three themes emerged: recalibrated metrics, instrumental interdisciplinarity and unspoken loss. Evaluation reform redefined measurable success without substantially reducing pressure, while humanistic perspectives gained legitimacy mainly when serving design, ethics, communication or public value. Candidates consequently reported less time and authority for critical questioning, ethical hesitation and non-instrumental inquiry. Metrics therefore operate pedagogically by shaping which questions count as doctoral progress, enabling interdisciplinary inclusion without necessarily granting humanistic inquiry epistemic authority.