<p>This study examines how disciplinary cultures and organisational maturity shape structured comparisons of doctoral education at Austrian technical universities and arts universities concerning their strategic development, their alignment with national policy requirements for doctoral education, and their internationalisation practices. Drawing on survey data, document analysis of intellectual capital reports, and interviews from two case studies in STEM and artistic research, the paper identifies two distinct cultures of doctoral education. Technical universities prioritise structural quality assurance, student support mechanisms, and the consolidation of established doctoral ecosystems. Their programme structures align closely with governmental requirements, although implementation often remains loosely coupled to practice. In contrast, arts universities focus on field-building, the development of artistic research as a recognised discipline, and highly individualised supervisory cultures. Their alignment with national criteria for structured doctoral programmes is more heterogeneous, particularly in relation to team supervision and the separation of supervision and assessment. Internationalisation strategies also diverge: technical universities pursue partnership-based, globally networked models, whereas arts universities emphasise internationalisation at home through expert involvement and international student recruitment. Overall, the findings highlight how disciplinary epistemologies and organisational maturity shape doctoral programme development, suggesting that policy harmonisation must account for field-specific academic cultures and institutional trajectories.</p>