Search results

Supervisors and other academic staff can provide PhD students with invaluable professional support and opportunities for advancing their careers. This stems from the strong academic and networking provisions often offered to PhD students by nature of the supervisory mentorship. Although this professional relationship is highly beneficial in itself, many PhD students also wish to develop social and more personal friendships with their supervisors, in addition to academic connections. In this way, PhD students may seek a space to comfortably share their personal lives, identities, and experiences with supervisors and develop a working and personal relationship that extends beyond their doctoral program.

In order to better support how and why PhD students build social and personal relationships with their supervisors, this chapter draws upon evidence from an international collaboration across three institutions in the United Kingdom and China related to doctoral students’ social transition experiences. Building on our experience using an innovative mixed method combination of social network analysis, longitudinal diaries, blogs, and in-depth interviews, we explore the complex, dynamic, and, at times, turbulent social relationships between PhD students and supervisors. Specifically, this chapter provides tips for PhD students to manage and maintain social relationships with their supervisors in order to build lasting connections. This includes advice for establishing personal acquaintanceships between students and supervisors and bridging the gap from supervisor to colleague to friend. Altogether, readers will consider actionable steps for developing socially meaningful and sincere relationships with supervisors or other mentors.

This paper aims to identify patterns in the career intentions of PhD students and explore factors influencing these patterns.

Based on data from the Nature 2019 global PhD survey, the paper uses latent class analysis to identify the number and types of patterns in PhD students’ career intentions. Multinomial logistic regressions are used to analyse the influential factors, and means comparisons are used to describe differences in study experiences among career intention patterns.

The paper reveals distinct career intentions among PhD students: Pure Academic Enthusiasts (25.60%), Research-Driven Flexibles (28.64%), Neutralists to Non-research (16.27%), Uncertain Career Explorers (13.63%) and Non-academia Pursuers (15.86%). Research-Driven Flexibles, inclusive of researching roles beyond academia, demonstrate similar engagement and academic skills but have more transferable skills compared to Pure Academic Enthusiasts. Uncertain Career Explorers express positivity but show relatively lower engagement and academic skills. Non-academia Pursuers spend above-average time on learning but have the weakest relationship with supervisors, participation in academic activities, campus environmental support and transferable skills. Older doctoral students with dual degrees are less likely to be Uncertain Career Explorers, while those motivated by academic interests are more likely to be Research-Driven Flexibles or Pure Academic Enthusiasts.

This study provides a more accurate multi-dimensional perspective of PhD students’ career intentions, extending previous research that focused solely on the type of work PhD students sought or the sector in which they desired to work.

This study aims to critically assesses how Spanish PhD holders working outside academia perceive and value their past PhD training experiences within academic PhD programs, addressing the growing need for skills applicable in various sectors.

Using a retrospective interpretative design, the authors collected qualitative data from 35 PhD holders who have transitioned to non-academic careers. Through multimodal interviews, the authors gathered in-depth perceptions to understand the strengths and weaknesses of existing PhD training in relation to non-academic employability.

The findings highlight a significant disconnect between academic-oriented training and the practical demands of non-academic jobs, particularly in non-research roles. While PhD training was valued in research-related non-academic positions, especially in STEM fields, it was considered insufficient for those in managerial or other non-research roles unless the training included specific industry-related projects. Participants suggested a cultural shift in PhD programs towards a more balanced academic and non-academic focus, integrating societal concerns and broader competencies like effective communication and managerial skills. These changes are seen as crucial for better-preparing PhD candidates for diverse professional environments, emphasising the need for PhD programs to evolve continually in response to the changing dynamics of the labour market and societal needs.

This study contributes to the ongoing discussion about the need for PhD programs to evolve by offering a unique perspective from within the Spanish context. It underscores the necessity for educational reforms incorporating comprehensive skill training, aligning more closely with the career opportunities available to PhD graduates.

Increasingly governmental policy around PhD education has resulted in greater university oversight of programs and student experience – often through creating central PhD Schools. While student experience is well researched, the experiences of Heads of these units, who are responsible for creating student experience, have been invisible. This exploratory Danish case study begins such a conversation: its purpose to examine the perceptions of five Heads of PhD Humanities Schools, each responsible for steering institutional decisions within Danish PhD policy landscapes.

A qualitative approach integrated three distinct analyses: a review of Danish PhD education policies and university procedures, each university’s job specifications for the Heads of the Schools and the Heads’ views on their responsibilities.

The Heads differentiated between their own and today’s PhD student experience. They had held prior leadership roles and fully supported institutional regulations. They cared deeply for the students under their charge and were working to achieve personal goals to enhance PhD experience. Their leadership perspective was relational: enhancing individual student learning through engaging with multiple PhD actors (e.g. program leaders) – when possible at a personal level – to improve PhD practices.

This study contributes an expanded perspective on how PhD School Heads constitute their roles by empirically linking: macro-national policies and institutional regulations and individuals’ biographies to their support of the PhD regimes – with implications for academic leadership generally. The authors argue research into PhD School leadership is essential, as it is such individuals who create the organisational settings that students experience.

The Wellcome Trust has reviewed the provision of PhD training from the viewpoint of the students and supervisors it funds; this paper presents evidence from these reviews. A number of factors affect the “success” of the PhD training experience; what is considered good (i.e. fit for purpose) PhD research training may be different for the student and the supervisor. Compares and contrasts the views of PhD students and PhD supervisors on a number of issues including reasons for doing a PhD, the purpose of PhD training and perceptions of the quality of PhD research training. Suggests that to support the different needs of students, supervisors and the science base, a flexible yet quality assured approach to PhD research training is required.

This study aims to present the evaluation of a competency-based online professional development training program, PhD Progression, tied to a digital badge system, created to support PhD students across fields.

This study took place at Boston University, a large, nonprofit, Carnegie Classified R1 research-intensive institution located in the northeastern region of the USA. Through internal campus collaborations, the authors developed a PhD core capacities framework. Building from this framework, the authors designed the first learning level of the program and ran a pilot study with PhD students from various fields and at different stages of their PhD. Using surveys and focus groups, the authors collected both quantitative and qualitative data to evaluate this program.

The quantitative and qualitative data show that the majority of the PhD student participants found the contents of the competency-based training program useful, appropriate for building skills and knowledge and therefore relevant for both their degree progress and their future job. Gaining digital badges significantly increased their motivation to complete training modules.

This type of resource is scalable to other institutions that wish to provide self-paced professional development support to their PhD students while rewarding them for investing time in building professional skills and enabling them to showcase these skills to potential employers.

This study demonstrates, for the first time, that tying a digital badging system to a competency-based professional development program significantly motivates PhD students to set professional development goals and invest time in building skills.

This chapter proposes authentic leadership as a generic competence and an integral part of doctoral education regardless of field of study. The authors explore its potential to enhance the development of doctoral candidates and academics and search for answers to the questions: Can and should authentic leadership be developed as a generic competence in doctoral education? How can it be designed and implemented in a doctoral training module? What would its learning outcomes be? The authors address these questions in the context of doctoral education. They assert that authentic leadership training should be mandatory for all doctoral candidates, and that supervisors should be actively engaged in the development of this underappreciated transferrable skill.

Although an increasing number of PhD holders will continue their careers outside academia, we know little about their further career prospects. To develop a better understanding of how this group constructs and justifies a successful career outside academia, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 47 PhD graduates from different disciplines (humanities, social and beta sciences) who have obtained elaborate experience working outside academia.

Drawing on a multi-career perspective, we explored the motivations of the PhD holders when making such career transitions. The findings from the interviews demonstrated how PhD holders’ main motivations were associated with their perceived organizational, community and cognitive careers. Our data analysis revealed that these motivations related to PhD holders and can be grouped along four key tensions:

• distanced from real life (academia) versus appreciating the practical impact of their research (currently);

• competition and performance orientation (academia) versus enjoying their current multidisciplinary collaboration towards a common goal (current);

• Individualism and loneliness were typically experienced in academia versus autonomy and intellectual stimulation in their current work; and

• lack of stable career perspectives in academia versus current options for competence-based development and personal growth.

distanced from real life (academia) versus appreciating the practical impact of their research (currently);

competition and performance orientation (academia) versus enjoying their current multidisciplinary collaboration towards a common goal (current);

Individualism and loneliness were typically experienced in academia versus autonomy and intellectual stimulation in their current work; and

lack of stable career perspectives in academia versus current options for competence-based development and personal growth.

Thus, while discontinuation of an academic career may easily hold a pejorative connotation, the analysis of the PhD holders’ motivations revealed important and rewarding opportunities in pursuing a career in other sectors. Overall, from our study, we can conclude that while a major gap may exist between careers in academia and ‘the corporate world’, shifting careers between these worlds is not as ‘unthinkable’ as commonly believed.