phd student quality

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Recruiters and Academia
• Published: 10 May 2006

What makes a good PhD student?

• Georgia Chenevix-Trench 1  

Nature volume  441 ,  page 252 ( 2006 ) Cite this article

23k Accesses

12 Citations

49 Altmetric

Metrics details

Some tips for PhD students.

Doing a PhD should be fun and rewarding, because you can spend all your working time discovering things and pursuing ideas — and getting paid for it, without any administrative responsibilities. Those who stick with a career in science do so because, despite the relatively poor pay, long hours and lack of security, it is all we want to do.

Unfortunately most new PhD students are ill-prepared, and as a consequence very few will fulfil their aspirations to be independent scientists. The main reasons for this are the 'grade creep' inherent at most universities, making it difficult to identify the really talented first-class graduates from the rest, and the pressure on universities to graduate as many PhD students as possible. The consequence is that we enrol far too many of them without telling them clearly what doing a doctorate should entail. We therefore set ourselves, and the students, on a path of frustration and disappointment.

So what should we be telling prospective PhD students?

Choose a supervisor whose work you admire and who is well supported by grants and departmental infrastructure.

Take responsibility for your project.

Work hard — long days all week and part of most weekends. If research is your passion this should be easy, and if it isn't, you are probably in the wrong field. Note who goes home with a full briefcase to work on at the end of the day. This is a cause of success, not a consequence.

Take some weekends off, and decent holidays, so you don't burn out.

Read the literature in your immediate area, both current and past, and around it. You can't possibly make an original contribution to the literature unless you know what is already there.

Plan your days and weeks carefully to dovetail experiments so that you have a minimum amount of downtime.

Keep a good lab book and write it up every day.

Be creative. Think about what you are doing and why, and look for better ways to go. Don't see your PhD as just a road map laid out by your supervisor.

Develop good writing skills: they will make your scientific career immeasurably easier.

To be successful you must be at least four of the following: smart, motivated, creative, hard-working, skilful and lucky. You can't depend on luck, so you had better focus on the others!

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

principal research fellow at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Royal Brisbane Hospital, Herston, Australia

Georgia Chenevix-Trench

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Additional information

→ http://www.qimr.edu.au/research/labs/georgiat/Guideforphds.doc

Related links

Related external links.

Guide for PhDs

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Chenevix-Trench, G. What makes a good PhD student?. Nature 441 , 252 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7090-252b

Download citation

Published : 10 May 2006

Issue Date : 11 May 2006

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7090-252b

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Look who's talking too: graduates developing skills through communication.

• Eleni M. Tomazou
• Gareth T. Powell

Nature Reviews Genetics (2007)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

You're viewing this site as a domestic an international student

You're a domestic student if you are:

• a citizen of Australia or New Zealand,
• an Australian permanent resident, or
• a holder of an Australian permanent humanitarian visa.

You're an international student if you are:

• intending to study on a student visa,
• not a citizen of Australia or New Zealand,
• not an Australian permanent resident, or
• a temporary resident (visa status) of Australia.

What makes a good PhD student?

Study tips Published 31 Mar, 2022  ·  3-minute read

Thinking about pursuing a PhD but worried you might not excel in such a research-intensive program? We believe you can do it – especially if you cultivate some of the top traits of successful PhD candidates.

It takes a special type of person to spend countless hours researching and writing about a niche topic. While all our higher degree by research candidates have unique personalities and interest areas, there are some attributes they tend to have in common – traits that make them a “good” PhD student and help them on their path to completing their thesis.

Here we’ll look beyond just how to be a PhD student and instead talk about what makes a good PhD student. What skills, attitudes and behaviours can you develop or practise now to set yourself up for success in the next 3-4 years?

What do PhD programs look for?

The criteria for getting a PhD scholarship provide some useful clues as to what makes a good PhD student in the eyes of an advisory board. In particular, you’ll benefit from having a strong academic record and proven abilities to conduct effective research . The academic transcript from your honours or postgraduate program can help demonstrate this.

More important, though, are the traits you developed in order to get those academic results:

• enduring curiosity and a love of learning
• conscientiousness and attention to detail
• organisational and time-management skills
• ability and willingness to collaborate with anyone
• persistence and resilience (pushing through challenges and bouncing back from failures)
• intrinsic motivation and self-discipline (the drive to set your own goals and follow them through).

To thrive in a PhD program, you’ll want to maintain and strengthen these attributes. The good news is anyone can practise or work on these traits to some extent, even if they don’t always come naturally to you.

Keep in mind that every candidate is different, so there’s no “correct” balance of the above attributes guaranteed to make you a good PhD student. On your research journey, you’ll quickly realise your existing strengths and any areas you might need to work on.

Some of the qualities that I find are key are being inquisitive, loving to learn and question the status quo, and being an independent and self-directed worker.

What makes a good PhD student: it isn’t a simple formula

We asked UQ PhD candidate Sarah Kendall for her advice on what makes a good PhD student. While she had some attributes to suggest, she also pointed out that candidates bring unique strengths and skillsets to their research – and this is something that can’t be quantified.

“Good PhD candidates can have many different qualities,” says Sarah.

“Some of the qualities that I find are key are being inquisitive, loving to learn and question the status quo, and being an independent and self-directed worker.”

Sarah acknowledges that some of these factors are inherent for some people more than others. But she’s also quick to remind us that completing research in a previous program can help you identify if you’ve got what it takes.

“Doing something like an honours project can definitely help you figure out whether these are qualities you have, as well as to prepare you for the kinds of behaviours you’ll need as a PhD candidate.”

Chelsea Janke, another UQ PhD candidate, adds the following behaviours and qualities to the list of what PhD programs look for:

• ability and interest to learn
• critical thinking
• problem solving
• resourcefulness
• resilience.

So, if you’re wondering how to be a PhD student, there’s clearly no one-size-fits-all answer. But if you possess a healthy combination of some of the attributes discussed above, there’s a good chance you’ll fit the bill.

Does this sound like you (or at least someone you’d like to be with some practice)? We’d love to have you contributing to the groundbreaking research projects here at The University of Queensland.

Learn more about doing a PhD at UQ

Share this Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

Related stories

Is a PhD worth it?

9-minute read

What makes a good PhD supervisor?

Tips for PhD students from Samantha and Glenn

7-minute read

How to get a PhD scholarship or funding

3-minute read

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Exerc Sci

Factors Affecting PhD Student Success

Sonia n. young.

1 Department of Physical Therapy, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA

WILLIAM R. VANWYE

2 Doctor of Physical Therapy Program, Gannon University, Ruskin, FL, USA

MARK A. SCHAFER

3 School of Kinesiology, Recreation & Sport, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA

TROY A. ROBERTSON

4 School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA

5 Educational Leadership Doctoral Program, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA

ASHLEY VINCENT POORE

Attrition rates for Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) programs in the United States across the fields of engineering, life sciences, social sciences, mathematics and physical sciences, and humanities range from 36 – 51%. A qualitative literature review indicates certain factors may impact the PhD student’s success in completing the program and degree. The factors focused on in this review include the student-advisor relationship, mentorship, and the dissertation process. Although kinesiology doctoral programs are evaluated and ranked by the National Academy of Kinesiology, little information is available exploring kinesiology PhD student success. General information on PhD student success may, therefore, be valuable to kinesiology PhD students and programs.

INTRODUCTION

Results from 2006 ( 31 ), 2007 ( 30 ), 2011 ( 28 ), and 2015 ( 33 ) provide evidence that the National Academy of Kinesiology (formerly the American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education) evaluates and ranks kinesiology doctoral programs in the United States (U.S.) every five years. However, ranking information and data regarding the attrition rate of kinesiology PhD students and factors that may impact student attainment of the degree is not included. Although not specific to kinesiology, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) attrition data is available through The Council of Graduate Schools who performed a quantitative analysis of 30 institutions and nearly 50,000 students across five fields (i.e., engineering, life sciences, social sciences, mathematics and physical sciences, and humanities; 6). The 10-year PhD completion rate was 64%, 63%, 56%, 55%, and 49% for engineering, life sciences, social sciences, mathematics and physical sciences, and humanities, respectively ( 6 ). This relates to the field of kinesiology as it is classified as a life science by the Council of Graduate Schools ( 7 ).

Across the country, kinesiology programs typically do not have a standardized core curriculum and the outcomes of each program are established by the teaching and research expertise of the faculty. However, common courses such as research design and statistics are included in kinesiology PhD curriculums ( 26 ). Each program varies in the courses offered and amount and type of mentoring and advising of PhD students dependent on program faculty. Confusion also exists in the definition of the terms advising and mentoring in regard to PhD students. In a study by Titus and Ballou in 2013, 3,534 researchers, who had received a National Institute of Health (NIH) grant and had at least one PhD student, completed a survey to determine views of the role of advising and mentoring in PhD students ( 32 ). The participants were asked to rate and classify 19 activities as advisor only, mentor only, both, or neither ( 32 ). The activities of chairing a student’s dissertation committee and providing financial support were identified as the highest “advisor only” activities while teaching life or social skills and preparing contracts or grant proposals rated highest in “mentor only” activities ( 32 ). However, results indicated that most faculty members view their roles as mentor and advisor almost synonymously ( 32 ). As these terms can be used interchangeably, the authors will use the term mentoring or mentorship to encompass all advising and mentoring activities with PhD students. Titus and Ballou ( 32 ) also found that, while the majority of faculty supervising PhD students had training in human or animal subjects’ protection (89.6%) and responsible conduct of research (72.3%), relatively few had formal training on how to mentor (27.7%) or advise (25.4%) PhD students. Much of the mentorship therefore is dictated by the faculty’s personal doctoral experience and not typically from any formal training. Based on the amount of experience and training a mentor possesses, as well as the level of involvement in the PhD student experience, students may have vastly different experiences and outcomes such as completion of the program ( 8 ) and opportunities for professional development ( 20 ).

While little data is available on PhD student attrition in the area of kinesiology, research has indicated that multiple reasons contribute to PhD students in general not completing their programs ( 9 , 14 , 16 ). One of those reasons is navigating the dissertation process and following through to completion. In regard to the dissertation, it is typically up to the student to be intrinsically motivated and resourceful to manage the process and ensure the dissertation process persists until completion ( 9 ). Involvement of the faculty mentor in the dissertation process varies and may be dependent on the motivation and capabilities of the student. Faculty mentoring can play a monumental role in ensuring that doctorial students are successful throughout the coursework, dissertation process, and professional development. Russell advocates for kinesiology PhD programs to focus on developing professional stewardship in students ( 25 ). Stewardship includes teaching students how to: interact as a professional, become involved in and promote the profession, maintain ethical standards, and become autonomous researchers ( 13 , 24 , 25 ). Understanding reasons for attrition in PhD students can lead to a plan to mitigate barriers.

Overall, there has been limited research examining kinesiology PhD student success ( 20 , 25 ). Therefore, examining the existing evidence regarding PhD student success would be of benefit for kinesiology students and faculty alike by examining how to ensure successful completion of the program and determine any potential barriers. A qualitative literature review was performed by four of the authors with one additional author providing first-hand insight into the field of PhD level kinesiology programs. One author performed a search on PubMed using terms such as “kinesiology doctoral student success” and “kinesiology doctoral student” which garnered only one pertinent article. Three authors also performed an expanded electronic search on general PhD or doctoral student success, persistence, advising/mentoring, and attrition. The articles were selected if they related to kinesiology or general PhD success. The articles were then read and analyzed resulting in three recurring themes. For this review, PhD success was interpreted to mean successful completion of the degree and dissertation process. Attrition, in this review, is interpreted to mean students who did not complete the degree and or dissertation process and included those who dropped out during the program/coursework or those who finished the program/coursework but not the dissertation. In this review, the authors will discuss the following commonly cited issues affecting PhD student success: the student-advisor relationship, mentorship, and the dissertation process ( Table 1 ). In addition, the authors will provide practical recommendations to address these issues to aid in success. By addressing the potential factors that may impact student success of completing the dissertation and program, administration, faculty, and students can have conversations that may lead to a better understanding of the process and address potential issues.

Summary of potential factors influencing PhD student success.

POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PHD STUDENT SUCCESS

Student-advisor relationship.

A critical factor in PhD student success (i.e., attaining the degree) is the student-advisor relationship ( 11 ). In a qualitative study by Knox et al., 19 psychology faculty members were interviewed about their student-advisor relationship with PhD students ( 18 ). Results indicated that it is not uncommon for doctoral advisors to adopt a mentoring style based on their own experience as a PhD student ( 18 ). Furthermore, they found a lack of training or preparation by the instructional institution leaves the task of acquiring mentoring skills to the practicing faculty member ( 18 ). This is in agreement with Golde and Dore who found that there appears to be a lack of emphasis programmatically on doctoral advising and mentoring ( 10 ).

An investigation by Mansson and Myers the authors found that advisors and advisees have similar ideas of what make a successful relationship ( 19 ). In this study, 636 doctoral and 141 faculty advisors from around the United States were surveyed about the mentoring relationship by using the Mentoring and Communication Support Scale, the Academic Mentoring Behavior Scale, and the Advisee Relational Maintenance Scale ( 19 ). This study found that advisees can positively influence the advisor-advisee relationship with 6 behaviors: showing appreciation, completing assignments in a timely manner, being courteous, protecting the reputation of the advisor, using humor in interactions with the advisor, and consulting the advisor about their individual goals ( 19 ). This was also supported by a qualitative study by Mazerolle et al. in 2015 in which 28 students completing a PhD in varied programs, including kinesiology and exercise science, were interviewed to determine their perception of mentoring from their advisors ( 20 ). The study found that most PhD students had positive relationships with their advisors with students founded on trust and communication ( 20 ). The students in this study further identified themes that must exist in a healthy mentoring relationship: encouraging independence and collaboration in a supportive environment, reciprocal relationship, and providing chances for professional development ( 20 ).

In the interest of improving PhD student success, some studies suggested that university and program-specific officials should evaluate how they can best provide structured and consistent mentorship, including training/mentoring for advisors ( 14 , 18 ). These mentorship strategies must be structured to consider that each student begins a program with different skill sets, levels of intrinsic motivation, and resilience. Harding-DeKam et al. postulated that initial steps for advisors, when the student initiates the program, included asking students what they intend to accomplish during the doctoral program and what area(s) they foresee needing the most support ( 15 ). The authors further suggest that advisors should schedule purposeful meetings to foster a relationship of open communication and trust, as well as using this time to provide explicit expectations ( 15 ). In a study of graduate students from library and information science, public affairs, higher education, and a variety of doctoral programs in the humanities and social sciences by Grady et al., the authors devised additional goals of regular meetings including: 1) timeline planning for degree completion and 2) possible funding available during and throughout their coursework ( 14 ). Some evidence offered advice on how to foster an improved relationship between the advisor and the PhD student but did not offer data that indicated whether or not the positive relationship impacted success.

While the evidence demonstrates that a healthy mentoring relationship is beneficial for the PhD student, there is conflicting evidence that this relationship has a direct impact on attrition. Golde et al. performed a qualitative analysis of 58 individuals from the humanities (English and history) and the science (biology and geology) who did not complete a doctoral program at a major American research institution to determine reasons for attrition ( 11 ). Major themes indicated that students feeling they were a mismatch and in isolation emerged ( 11 ). One of the areas of mismatch was in the student-advisor relationship and was cited as a reason for attrition ( 11 ). This is contrast to a qualitative study by Devos et al. who interviewed 21 former PhD students in Belgium (8 completing and 13 who did not) from science and technology, social sciences, and health sciences disciplines) to explore the students’ experiences that led to completion or attrition of the degree ( 8 ). The results indicated that while the supervisor support had a large impact, the quality of the relationship did not necessarily predict the success of the student in completing ( 8 ).

In summary, the student-advisor relationship can have both positive and negative influences ( Table 1 ). Recommendations to foster a positive student-advisor relationship include establishing mutual trust and clear communication early in the program including setting expectations, goals, and deadlines. The advisor should be supportive but also provide opportunities for development and encourage independence. The student should be proactive in the process of developing and maintaining a collaborative relationship rather than relying solely on the advisor to perform these tasks. Finally, administrators can also assist by providing an emphasis on advising tasks.

Mentorship plays a significant role in developing PhD students into professionals ( 9 ). Therefore, the advisor can also serve as a mentor to help the transition from student to professional ( 14 ). A study by Golde and Dore contends mentors are pivotal, not only for the PhD student’s education, but also for the development of the student’s desired career path ( 12 ). This includes exposing students to teaching, research, and service, but also includes helping students navigate professional subtleties, such as office politics ( 25 ).

An investigation of graduate student stress and strain found great value when mentors advised students transitioning into their new position being that there are many new added responsibilities beyond the pedagogical aspects of degree attainment ( 14 ). This is essential for PhD students, who often have many added responsibilities and subsequent stressors beyond the pedagogical aspects of the degree. For example, graduate students are often required to take on novel tasks beyond their studies (e.g., research, teach and/or oversee undergraduates), without the status, resources, or experience of a professional ( 14 ). Added responsibilities without support can lead to role conflict and overload, possibly affecting mental health and student success ( 14 ). A study that looked at the mental health of 146 graduate students in Brazil, who had been seen at a university mental health clinic, found that depression and anxiety were the main diagnoses reported (44%) and caused 4.5% of the students to be suspended from their programs ( 22 ). As mental health disorders are present in the graduate student population, advisors should be aware of this and may advise students on mental health resources.

It is also important to consider the advisor’s professional background and experience. A study by Carpenter et al. surveyed 21 doctoral faculty members of varying academic ranks in the field of communication, from a representative 14 universities, and revealed four main areas of support mentors provide: career, psychosocial, research, and intellectual ( 4 ). Of particular interest were the factors contributing to how this advisement was delivered ( 4 ). For example, lower ranking faculty provided mentorship that was more psychosocially-based ( 4 ). The authors speculated that as newer faculty tend to relate easier to students as they are not as far removed from their own graduate studies experience ( 4 ). On the other hand, the authors found that higher-ranking professors tend to provide more career and intellectual mentorship than their lower-ranking colleagues ( 4 ). However, tenured professors were less likely to collaborate on research compared to assistant professors ( 4 ). The authors of the study speculate that assistant professors are more inclined to collaborate with graduate students on research projects being that they are working towards tenure and promotion ( 4 ). Effective mentorship of the PhD student provides an avenue of development of professional behaviors and understanding of professional roles. This supportive environment may contribute to successful completion of a degree ( 4 ). Quality advising indicators of “number of doctoral advisees, faculty with at least one doctoral advisee, doctoral advisees who graduate, faculty with at least one doctoral advisee graduated, graduates who found employment within the field” were once used by the National Academy of Kinesiology in the five-year reports to rank and evaluate doctoral programs in kinesiology ( 33 ). Specific data related to these indicators for each school was not published, however. Additionally, in the latest report in 2015, the faculty indicators of total number and number of advisees that graduated were removed and employment was moved to a student indicator ( 33 ). The removal of these indicators, as well as the lack of specific data other than rank of the program, makes it difficult to gauge quality of mentorship as it relates to successful completion of a degree in kinesiology PhD programs.

Mentorship can also have a potential positive and negative influence on PhD student success ( Table 1 ). Recommendations for effective mentorship include providing students with exposure to and guidance in research, teaching, service and office politics. Additionally, the mentor should model professional behaviors and provide advice on mental health resources if needed.

Dissertation Process

The dissertation process may impact a PhD student’s success in completing the degree. Ali and Kohun divide the PhD program into four stages: Stage 1 – Preadmission to Enrollment, Stage II – First Year through Candidacy, Stage III- Second Year to Candidacy, and Stage IV – Dissertation Stage ( 1 ). Throughout theses stages, the student must build a committee and find a chair, formulate a research proposal, manage scheduling and time deadlines, and complete the dissertation. This process is often performed in relative isolation which can impact completion ( 1 ). A researcher interviewed 58 individuals from 4 departments in one university in the fields of history, biology, geology, and English who did not complete a PhD program and found isolation to be a major theme of the reason for attrition ( 11 ). Alternative dissertation models such as use of the cohort model and a lock-step process ( 11 ), the companion dissertation ( 21 , 23 ), and the supervision across disciplines model ( 5 ) have been proposed to mitigate the feelings of isolation.

Building a committee and finding a chair can complicate the dissertation process ( 15 , 27 ). Difficulties can arise from not knowing the pertinent questions to ask, nor understanding one’s options when selecting a chair and committee members. Spaulding and Rockinson-Szapkiw advise to carefully select a chair and committee that work well together and with you ( 27 ). Beatty found that lack of effective communication with the committee and chair can also be a concern ( 3 ). This ineffective communication can lead to the supervisor being unaware of the amount and type of feedback that the student needs or lead to ambiguity about authorship and writing responsibilities ( 3 ). Another challenge noted by Beatty and Harding-DeKam et al. is selecting a topic that is unique, interesting, and relevant ( 3 , 15 ). Beatty further reports that PhD students should consider the focus of the topic area, whether the research is feasible and congruent with the committee chair’s expertise, and whether the methodology is appropriate ( 3 ). It has also been suggested that students start considering dissertation topics early at the start of the program to narrow the focus of their research ( 3 ). This may benefit students if assignments throughout the program can serve as preliminary work for the final dissertation ( 3 , 15 ). Lastly, time management skills may impact dissertation completion. The PhD student must be responsible and willing to take on tasks and to complete them in a timely manner ( 17 ). It has been proposed that PhD students should set deadlines and work continuously, avoiding taking extended breaks ( 2 , 13 ). As time is a critical factor, scheduling time for research and writing may keep the student focused ( 2 , 12 , 13 ). Harding-DeKam suggests that PhD advisors utilize structured meetings where what the student knows is analyzed against what the student needs to learn ( 15 ). The student is then given individualized and explicit expectations and deadlines to complete assignments depending on the stage of the process that he or she is in ( 15 ).

The dissertation process offers the PhD student an opportunity to develop critical thinking skills as well as positive attributes and behaviors needed as a professional. This challenging period of growth from student to professional may have barriers that will need to be overcome to be successful. Unfortunately, however, some students are unable to overcome these barriers. Completing the dissertation can be a major hurdle in PhD student success and influence attrition ( 23 ). These barriers were also noted in studies related to doctoral degrees in the field of education where when the student is no longer in the classroom, there is a loss of support from peers and instructors giving an opportunity to develop independence ( 15 , 27 ). This loss of structure can lead to apprehension and feelings of isolation, with the dissertation often cited as the most isolating portion of doctoral training ( 2 , 12 , 13 , 21 ). In addition, lack of structure as an all but dissertation (ABD) PhD student may lead to feelings of isolation and a loss of focus resulting in the student never completing his/her dissertation. This is congruent with a study by Gardner who interviewed 60 PhD students and 34 faculty members to determine perceived attributes for attrition from these stakeholders ( 10 ). The results of this study indicated that faculty found “student lacking” (including a lack of focus and motivation) to be the most identified reason for attrition at 53% ( 10 ). Both groups identified “personal problems” as reasons for PhD student attrition (15% faculty and 34% student) ( 10 ). Ali and Kohun found social isolation to be a major factor in attrition of the doctoral program and developed a four-stage framework to combat this ( 1 , 2 ). Some of the highlights from the proposed framework included a structured orientation, formal social events, a structured advisor selection, collaboration, and face-to-face communication ( 2 ). Kinesiology students also need structure and support. A study examining the socialization experiences of kinesiology PhD students by utilizing a qualitative approach found that they needed both social and resource support to be successful with difficulty noted most during times of transition – such as from the coursework phase to the dissertation phase ( 24 ).

Multiple alternative models for the dissertation process have been suggested. One alternative model is the cohort approach with a lock-step program. A study by Ali and Kohum described a PhD program of Information Systems and communications at Robert Morris University (RMU) that has a higher graduation rate (90%) and time of completion (3 years) than the national average ( 1 ). The RMU program utilizes a three-year lock-step program in which a strict schedule of community dinners, debriefings, presentation of proposals to students and faculty, and individual meetings with each member of the students’ committee is required to keep the PhD student on track ( 1 ). Additionally, the PhD students presented their progress to others in their cohort and elicited feedback throughout the process from development to completion allowing them to find issues and make modifications quicker ( 1 ). This method was also noted to decrease these PhD students’ feelings of isolation ( 1 ). The use of a companion dissertation is another alternative model for the dissertation process that has been described in the education ( 21 ) and nursing ( 23 ) fields which may decrease feelings of isolation. In a companion dissertation, two PhD students work together on the same project ( 23 ). Essential components are sharing a dissertation chair, a common research agenda, and a collaborative completion of the research and writing ( 21 , 23 ). While Robinson and Tagher found that this approach improved interactions between PhD students and, subsequently, degree completion ( 23 ), limited evidence on the number of schools utilizing this method was found. Limitations were also noted with the companion dissertation including co-writing taking longer, the dissertation seen as less rigorous, and tension between students to meet all deadlines ( 23 ). Thus, this dissertation approach may not be feasible in the field of kinesiology without further evidence of success. Additionally, Carter-Veale et al proposed another alternative dissertation model that utilized faculty mentors from multiple departments to give additional support and collaboration ( 5 ). However, limited information is available on the effectiveness of this proposed model or the number of schools utilizing this multi-department collaboration. Overall, the goal of these alternative methods is to decrease feelings of isolation by improving connectivity, collaboration, and communication between students, their peers, and their advisors and mentors ( 5 , 23 ). While the dissertation process can impact a PhD student’s completion of a degree, effective communication with the dissertation committee, early and relevant topic selection, effective time management skills, and adoption of alternative models may positively impact this process, but more evidence is needed.

As with the other areas identified, the dissertation process has positive and negative consequences on completion ( Table 1 ). Recommendations to improve the dissertation process include choosing a topic at the start of the program and scheduling times for research and writing with set deadlines. As isolation and ambiguity in the process can impact completion, mentors should ensure the students understand the dissertation process early in the program, be available to consult, and encourage the student to ask questions. Likewise, the student should take a proactive approach to understanding the process and seek help when needed.

A review of the literature suggests repeated themes of potential factors that impact PhD student success in completing the program and degree: the student-advisor relationship, mentorship, and the dissertation process. As limited evidence is available regarding factors of success in PhD students specific to kinesiology, this general information gives insight to potential factors that may impact kinesiology PhD student success as well.

The student-advisor relationship can positively influence PhD student success by incorporating structured meetings, communication, and training for the advisors may improve the student-advisor relationship and therefore impact student success. This information may be useful to advisors so that they can help students better understand and navigate the program, as well as assist students in setting goals for meeting dissertation timeline deadlines.

Mentorship may also have a potential impact on PhD student success. Having a mentor to provide critical and timely information offers support to PhD students as they face the challenges listed in this review. Additionally, a mentor provides an opportunity for modeling and instruction on professional behaviors needed by the PhD student. A student could also find a mentor that is outside the department as in the Dissertation House Model where PhD students utilize multiple mentors across many disciplines to help supervise and assist in a cohort model ( 5 ).

The dissertation process should not be overlooked as an impactful experience on PhD student success. Evidence suggests selecting a chair and committee, building a topic, and managing the process and deadlines can impact success. Choosing a dissertation chair and committee was found to be a critical aspect to student success. To navigate this process, students are encouraged to proactively ask questions to understand the dissertation process, seek help from a mentor inside or outside of their department, research the chair and committee members area of research to see if it congruent with their interests, foster positive relationship by being proactive, and schedule time for writing and research. It has been suggested that the selection of a dissertation topic should begin early in the doctoral process. However, students should spend time reflecting prior to selecting a topic to ensure that it is interesting to them and that it will be relevant to their profession. As PhD students may feel isolated in the dissertation process, alternate models such as collaboration or the companion dissertation were reviewed; however little evidence is available on the widespread use or success of these models.

PhD student success of completing a degree and program is multifactorial. More evidence is needed regarding PhD student success for those enrolled in kinesiology programs. This could include a comprehensive survey to PhD students enrolled in kinesiology programs and those who completed the degree to determine the factors that these stakeholders attribute to successful completion. Additionally, a rise in undergraduate majors in kinesiology programs also necessitates the need for qualified PhD trained faculty as these majors are often selected by students entering physical therapy and other professional graduate programs ( 29 ). Therefore, future studies may also look at the type and quality of mentorship of PhD students for careers in higher education. Because there is limited information regarding kinesiology PhD student success degree completion, more research is needed with the aim of improving retention and completion.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Do successful PhD outcomes reflect the research environment rather than academic ability?

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Visualization, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]

Affiliation Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Resources, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Faculty of Health, Office of Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

• Daniel L. Belavy, 
• Patrick J. Owen, 
• Patricia M. Livingston

• Published: August 5, 2020
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

Maximising research productivity is a major focus for universities world-wide. Graduate research programs are an important driver of research outputs. Choosing students with the greatest likelihood of success is considered a key part of improving research outcomes. There has been little empirical investigation of what factors drive the outcomes from a student's PhD and whether ranking procedures are effective in student selection. Here we show that, the research environment had a decisive influence: students who conducted research in one of the University's priority research areas and who had experienced, research-intensive, supervisors had significantly better outcomes from their PhD in terms of number of manuscripts published, citations, average impact factor of journals published in, and reduced attrition rates. In contrast, students’ previous academic outcomes and research training was unrelated to outcomes. Furthermore, students who received a scholarship to support their studies generated significantly more publications in higher impact journals, their work was cited more often and they were less likely to withdraw from their PhD. The findings suggest that experienced supervisors researching in a priority research area facilitate PhD student productivity. The findings question the utility of assigning PhD scholarships solely on the basis of student academic merit, once minimum entry requirements are met. Given that citations, publication numbers and publications in higher ranked journals drive university rankings, and that publications from PhD student contribute approximately one-third of all research outputs from universities, strengthening research infrastructure and supervision teams may be more important considerations for maximising the contribution of PhD students to a university’s international standing.

Citation: Belavy DL, Owen PJ, Livingston PM (2020) Do successful PhD outcomes reflect the research environment rather than academic ability? PLoS ONE 15(8): e0236327. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327

Editor: Sergi Lozano, Universitat de Barcelona, SPAIN

Received: October 3, 2019; Accepted: July 3, 2020; Published: August 5, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Belavy et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Participants did not give consent for their data to be published in online databanks and data are accessible with appropriate ethical approvals. Interested parties may contact the authors and/or the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee [email protected] to gain access to the data.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

A research doctorate degree comprises a process of independent research that produces an original contribution to knowledge [ 1 ]. The Australian Commonwealth Government supports [ 2 ] both domestic and overseas students undertaking research doctorate degrees, known as PhDs. These scholarships, which comprise a stipend for three years, are competitive. For this reason, when students apply for scholarships for their PhD studies, prior academic performance and research training play a key role in deciding whether the applicant receives a scholarship. However, is assigning scholarships predominately on the basis of academic grades and previous research experience effective in determining who will succeed?

A university’s international and national ranking is important for its reputation and marketing to prospective students [ 3 ]. Citation rates, number of publications and impact factor of journals faculty publish in, influence the ranking of a university. The Quacquarelli Symonds University Rank [ 4 ] is weighted 30% by the number of citations per faculty member, the Times Higher Education World Ranking [ 5 ] 30% by the number of citations and 6% by the number of publications per academic, and the Academic Ranking of World Universities [ 6 ] 20% by number of highly cited researchers, 20% by number of papers published in Nature or Science and 20% by the number of publications in total.

PhD students are important drivers of research outputs from universities, with one analysis [ 7 ] showing that one-third of research publications was from doctoral students. It is important to consider to what extent the procedures by which universities select students who go on to produce higher numbers of highly cited publications in high impact journals. We are not aware of any prior research that has examined this topic.

Waldinger [ 8 ] showed that the quality of academic staff (in departments of mathematics at German universities in the 1930s) influenced the likelihood of whether a doctoral student would become a full professor later in their career. Waldinger also showed that the amount of citations the scientific work of a doctoral student received through their entire subsequent scientific career was influenced by the status of their supervisor. Other factors, such as, the reputation of a department [ 9 ], the reputation the group leader [ 10 ], and access to resources and equipment [ 11 ], the number of full-professors on staff [ 12 ] influenced the research output of the academics involved in that group. Less information is available on the impact of student academic ability or prior research training on PhD outcomes: one analysis found that the reputation of a given department was more important for employment outcomes post-PhD than the accomplishments of the student during their studies [ 13 ]. Overall, the evidence available implies that the research environment may have an inordinate impact on the PhD student outcomes (e.g. citations, number of publications, impact factor of journals of those publications).

Here we examine the relationship between information known about applicants and their proposed supervisory teams at the time of scholarship application with the subsequent research outputs, as measured by number of citations, number of publications and the impact of journals of those publications.

Materials and methods

Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee reviewed this project (2019–191) and found it to be compliant with the Ethical Considerations in Quality Assurance and Evaluation Activities guidelines of the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and determined that no further ethics review was required. Consent was not obtained and the data analysed anonymously.

Over a four year period, 2010–2013, 324 PhD scholarship applications were submitted to the Faculty of Health at one university in Australia ( Fig 1 ). In these applications, data were collated on:

• the grade the student achieved for their prior research training degree and their rank in this degree (top, middle, bottom third of first class honours or second class honours; or their equivalency to this),
• the grade point average achieved in their undergraduate degree (ranked on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 = high distinction grade point average plus prizes awarded, 4 = high distinction grade point average, 3 = distinction, 2 = credit, 1 = pass).
• whether the applicant had published in a scientific journal (‘yes’ or ‘no’)
• research environment: whether the primary supervisor was located in a strategic research centre or institute within the university (‘yes’ or ‘no’).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

In 2010 to 2013, applications were submitted for PhD scholarships and in July 2018 data on publication outputs and completion of degree were obtained. Overall, 11 students did not enrol in PhD despite an offer with scholarship being made and 37 withdrew from their studies after starting.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.g001

At the time of ranking for scholarships, the review panel scored each application on the basis of their academic merit and the research experience, alignment of the proposed research with the strategic research goals of the Faculty and university, and the experience of the supervisory team (as expressed by prior PhD completions, student progress, external grants, previous student publications, supervisor track record). In July 2018, these scores were reviewed by two independent assessors experienced in the scholarship ranking process and consensus was attained. Subsequent to this, following variables were generated:

• quartile of the academic merit scores in which each student was located.
• strategic alignment score achieved maximum points (‘yes’ or ‘no’). The presence or absence of a maximum score was taken for this variable as there were few instances of low scores on this criterion and data were skewed to the maximum score.
• supervisor team scores achieved maximum points (‘yes’ or ‘no’). The presence or absence of maximum score was taken for this variable as there were few instances of low scores on this criterion and data were skewed to the maximum score.
• level of academic appointment of the primary supervisor (lecturer/senior lecturer, associate professor, or full professor)

Data on whether the applicant subsequently enrolled (if ‘no’ they were excluded from further analysis; Fig 1 ), whether they completed their studies (‘yes’ or ‘no’), and whether the student received a scholarship to support his/her study (‘yes’ or ‘no’) obtained from another university database.

The university tracks publication outputs of its faculty and students. In July 2018, these data were obtained to link the number of publications by the student with their primary supervisor, the impact factor of the journals in which these publications appeared, and the number of citations received by the publications in Web of Science by the cut-off data of data access. Publications were matched on the basis of student name and primary supervisor name. If a change of primary supervisor occurred during student candidature, publication matches with the new primary supervisor were included as well. If the student had enrolled in a PhD but achieved no publications within the time-period examined, data were coded as zero publications, zero citations and zero average impact factor. Datasets were merged in using custom written code implemented in the 'R' statistical environment (version 3.4.0 https://www.r-project.org/ ). Where repeat applications were submitted in subsequent years by the same person, only the data available at the first application was used in further analysis. Prior to statistical analysis, all identifying information was removed.

Statistical analyses

All analyses were conducted using Stata statistical software version 15 (College Station TX, USA). Univariate associations between continuous dependent variables (number of publications, number of citations, number of citations per publication, average publication impact factor) and explanatory variables were assessed by the Kruskal-Wallis H test or Mann-Whitney U test (both non-parametric tests), as well as one-way analysis of variance and t-tests (both parametric tests). Univariate associations between withdrawal (yes/no) and independent variables were assessed by penalized maximum likelihood [ 14 , 15 ] logistic regression. We categorised the explanatory variables as follows: student specific factors (student research degree rank, student undergraduate rank, student prior publication, student academic merit), supervisor specific factors (supervisor located in a strategic research centre, supervisor academic level, supervisor team scores achieved maximum points), research topic related factors (strategic alignment score achieved maximum points), and whether a scholarship was awarded. To investigate which variables were more important than others for PhD student outcome metrics, factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) as well as stepwise multiple linear regression models with both forward and backward selection were used to assess the association between the dependent variables and the independent variables. We further conducted factorial ANOVA to assess the association between the dependent variables and independent variables. Stepwise penalized maximum likelihood logistic regression models were used to predict withdrawal from PhD (yes/no) based on independent variables. An adjusted alpha level of 0.10 to enter and 0.20 to remove were used for all step-wise regression models. An alpha-level of 0.05 was adopted for all other statistical tests, including the assessment of the final step-wise regression models.

Primary analyses involved 198 students who enrolled in PhD (61% of 324 applications; Fig 1 ). The descriptive data on the characteristics of the students are shown in Table 1 . In the whole cohort, median (25 th percentile, 75 th percentile) and mean (standard deviation; SD) number of publications were 1.0 (0.0, 3.0) and 2.8 (4.4), impact factor 0.86 (0.00, 2.61) and 1.59 (2.36), citations per publication 0.0 (0.0, 4.5) and 3.5 (7.4) and total citations 0.0 (0.0, 17.0) and 19.6 (49.8). S1 Table presents the stability of the explanatory variables across each year of student applications. The relationship between ranking criteria and PhD student output metrics are shown in Table 2 (non-parametric analyses) and Table 3 (parametric analyses). Findings of both non-parametric and parametric analyses were similar. Non-parametric ( S1 Table ) and parametric ( S2 Table ) effect sizes as well as variability among variables by year of application ( S3 Table ) are reported in the data supplement.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.t001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.t002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.t003

Number of publications

On univariate analysis (Tables 2 and 3 , Fig 2 ), primary supervisor being located in a strategic research centre (non-parametric and parametric both: P≤0.014), supervisory teams who received a maximum score (both: P≤0.014), being awarded a scholarship (both: P<0.001), student academic merit score (non-parametric: P = 0.017, parametric: P = 0.758) were associated with this outcome, but student undergraduate performance (both: P≥0.588), student research training degree outcome (e.g. first-class honours upper band; both: P≥0.262), research topic (both: P≥0.347), primary supervisor academic level (both: P≥0.107) were not.

Data are non-parametric effect sizes (95% confidence interval) for each parameter. See S1 Table for more detail and Tables 2 and 3 for more detail on each parameter. Student academic merit score from scholarship panel ranking showed moderate effect sizes, yet these students received 46% of all scholarships and multivariate analyses showed that receiving a scholarship was more important than the student's academic merit (see Results for more detail). Other markers of student ability and prior research training were unrelated to outcomes from the PhD. The score assigned by the panel to the alignment of the research topic with research priorities was unrelated to outcomes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.g002

Step-wise regression models ( Table 4 ) showed that receiving a scholarship (P = 0.001), primary supervisor being located in a strategic research centre (P = 0.018) remained in final model for number of publications, and whilst 'research topic' remained in the final model, it was not significant (P = 0.076). Factorial ANOVA ( S4 Table ) yielded similar results (having a scholarship, supervisory teams who received a maximum score, primary supervisor being located in a strategic research centre were associated, but not student related variables).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.t004

Number of citations

On univariate analysis (Tables 2 and 3 , Fig 2 ), primary supervisor being located in a strategic research centre (non-parametric and parametric P both≤0.010), supervisory teams who received a maximum score (both: P≤0.012), being awarded a scholarship (both: P<0.001) were associated with this outcome, but student undergraduate performance (both: P≥0.668), student research training degree outcome (e.g. first-class honours upper band; both: P≥0.237), student academic merit score (both: P≥0.080), research topic (both: P≥0.202), primary supervisor academic level (both: P≥0.482) were not.

Step-wise regression models ( Table 4 ) showed that supervisory team who received a maximum score (P = 0.039) and the receiving a scholarship (P = 0.053), but in this case the scholarship award was not significant. Factorial ANOVA ( S4 Table ) yielded similar results (having a scholarship and supervisory teams who received a maximum score were associated, but not student related variables).

Citations per publications

On univariate analysis (Tables 2 and 3 , Fig 2 ), primary supervisor being located in a strategic research centre (non-parametric and parametric P both P≤0.009), supervisory teams who received a maximum score (non-parametric: P<0.001, parametric: P = 0.159), being awarded a scholarship (both: P≤0.048) were associated with this outcome, but student undergraduate performance (both: P≥0.640), student research training degree outcome (e.g. first-class honours upper band; both: P≥0.668), student academic merit score (both: P≥0.082), research topic (both: P≥0.185), primary supervisor academic level (both: P≥0.160) were not.

Step-wise regression models ( Table 4 ) showed that primary supervisor being located in a strategic research centre (P = 0.079) and supervisory team achieving maximum score (P = 0.087) remained in the final model, but neither terms were significant. Factorial ANOVA ( S4 Table ) yielded similar results (having a scholarship and supervisory teams who received a maximum score approached, but did not reach, significance).

Average impact factor

On univariate analysis (Tables 2 and 3 , Fig 2 ), primary supervisor being located in a strategic research centre (non-parametric and parametric P both P≤0.001), supervisory teams who received a maximum score (both: P≤0.005), being awarded a scholarship (both: P<0.001), student academic merit score (both: P≤0.005), were associated with this outcome, but student undergraduate performance (both: P≥0.077), student research training degree outcome (e.g. first-class honours upper band; both: P≥0.238), research topic (both: P≥0.161), primary supervisor academic level (both: P≥0.125) were not.

Step-wise regression models ( Table 4 ) showed that receiving a scholarship (P<0.001) and primary supervisor being located in a strategic research centre (P = 0.051) remained in the final model, with the latter not achieving statistical significance. Factorial ANOVA ( S4 Table ) yielded similar results (having a scholarship was significant, but supervisor related variables approached, but did not reach, significance; student related variables were not significant).

Drop-out from PhD

Odds ratios for student attrition is shown in Table 1 . Students were more than two times more likely to withdraw from their PhD when the supervisory team did not achieve maximum score (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.88[1.39, 5.93], P = 0.004) or a scholarship was not awarded (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 3.04[1.37, 6.73], P = 0.006). No other independent variables significantly predicted the likelihood of withdrawal.

The final multiple logistic regression model (χ 2 = 13.80, df = 3, P = 0.003) for predicting withdrawal from PhD included maximum supervisory team score (OR = 3.29, P = 0.013; i.e. lower risk of withdrawal when the supervisor score was maximum), student undergraduate degree grades (OR = 0.58, P = 0.047; i.e. reduced risk for each GPA rank lower) and receiving a scholarship (OR = 2.30, P = 0.090; i.e. lower risk when scholarship received), albeit the latter was not significant.

Associations between explanatory variables

Students in the highest quartile of academic merit received the most (42%) of all scholarships awarded. Of those in the highest quartile of academic merit, 79% received scholarships, compared to 62% in the second quartile, 20% in the third quartile and 22% in the lowest quartile.

Students who received a scholarship were more often supervised by strong supervisory teams (χ 2 = 9.346, P = 0.002; Table 5 ) and by supervisors who were located in a strategic research centre (χ 2 = 8.225, P = 0.004; Table 5 ). Supervisors who were in a strategic research centre were more likely to attract students in the highest quartile of academic merit (χ 2 = 3.899, P = 0.048; Table 6 ). Supervisory teams who received a maximum score were more likely to attract students in the highest quartile of academic merit (χ 2 = 10.147, P = 0.001; Table 6 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.t005

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.t006

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first analysis of PhD student outcomes in relation to their research environment, their academic abilities and prior research training. The key finding was that the 'research environment', such as whether the supervisor was in a research centre or institute and the research experience of the supervision team, were most significant predictors of, with the largest effect sizes for, student outcomes. In contrast, the students' previous academic outcomes and previous research training were not predictors. Receiving a PhD scholarship had a significant influence on positive student outcomes and was more important than students being judged as having the highest academic merit. Receiving a scholarship occurred more frequently in students tied to stronger supervisory teams and supervisors in strategic research centres.

Entry to a PhD is typically restricted to those students with a minimum grade in a prior Masters or Honours degree [ 16 ]. At our university, prospective PhD students are required to have completed a research project with a dissertation of at least 25% of one year full-time study at Honours or Masters level and their grade needs to have been at least 70%. Our findings suggest that once students meet the minimum academic ability for entry into PhD, any further ability or research training above that does not influence the outcome of their PhD. This is in line with findings that scientist’s intelligence quotient does not correlate with their citation rates [ 17 ].

By contrast, it is the research environment in which the student is embedded that is decisive for the outcomes of their PhD; including the strength of their supervisory team. This is in line with the hypothesis of “accumulative advantage”, also known as “Matthew effects” in science [ 18 ] where differences between scientists at an early stage of their career become reinforced over time [ 19 ]. The standing of a PhD supervisor directly influences [ 8 ] the future career trajectory, and number of citations, their students receive throughout their career. Also, the standing of a department influences the future employment chances of its PhD graduates, on average, more than the individual achievements of those students [ 13 ]. The impact of teacher quality is seen in other areas of education [ 20 , 21 ], although ‘PhD supervisor quality’ is assessed differently to teacher quality in school and undergraduate education.

There are other factors known to impact the number and impact of publication outputs. Research collaboration has clearly been shown to lead to higher impact publications [ 22 – 25 ]. In the health-sciences field, publications of higher levels of evidence [ 26 ] are more likely to be cited. Similarly interventional (rather than observational) and prospective (rather than retrospective) studies [ 25 , 27 ], as well as randomised controlled trials and basic science papers [ 28 ] are more likely to be cited. Papers published in high impact factor journals will be more often cited simply for that reason [ 23 , 25 ]. We argue these factors are more likely to be determined by the research culture in which the student are embedded, as opposed to being determined by the student alone.

We also showed that receiving a PhD scholarship contributed to the students’ outcomes, in particular with more publications arising, more citations higher impact factor journals. In step-wise regression, we found that impact of the scholarship persisted for the number of publications and average impact factor of the journals in which the students published. This finding is in line with prior work [ 29 ] that showed PhD students receiving scholarships to support their studies published more peer reviewed papers. Similar to prior work [ 29 ], our results showed that receiving a scholarship was also associated with lower withdrawal rates.

Students were awarded scholarships based on their prior academic performance [ 30 ]. At this university, whilst the student’s academic merit contributed to 60% of their total ranking score, in practice this was the most decisive factor in determining which applicants were offered scholarships first. We show here, however, that the most significant attributes for PhD success were research environment and the performance metrics of the supervision team. How these attributes may influence employment opportunities post PhD also warrants further investigation.

Strengthening the research environment is also worthy of further investigation. Prior work [ 12 ] has shown that very few university departments rely solely on a small number of high-performing researchers for its research productivity. We show here that supervisor team quality has a key impact on the PhD student’s outcomes. Therefore, having more highly trained researchers is likely to lead to overall higher research student productivity, such as in having a higher percentage of faculty members who are at full-professor level [ 12 ]. Strategies for strengthening the research capacity of academic staff and potential supervisors include [ 31 ] structured research mentoring of academic staff, formal requirements for further academic research training.

The strengths of this analysis include being a prospective analysis of outcomes based on data that were known at the time of student selection. The limitations of the analysis were that it was focussed on one faculty at one university. It was not possible to conduct this analysis more widely at our university or at other universities as not all faculties and universities collate the same data on their PhD applicants. It would be relevant to examine such patterns at a wider range of universities, however obtaining such data from other universities is further complicated by data from scholarship ranking being confidential internal university information. Whilst this study was comprised one university, we believe its findings can easily be extrapolated to other regions of Australia and/or the world. Furthermore, we focussed on outcomes from PhDs that relate to university ranking procedures. Other outcomes, such as employment achieved post-PhD, student satisfaction, mental health are important to consider more widely.

Conclusions

In conclusion, to best of our knowledge, our study is the first to examine the relative importance of the environment versus student ability in the allocation and outcomes of their PhD. Our key finding was that the research environment is likely more important for supporting PhD students to produce larger numbers of highly cited publications in higher impact journals. Once the minimum level of academic ability and research training is met for entry to PhD, working with a strong research focussed supervisory team, being embedded in a research intensive institute, and receiving a scholarship are also important factors for publication and citation outcomes.

Supporting information

S1 table. non-parametric effect sizes between the ranking criteria of the 198 unique phd applications and researcher metrics..

Data are Cohen’s d. Bold = P<0.05. GPA: Grade point average.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.s001

S2 Table. Parametric effect sizes between the ranking criteria of the 198 unique PhD applications and researcher metrics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.s002

S3 Table. Variability among variables by year of application.

Dependent variables are mean (standard deviation), expect withdrawing from PhD which are number (percentage within year). Explanatory variables are number (percentage within year). GPA: Grade point average.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.s003

S4 Table. Results from factorial ANOVA.

Data are F-value (corresponding P-value). ANOVA fits explanatory variables sequentially to the dependent variables. Explanatory variables were fitted to the dependent variables in the order above (i.e. top variable at left fitted first, followed by the second to top variable). This therefore accounted for potential association of student related factors first to PhD outcomes, with then having a scholarship and then supervisor related factors considered. Despite accounting for student related variables first, having a scholarship and supervisor quality were most consistently associated with outcomes from a student’s PhD.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.s004

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Grant Michie, Rachelle DeBrito and their teams for assistance with access to enrolment and publication output data, Steve Sawyer for assistance in reviewing and accessing the scholarship application data and biostatistician A/Prof Steven Bowe for statistical advice.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 2. Australian Government Department of Education. Research Training Program. Research Training Program https://www.education.gov.au/research-training-program (2019).
• 4. QS World University Rankings Methodology https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodology (2018).
• 5. World University Rankings 2019: methodology https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings-2019-methodology (2018).
• 6. Academic Ranking of World Universities Methodology http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-2018.html (2018).
• PubMed/NCBI
• 16. Haidar, H. PhD admission requirements. What is a PhD? https://www.topuniversities.com/blog/what-phd .
• 21. Rowe, K. The importance of teacher quality as a key determinant of students’ experiences and outcomes of schooling. in 15–23 (2003).
• 30. The University of Melbourne. How are graduate research scholarships awarded? https://education.unimelb.edu.au/study/scholarships/scholarship-support .

• Feature Article

Research Culture: Highlighting the positive aspects of being a PhD student

• Elena Angulo
• Elsa Bonnaud
• Loreleï Guéry
• Eléna Manfrini
• Anna Turbelin
• Céline Albert
• Franck Courchamp
• Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, France ;
• Estación Biológica de Doñana, CSIC, Spain ;
• UMR Plant Health Institute of Montpellier, CIRAD and INRAE, France ;
• Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, Germany ;
• Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, United States ;
• Open access
• Copyright information
• Comment Open annotations (there are currently 0 annotations on this page).
• 46,140 views
• 6,937 downloads
• 7 citations

Share this article

Cite this article.

• Camille Bernery
• Léo Lusardi
• Clara Marino
• Martin Philippe-Lesaffre
• Copy to clipboard
• Download BibTeX
• Download .RIS
• Figures and data

Introduction

Three benefits of doing a phd, recommendations, data availability, article and author information.

Articles about doing a PhD tend to focus on the difficulties faced by research students. Here we argue that the scientific community should also highlight the positive elements of the PhD experience.

Doing a PhD can be both demanding and rewarding. In addition to overcoming the scientific and intellectual challenges involved in doing original research, a PhD student may also have to deal with financial difficulties, an unhealthy work-life balance, or resulting concerns about their mental health ( Woolston, 2017 ; Auerbach et al., 2018 ; Oswalt et al., 2020 ; Evans et al., 2018 ). Despite all this, most PhD students seem satisfied with their decision to do a PhD, mostly because they work in stimulating environments with a high degree of independence and good supervision ( Pommier et al., 2022 ; Woolston, 2017 ).

Paradoxically, however, the fact that most PhD students are positive about doing a PhD is not always apparent to the outside world. For example, the present authors recently analysed more than 90,000 tweets about the PhD experience: almost half of the tweets were positive, and less than a sixth were negative, yet the negative tweets received more likes and retweets ( Figure 1 ). What can be done to counter such misleading and negative impressions? In this article we – a group of PhD students, postdocs and permanent academics – highlight the positive elements of doing a PhD in order to present a more balanced view of the whole PhD experience. We also make recommendations to maintain a positive momentum throughout the PhD. Although these ideas and recommendations are based on our experiences as researchers in ecology working in Europe, we feel that most of the points we make also apply in other disciplines and places.

Sentiment analysis of tweets about the PhD experience.

We retrieved all tweets posted in the English language during 12 consecutive weeks, from September to December 2021, that contained any of the following six hashtags: #phdlife, #phdspeaks, #phdvoice, #phdchat, #phdtips, #phdstudent. We then measured the sentiment (positive, negative or neutral) associated with each original tweet (excluding retweets). Of the 91 229 tweets we retrieved, 43,941 were positive, 12,298 were negative, and 34,990 were neutral. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to compare the average number of likes and retweets of positive versus negative tweets. Negative tweets received significantly more likes than positive tweets (14.5 vs 12.3; P <0.001); negative tweets were also retweeted more than positive tweets but the difference was not significant (1.7 vs 1.5; P =0.383). The Twitter API and the “rtweet” R package ( cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rtweet/vignettes/intro.html ) were used to retrieve the tweets; the “syuzhet” R package ( rdrr.io/cran/syuzhet/ ) and the Bing lexicon ( Liu, 2012 ) were used for the sentiment analysis; all analyses were performed with R software ( R Development Core Team, 2021 ).

There are two primary outputs from a PhD: new skills and expertise for the graduate, and new knowledge for the wider world. In this article we focus on the former and discuss the three main benefits of doing a PhD for the individual: (i) the development of specific skills to become an expert; (ii) the ability to work in a collaborative environment; (iii) improved communication skills while sharing knowledge ( Figure 2 ). For each of these benefits we discuss both general aspects that apply to most doctoral students, and specific aspects that depend on the student’s supervisor, field of research, location and other factors.

The positive aspects of doing a PhD.

The three primary benefits of doing a PhD are acquiring expertise (pink circle), learning to work in a collaborative environment (blue), and developing communication skills for sharing knowledge (yellow). For each benefit, general aspects that apply to almost all doctoral students are shown in bold type in the small circle, and specific aspects that depend on, for example, the student’s supervisor or field of research are shown in plain type in the large circle. The large grey area contains more abstract and subjective ideas that are not discussed in the main text. It should be noted that this figure is conceptual, and that the aspects and ideas in it could be grouped in other, equally valid, ways.

Becoming an expert

Throughout a doctoral project, a PhD student will develop many of the skills needed to grow into an independent researcher, while also developing expertise in a given field. In addition to learning a great deal about their own field – and adding knowledge to it – a PhD student will learn how to perform a variety of tasks, and thus acquire new transferable skills. These will include autonomy, critical thinking, organization and planning, resilience, and the ability to design, lead and carry out projects. Furthermore, unlike postdocs and principal investigators, who have to carry out various management and administrative tasks, PhD students are usually free to dedicate their working hours almost exclusively to academic pursuits that they are (or can become) passionate about. This freedom is one of the aspects that make the PhD experience unique, and it should not be overlooked or taken for granted. Unfortunately, not all PhD students benefit from or are aware of such autonomy, but this ought to be an objective for all PhDs.

A PhD does not consist of a number of uneventful years that culminate in a single success. Rather, there are many steps along the way – such as mastering a technique, completing a series of experiments or activities in the field, or finishing the first draft of a manuscript – and the feeling of accomplishment that comes with each completed milestone should be a source of pride to the student.

Working in a collaborative environment

Learning how to work with other researchers is an important part of getting a PhD. The PhD student’s most important working relationship is with their supervisor (or, in some cases, supervisors), but most PhD students will also have the opportunity to collaborate with other members of their research group or lab, or even with researchers from the wider community. Working on other projects from time to time can help the student’s own project through increased productivity and creativity; moreover, it can strengthen lab cohesion, and might even lead to the student being a co-author on a paper. Additionally, supervising undergraduate students – or even new graduate students – is a good way of acquiring management skills.

Conferences are another way to meet and interact with other researchers. In particular, they are an opportunity to discover, discuss and be inspired by the work of other scientists. Conversations at conferences can generate new research questions or ideas for new and improved ways to tackle existing questions. Moreover, presenting results at a conference gives students a chance to receive feedback, to be recognized as active researchers by their peers, and to build a professional network.

Collaboration also can happen through the many virtual communities that PhD students can join for technical, scientific or moral support. For example, the Global PhD Server enables doctoral students to discuss their experience, exchange anecdotes, and offer or seek help. The @PhDForum supports a variety of activities, such as writing sessions for PhD students working on papers or chapters of their thesis, while Stack Overflow is a good place to offer/seek help with coding and statistics.

Developing communication skills

The ability to communicate results is a crucial skill for any researcher. A PhD student will, for example, be required to present their work to other scientists as talks or posters at meetings and conferences. The student will also start learning how to write a scientific article. Moreover, there are many opportunities for PhD students to share their passion and knowledge about their field, such as teaching and mentoring undergraduates and other graduate students. They can also get involved in public outreach, and contribute to awakening new passions or educating citizens on certain topics.

Along the PhD journey, neither the doctoral student nor the supervisor will have full control over what will happen. Some things will go wrong, which is why it is important to remain positive and try to make the most of what is a unique opportunity. Ways for the student to remain positive include going back to old pages in their laboratory notebook to see how much progress has been made, and keeping a note of all the positive feedback from different people. It is also important to remember that one does not become a PhD student by chance – being accepted to do a PhD is an achievement in itself. Additionally, sharing preliminary results with other members of the group and attending social events of a lab can build a supportive working atmosphere and help students to stay positive.

Focusing only on research can sometimes be exhausting, so spending time on other activities – such as supervising students, teaching, or working on outreach – can break the monotony and generate a sense of progress. Finally, it is important to celebrate achievements, such as a first draft, an accepted paper, a conference presentation or the submission of a grant proposal (and, obviously, a successful grant proposal). These achievements can be celebrated in the real world, on social media – or both! By regularly highlighting positive outcomes, it is easier to recognise that past difficulties have been overcome, that progress has been made, and that expertise, skills and knowledge have been gained.

In parallel, it is important to try to limit the impact of the negative aspects of the PhD experience, for they are real and various, and can be crushing if left unchecked. First, it is essential to contextualize them. For example, bear in mind that failure is an integral part of progress, and is often just a temporary setback as opposed to a defeat. This is especially true when a manuscript is rejected by a journal: viewing the rejection as an opportunity to improve the manuscript, and acknowledging that the reviewer reports are about the science, not the authors, can help reframe rejections in a positive light. After all, even the most distinguished researchers have experienced rejection many times. Moreover, as highlighted above, science is a collective adventure, and one is rarely alone when help is sought out. In this regard, talking about the challenges one encounters during a PhD with other students or researchers can also help put these challenges into perspective and to see the positive aspects.

The relationship between the PhD student and their supervisor will likely have a big influence on the PhD experience. However, it is important to recognize that this relationship works both ways, and both stand to benefit if it works well. Among other things, the PhD students can help their own cause by being clear on the type of feedback they want, or by scheduling regular meetings focused on their PhD – and persisting even if their supervisor is busy ( Kearns and Gardiner, 2011 ).

We would also encourage supervisors to be positive in their interactions with their PhD students, and to build a global productive environment that could benefit the PhD student ( Andreev et al., 2022 ). Supervisors could, for example, praise PhD students when the opportunity arises, and ensure that criticism is always constructive – and also encourage other members of their lab to do the same.

PhD students may also face challenges that cannot be overcome with positive thinking. Abusive behaviours such as bullying, harassment or discrimination should be reported to the relevant authorities immediately.

Some PhD students will also be anxious about their future job prospects, especially if they hope to remain in academic research. One way to help reduce such anxiety is to clarify life/career goals and identify the steps needed to reach them. For example, if the student makes a list of all potential funding opportunities (including deadlines) at the start of their last year, it will help them plan for the future and relieve some of the pressure that will build up towards the end of their PhD. Building a professional network can also help with career planning, and attending conferences and establishing collaborations are crucial in this regard.

Finally, if needed, it is entirely acceptable for a PhD student to take a break during their PhD, to refocus on what they really want in life, or to even leave their PhD without finishing it if they realize that it is not for them. However, before making such a decision, we would encourage the student to ask themselves if the doubts they are experiencing are due to a momentary difficulty that will pass, or if a PhD is not really the right career path for them.

Doing a PhD is a unique experience that typically occupies three or more years of someone’s life. Through this experience the student will be enriched by acquiring a range of professional and personal skills, and by gaining a prestigious qualification. In the end, it is in the interest of everyone – the PhD student, the supervisor, their colleagues, their institutions, and academia in general – to make this experience as positive as possible.

All data generated or analysed during this study came from Twitter API and cannot be shared.

• Google Scholar
• Auerbach RP
• Bruffaerts R
• Demyttenaere K
• Pinder-Amaker S
• Zaslavsky AM
• WHO WMH-ICS Collaborators
• Gastelum JB
• Vanderford NL
• Chestnut-Steich K
• Halbritter A
• Auffray-Seguette M
• Elshawish P
• R Development Core Team

Author details

Camille Bernery is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Contribution

Contributed equally with, for correspondence, competing interests.

Léo Lusardi is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Clara Marino is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Martin Philippe-Lesaffre is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Elena Angulo is in the Estación Biológica de Doñana, CSIC, Sevilla, Spain and the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Elsa Bonnaud is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Loreleï Guéry is in the UMR Plant Health Institute of Montpellier, CIRAD and INRAE, Montpellier, France

Eléna Manfrini is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Anna Turbelin is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Céline Albert is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Ugo Arbieu is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France, the Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, and the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Front Royal, United States

Franck Courchamp is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the internal reviewers (Céline Bellard, Eva Delmas, Christophe Diagne and Xavier Fauvergue) for useful recommendations. Work on this paper began during a lab retreat attended by all co-authors. PhD students were funded by the French Ministry of Higher Education (CB, LL, CM, MPL); postdocs were funded by the Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (UA), the Biodiversa ERA-Net AlienScenario project (AT), and the AXA Research Fund Chair for Invasion Biology of University Paris-Saclay (EA, CA, EM); Tenured academics salary were funded by the University Paris-Saclay (EB), the CIRAD (LG) and the CNRS (FC). MPL was also funded as an intern by the ENS Paris-Saclay during part of the project.

Publication history

• Received: June 15, 2022
• Accepted: July 13, 2022
• Version of Record published: July 26, 2022 (version 1)

© 2022, Bernery, Lusardi, Marino et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

Downloads (link to download the article as pdf).

• Article PDF

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools), categories and tags.

• research culture
• graduate school
• early-career researchers
• Part of Collection

Research Culture: A Selection of Articles

Further reading.

Research culture needs to be improved for the benefit of science and scientists.

The larva and adult of Helicoverpa armigera use differential gustatory receptors to sense sucrose

Almost all herbivorous insects feed on plants and use sucrose as a feeding stimulant, but the molecular basis of their sucrose reception remains unclear. Helicoverpa armigera as a notorious crop pest worldwide mainly feeds on reproductive organs of many plant species in the larval stage, and its adult draws nectar. In this study, we determined that the sucrose sensory neurons located in the contact chemosensilla on larval maxillary galea were 100–1000 times more sensitive to sucrose than those on adult antennae, tarsi, and proboscis. Using the Xenopus expression system, we discovered that Gr10 highly expressed in the larval sensilla was specifically tuned to sucrose, while Gr6 highly expressed in the adult sensilla responded to fucose, sucrose and fructose. Moreover, using CRISPR/Cas9, we revealed that Gr10 was mainly used by larvae to detect lower sucrose, while Gr6 was primarily used by adults to detect higher sucrose and other saccharides, which results in differences in selectivity and sensitivity between larval and adult sugar sensory neurons. Our results demonstrate the sugar receptors in this moth are evolved to adapt toward the larval and adult foods with different types and amounts of sugar, and fill in a gap in sweet taste of animals.

• Epidemiology and Global Health

Landscape drives zoonotic malaria prevalence in non-human primates

Zoonotic disease dynamics in wildlife hosts are rarely quantified at macroecological scales due to the lack of systematic surveys. Non-human primates (NHPs) host Plasmodium knowlesi, a zoonotic malaria of public health concern and the main barrier to malaria elimination in Southeast Asia. Understanding of regional P. knowlesi infection dynamics in wildlife is limited. Here, we systematically assemble reports of NHP P. knowlesi and investigate geographic determinants of prevalence in reservoir species. Meta-analysis of 6322 NHPs from 148 sites reveals that prevalence is heterogeneous across Southeast Asia, with low overall prevalence and high estimates for Malaysian Borneo. We find that regions exhibiting higher prevalence in NHPs overlap with human infection hotspots. In wildlife and humans, parasite transmission is linked to land conversion and fragmentation. By assembling remote sensing data and fitting statistical models to prevalence at multiple spatial scales, we identify novel relationships between P. knowlesi in NHPs and forest fragmentation. This suggests that higher prevalence may be contingent on habitat complexity, which would begin to explain observed geographic variation in parasite burden. These findings address critical gaps in understanding regional P. knowlesi epidemiology and indicate that prevalence in simian reservoirs may be a key spatial driver of human spillover risk.

Be the first to read new articles from eLife

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 23, Issue 4
• What are the foundations of a good PhD?
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9104-1999 Alison Rodriguez 1 ,
• Joanna Smith 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4308-4219 David Barrett 3
• 1 School of Health Care , University of Leeds , Leeds , UK
• 2 School of Healthcare , Lecturer in Children’s Nursing , Leeds , West Yorkshire , UK
• 3 Faculty of Health Sciences , University of Hull , Hull , UK
• Correspondence to Dr Alison Rodriguez, Health Care, University of Leeds School of Healthcare, Leeds, Leeds, UK; a.m.rodriguez{at}leeds.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2020-103353

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

• statistics & research methods

A PhD is a globally recognised postgraduate degree and typically the highest degree programme awarded by a University, with students usually required to expand the boundaries of knowledge by undertaking original research. The purpose of PhD programmes of study is to nurture, support and facilitate doctoral students to undertake independent research to expected academic and research standards, culminating in a substantial thesis and examined by viva voce. In this paper—the first of two linked Research Made Simple articles—we explore what the foundations of a high-quality PhD are, and how a Doctoral candidate can develop a study which is successful, original and impactful.

Foundations of a ‘good’ PhD study

Supervision and support.

Central to the development and completion of a good PhD is the supervisory relationship between the student and supervisor. The supervisor guides the student by directing them to resources and training to ensure continuous learning, provides opportunity to engage with experts in the field, and facilitates the development of critical thinking through questioning and providing constructive criticism. 1

An environment that promotes personal and professional development is further aided by positive peer interactions. If students feel part of a community and have contact with others also working on doctoral studies, there is the scope for peer compassion and understanding during both challenging and rewarding periods. Students who access personal and professional support and guidance through mentoring models during their studies are more likely to succeed. These models include one-to-one peer mentoring or activities for example journal discussion or methods learning groups. Often, groups of students naturally come together and give each other support and advice about research process expectations and challenges, and offer friendship, and guidance. 2 Given the usefulness of different types of mentoring models, all can create a supportive and collaborative environment within a PhD programme of study, to minimise working in isolation and enable students to achieve their greatest potential.

Characteristics of a good study: originality and theoretical underpinning

A PhD should make an original contribution to knowledge. Originality can be achieved through the study design, the nature or outcomes of the knowledge synthesis, or the implications for research and/or practice. 3 Disciplinary variation, however, influences the assessment of originality. For example, originality in science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects is often inferred if the work is published/publishable, in comparison to intellectual originality in the social sciences. 4 Although PhD originality assumes different nuances in different contexts, there is a general acceptance across disciplines that there should be evidence of the following within the thesis:

An interplay between old and new—any claims of originality are developed from existing knowledge and practices.

There are degrees of originality, relating to more than one aspect of the thesis.

Any claims for originality are accompanied by clear articulation of significance.

A good PhD should be also underpinned by theoretical and/or conceptual frameworks (that include philosophical and methodological models) that give clarity to the approach, structure and vision of the study. 5 These theoretical and conceptual frameworks can explain why the study is pertinent and how the research addresses gaps in the literature. 6 Table 1 provides a distinction of what construes theoretical and conceptual frameworks.

• View inline

Characteristics of theoretical and conceptual frameworks 7

Theoretical/conceptual frameworks must align with the research question/aims, and the student must be able to articulate how conceptual/theoretical framework were chosen. Key points for consideration include:

Are the research questions/aim and objectives well defined?

What theory/theories/concepts are being operationalised?

How are the theories/concepts related?

Are the ontological and epistemological perspectives clearly conveyed and how do they relate to theories and concepts outlined?

What are the potential benefits and limitations of the theories and concepts outlined?

Are the ways the theories/concepts are outlined and being used original?

A PhD thesis (and demonstrable in viva) must be able to offer cohesion between the choice of research methods that stems from the conceptual/theoretical framework, the related ontological and epistemological decisions, the theoretical perspective and the chosen methodology ( table 2 ). PhD students must be able to articulate the methodological decisions made and be critical of methods employed to answer their research questions.

Relationship between research paradigms, perspectives, methodologies and methods. 8 9

In summary, we offer considerations of what the foundations of a good PhD should be. We have considered some of the key ingredients of quality PhD supervision, support and research processes and explored how these will contribute to the development of a study that leads to student success and which makes a valuable contribution to the evidence base. In the next paper, we will look in more detail at the assessment of the PhD through the submission of a thesis and an oral viva.

• Dimitrova R
• Pancheri K ,
• Fowler DL ,
• Wiggs CM , et al
• Wellington J
• Osanloo A ,
• Bunniss S ,

Twitter @ARodriguez339, @josmith175, @barrett1972

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

The PhD student experience – What is it really like for PhDs?

Are you curious about what it’s really like to be a PhD student, navigating the world of academia and research?

In this article, we’ll dive deep into the lesser-known aspects of the PhD journey, from the profound impact of your supervisor to the competitive environment you’ll face.

Discover the truth about the importance of publishing papers and the realities of funding and job security in academia.

We’ll also give you a glimpse into the daily life of a PhD student, and explore the highs and lows of this challenging yet rewarding experience.

So, buckle up and join us as we uncover the secrets of the PhD student experience that no one else will tell you!

The little known-facts that you need to know about the PhD experience,

This is what no one else will tell you!

What does the daily life of a PhD student look like?

Embarking on a PhD journey can be a thrilling yet demanding experience, as a doctoral student is constantly immersed in:

• academic responsibilities,
• and professional development.

From the early morning, the life of a PhD student begins with checking emails, planning the day, and setting priorities.

A typical day usually involves conducting experiments or research in the laboratory, analyzing data, and reading scientific literature to stay up-to-date with their field.

PhD students often participate in regular meetings with their supervisors, who provide guidance and advice on their research projects.

These meetings are crucial for maintaining momentum and ensuring a productive working relationship.

A typical daily schedule for a PhD student might look like this:

7:00 AM – Wake up, morning routine, breakfast

7:45 AM – Check emails, plan the day, and set priorities

8:30 AM – Arrive at the laboratory, set up experiments or research tasks

9:30 AM – Attend a class or seminar (if applicable)

11:00 AM – Conduct experiments or research in the laboratory

12:30 PM – Lunch break, socialize with fellow graduate students

1:30 PM – Analyze data and read scientific literature relevant to the research project

3:00 PM – Meeting with supervisor to discuss research progress and receive guidance

4:30 PM – Continue working on experiments, data analysis, or literature review

6:00 PM – Dinner break

8:00 PM – Draft or edit thesis, work on conference presentations or publications

10:00 PM – Wind down and engage in a hobby or leisure activity for mental health and work-life balance

11:00 PM – Bedtime routine, sleep

In addition to their primary research, many PhD students assist and mentor undergraduate students, contributing to a diverse and dynamic academic community.

Balancing the demands of coursework, research projects, and administrative responsibilities can make for long working hours, which is why it’s important for doctoral students to maintain their mental health and work-life balance.

Attending conferences, participating in social events, and engaging in professional development opportunities are important aspects of the PhD experience.

Given the commitment and dedication required, full-time PhD students often rely on funded positions to support their education and living expenses.

Despite the inherent difficulties, the experience equips students with a range of new skills and expertise, setting them on a path to contribute significantly to academia and the world beyond.

How stressful is being a PhD student?

Being a PhD student can be quite stressful due to the unique challenges and demands of the program.

It varies from person to person and the supervisor will have a huge impact on how stressful a PhD will be for a student.

Here is a case study of the highs and lows of a PhD from a PhDs student’s perspective:

This PhD student experienced frustration with experiments not working or yielding results, leading to feelings of imposter syndrome and demotivation. A lack of progress was a significant source of stress during this time, as well as comparing oneself to peers who seemed to be achieving more success.

However, there were also numerous highlights throughout the PhD experience. Attending conferences and presenting research offered opportunities to gain feedback, collaborate with others, and even travel. Engaging in scientific discussions and exploring the significance of one’s work provided a sense of purpose and satisfaction.

Furthermore, working with cutting-edge equipment, such as advanced microscopes, allowed the student to appreciate the unique and privileged nature of their research.

The pressure to produce significant contributions to one’s field and the uncertainty of achieving results within a limited time frame can induce anxiety.

For instance, many students find themselves constantly juggling various responsibilities, such as conducting experiments, analysing data, attending meetings with their supervisor, and writing their thesis or papers.

Aside from academic pressure, managing work-life balance can be difficult as well. It’s not uncommon for PhD students to work long hours, often sacrificing personal time and relationships.

The lack of a structured schedule and the need for self-motivation can add to the stress and the competitive environment in academia and the constant pursuit of funding can further exacerbate stress levels.

PhD student workloads and holidays

The life of a PhD student is often characterized by heavy workloads and limited opportunities for holidays.

In a typical PhD program, students juggle numerous responsibilities, including research projects, coursework, and professional development activities, such as attending conferences and training.

This is particularly true for funded PhD students, who are expected to adhere to strict timelines set by their supervisors and the university’s academic calendar.

In the science field, the workload can be even more demanding due to the nature of research, which often involves conducting experiments that can take months or years to complete.

This commitment means that even during holidays, PhD students may feel the need to work in order to meet deadlines, leading to burnout and stress.

Later Stage PhD ( Doctorate Candidates )

When PhD students reach the later stages of their doctorate program, they become PhDs preparing to complete their research project and thesis.

This stage comes with an intense academic workload, with high demand for researcher-level skills and scientific knowledge.

A typical day for a PhD at this stage involves conducting research, analysing data, and editing their findings to complete their thesis.

In my experience it is WRITING, WRITING and more WRITING…with a touch of editing.

There are deadlines to meet, and students may face pressure, but the reward of completing a doctorate degree is worth it.

At this point, a PhD is expected to demonstrate their ability to conduct independent research and contribute to their field of study.

The latter stages of the doctorate program offer a rigorous and rewarding challenge for students who want to pursue a career in science, education, and research.

Wrapping up – PhD and Doctoral Student experience

The PhD student experience is a complex and multifaceted journey that offers a unique blend of challenges and triumphs.

As we have explored in this blog, the road to obtaining a PhD is filled with personal growth, professional development, and numerous hurdles to overcome.

But, for those who persevere, the rewards can be immense, leading to a sense of accomplishment, increased expertise, and the potential to make a significant impact in their chosen field.

In navigating this adventure, it is essential for PhD students to maintain a healthy work-life balance and develop strong support networks to help them manage stress and maintain motivation.

The journey may be demanding, but with the right mindset and guidance, the experience can be truly transformative.

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

A link to reset your password has been sent to your email.

Back to login

We need additional information from you. Please complete your profile first before placing your order.

Thank you. payment completed., you will receive an email from us to confirm your registration, please click the link in the email to activate your account., there was error during payment, orcid profile found in public registry, download history, four traits of every successful phd student.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 14 July, 2021

Are you thinking of doing a PhD? Or perhaps you’ve been accepted on a programme and are preparing to start your PhD journey? 

If you’re already at this stage of thinking or starting a PhD, you probably have the intellectual acumen and academic skills needed for advanced study – but intelligence isn’t everything. In this article, we’ll discuss the additional soft skills and qualities needed for PhD success. Very often, these traits are likely to get you further than academic brilliance alone.

The ability to work independently

Unlike undergraduate or taught postgraduate programmes, where you are required to attend seminars, do group work, or work on scheduled assignments, a substantial part of PhD work (or in some cases, the entire project) is done independently. In some disciplines, you might work in a larger team with other students and researchers, but it is still up to the individual PhD candidate to do most of their own data collection, analysis, and writing.

You are no longer working like a student or as a paid employee; you don’t report to someone like a teacher or a boss. Instead, you’ll need the discipline to design your work routine and plan the various components of your thesis on your own. In most cases, you are accountable only to yourself and it is important to be confident and trust in your ability to manage the entirety of your PhD independently (albeit with some support from your department and supervisor).

Knowing when to ask for help

Although we have just discussed the virtues of being independent, it is equally important to know when to ask for and receive help. You may find yourself up against some difficulties or issues that you have never dealt with before or have no idea how to address. While it is good to take initiative to try to solve an issue, do not be too proud to get help when you need it.

Work with your supervisors and listen to their advice and suggestions – it is literally their job to help you. Draw from the collective support of your PhD colleagues, research peers, and friends. Even if they are not working on the same project as you or even from the same discipline, you’ll be surprised at how much can be gained from getting a different perspective and advice from others on the same journey as you. Finally, seek out professional help and assistance from the university’s support or welfare teams if you find that your mental health is suffering .

Your research will be only as good as your level of wellbeing. Taking the steps to look after your mental health and get both academic and pastoral support for your PhD is one of the best things you can do for yourself and the research.

Curiosity and an openness to learn new things

Every PhD project stems from and revolves around one or more research questions – you are doing this research to investigate an issue more deeply or to try to uncover answers or solutions to a problem or question. A good PhD researcher is someone who continually asks questions and is keen to discover and learn new things, be it novel ways of doing research or alternative theories and perspectives.

Maintain curiosity throughout your PhD – dare to push at the boundaries of your project and question existing literature, your data, and even your role as the researcher. Always reflect on what you are doing, how you can do it differently, or what other ways there are of approaching your research. Of course, you are not expected to cover every possible approach and eventuality during your PhD, but having this curiosity will sharpen your thinking, enrich your final thesis, and demonstrate your perceptiveness and insight as a researcher.

Creativity and versatility

Most PhD theses will follow some similar conventions in the way they are structured and written; your supervisor will be able to advise you on the best ways to proceed. However, the finer details of how the research is conducted and how you engage with your data requires an amount of creativity and versatility to be able to identify emerging patterns and to communicate those findings in original and interesting ways .

Bear in mind that the research journey is not always a predictable one. Sometimes things go wrong during the course of your research; you might get unexpected results or your methods may not work as you anticipate . Being creative and adaptable to these changing circumstances will go a long way in helping you to produce excellent research even when things don’t always go to plan.

Charlesworth Author Services , a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928. 

To know more about our services, visit:  Our Services

Visit our new Researcher Education Portal  that offers articles and webinars covering all aspects of your research to publication journey! And sign up for our newsletter on the Portal to stay updated on all essential researcher knowledge and information!

Register now:  Researcher Education Portal

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services .

Share with your colleagues

Related articles.

Four top tips for making the most of your PhD

Charlesworth Author Services 10/01/2020 00:00:00

How can I reach the level of academic writing needed for a PhD?

Charlesworth Author Services 22/04/2021 00:00:00

How to find your best work rhythm as a PhD student

Charlesworth Author Services 07/05/2020 00:00:00

Related webinars

Bitesize Webinar: Effective paper writing for early career researchers: Module 1: Writing an effective PhD thesis

Charlesworth Author Services 02/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize webinar: Effective paper writing for early career researchers: Module 2: Writing an effective masters' dissertation

Bitesize webinar: Effective paper writing for early career researchers: Module 3: The right mindset for academic paper writing

Bitesize Webinar: Effective paper writing for early career researchers: Module 4: How to sell yourself as a researcher

Optimising your career and personal development during the PhD

Charlesworth Author Services 18/03/2021 00:00:00

Writing and publishing challenges early career researchers (ECRs) face – and overcoming them

Charlesworth Author Services 17/03/2021 00:00:00

A simple guide to begin Publishing during Your PhD

Charlesworth Author Services 03/01/2020 00:00:00

Here's what Highly Cited Researchers look for in PhD students

Joanna Wilkinson

Our Highly Cited Researchers ™ 2020 announcement is fast approaching. In anticipation of this prestigious event, where we celebrate the exceptional performance of some of the most cited researchers on the planet, we reached out to some of the researchers named in previous years. We asked them what qualities they look for most in a PhD student.

Here’s what they said…

“A doctoral student with a desired profile is one who is motivated, proactive and who has more doubts than certainties. I believe that the doctorate is a special moment in the career of a scientist, where the student has a ‘poetic license‘ to learn and make mistakes without constraints. It is also one of the most important moments of the career, when networking opportunities will begin to be established and when the first publications will be produced. Because of this ,  for  the success to be ideal, an ideal doctoral student must be involved and dedicating themselves exclusively to their project and course.”

– A. Brunoni , Associate Professor – Medical School, University of São Paulo, Brazil  

“Deep vocation for the chosen area, discipline to learn from mistakes and to study and read. They need a critical spirit and open mind to always learn, as well as patience to understand that the leaps and advances are small and sometimes imperceptible. They should value and admire qualities that [they] don’t have but that other team members of the group possess, as well as simplicity, honesty and humility. They also need an inexhaustible spirit to learn.”

– J.  Crossa, Biometrics and Statistics Unit, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Mexico 

“Perseverance, organization and self-motivation. Being hardworking and intelligent is important but throughout my career so far, I have seen super-intelligent students having a hard time organizing themselves, losing their focus and getting demotivated by problems. A Ph.D. is typically a long and hard commitment.  Those who have persistence can manage the stress, and those who keep motivated tend to be more successful.”

– B. Suzek , Assistant Professor – Computer Engineering, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Turkey

“I generally appreciate people that never give up and never stop trying. I look for PhD students that are passionate about research and hungry for knowledge. Motivation is priceless, and hard work beats talent every time.”

– C. Galanakis , Professor – College of Science, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia

“It is very important that a PhD student has a passion for research. Teamwork and collaboration with other researchers are also essential conditions for a PhD student. Moreover, good communication and English skills can also make the student more efficient for doing good research.”

– WH  Chen , Faculty – Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan

“High level of basic knowledge, strong motivation in science, self-responsibility, and skills complementary to my scientific expertise.”

– E. Blagodatskaya , Researcher – Institute of Physico-Chemical and Biological Problems in Soil Science, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia

“Curiosity, passion and dedication. Structured thinking combined with intelligence can drive students successfully in research and science. Students and young scientists must be stubborn and perseverant in their work and not afraid of failures. Actually disappointments, along with the continuous assessment in academia by peers, is a very unique path through which all scientists pass again and again. The young researchers need to equip themselves and learn how to get out of these evaluations, failures and disappointments even stronger. Systematic work, focus, ability to be selective in one’s tasks, critical thinking, creativity, ability for problem solving and teamwork are important qualities for success. I also believe that it takes different types of qualities to excel, whatever your background and intended profession. Not everything is about ‘traditional intelligence’.”

– D.  Fatta-Kassinos , Associate Professor — Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cyprus (Cyprus) 

“Hard work is the only thing that will enable young people to achieve success. It involves daily work on yourself, on your professional progress in your education, in your methodological arsenal – in other words, in everything. Sooner or later, the work will reward the researcher with scientific flair, intuition and professionalism, and finally, with the recognition of the professional society.”

– S.  Allakhverdiev , Professor — College of Science, King Saud Universtiy, Saudi Arabia

“First of all, a sense of responsibility, professional ethics and commitment. In addition, the important characteristics are:  scientific curiosity, proactivity, the ability to organize ideas (verbal and written) and work in groups.”

– M. C. Azeredo , Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria (Embrapa) Brazil

“Passion for research and intelligence. Without passion, it is difficult to contribute in research. That’s because you need to devote many hours and be an expert in your field. And I also think that this is about having original ideas and being able to understand many complex things.”

– J.  Maria Haro Abad , Visiting professor, Psychology Department, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia

“What matters the most for me is not what a person can accomplish, but whether that person tries their best. Honesty and ethics are other important qualities.”

– M. Okyay Kaynak , Adjunct Professor, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Saudi Arabia

“I hope that a PhD student could be cheerful, curious, hard-working, resilient and work well as a team. Two key things to being a researcher in my opinion are teamwork and management.”

– J. Miguel Rodriguez, Professor – Engineering Faculty, Universidad Andres Bello, Chile

“This is simple, just two things: good background and eyes bright for science.”

– Y. Kuzyakov , Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia

“A PhD student should have a good and friendly personality, be eager to learn and super interested in the topic. Chemistry can be taught, personality cannot and we need pleasant and collaborative people to work as a group.”

– M. Pumera , Professor – King Saud University, Saudi Arabia

“Motivation, solid background and the will to work very hard.”

– P. Artaxo , Professor – Institute of Physics, University of São Paulo, Brazil

Discover more about our Highly Cited Researchers

Related posts

Journal citation reports 2024 preview: unified rankings for more inclusive journal assessment.

Introducing the Clarivate Academic AI Platform

Reimagining research impact: Introducing Web of Science Research Intelligence

Doctor of Philosophy in Education

Additional Information

• Download the Doctoral Viewbook
• Admissions & Aid

The Harvard Ph.D. in Education trains cutting-edge researchers who work across disciplines to generate knowledge and translate discoveries into transformative policy and practice.

Offered jointly by the Harvard Graduate School of Education and the Harvard Kenneth C. Griffin Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, the Ph.D. in Education provides you with full access to the extraordinary resources of Harvard University and prepares you to assume meaningful roles as university faculty, researchers, senior-level education leaders, and policymakers.

As a Ph.D. candidate, you will collaborate with scholars across all Harvard graduate schools on original interdisciplinary research. In the process, you will help forge new fields of inquiry that will impact the way we teach and learn. The program’s required coursework will develop your knowledge of education and your expertise in a range of quantitative and qualitative methods needed to conduct high-quality research. Guided by the goal of making a transformative impact on education research, policy, and practice, you will focus on independent research in various domains, including human development, learning and teaching, policy analysis and evaluation, institutions and society, and instructional practice.   

Curriculum Information

The Ph.D. in Education requires five years of full-time study to complete. You will choose your individual coursework and design your original research in close consultation with your HGSE faculty adviser and dissertation committee. The requirements listed below include the three Ph.D. concentrations: Culture, Institutions, and Society; Education Policy and Program Evaluation; and Human Development, Learning and Teaching . 

We invite you to review an example course list, which is provided in two formats — one as the full list by course number and one by broad course category . These lists are subject to modification. 

Ph.D. Concentrations and Examples

Summary of Ph.D. Program

Doctoral Colloquia  In year one and two you are required to attend. The colloquia convenes weekly and features presentations of work-in-progress and completed work by Harvard faculty, faculty and researchers from outside Harvard, and Harvard doctoral students. Ph.D. students present once in the colloquia over the course of their career.

Research Apprenticeship The Research Apprenticeship is designed to provide ongoing training and mentoring to develop your research skills throughout the entire program.

Teaching Fellowships The Teaching Fellowship is an opportunity to enhance students' teaching skills, promote learning consolidation, and provide opportunities to collaborate with faculty on pedagogical development.

Comprehensive Exams  The Written Exam (year 2, spring) tests you on both general and concentration-specific knowledge. The Oral Exam (year 3, fall/winter) tests your command of your chosen field of study and your ability to design, develop, and implement an original research project.

Dissertation  Based on your original research, the dissertation process consists of three parts: the Dissertation Proposal, the writing, and an oral defense before the members of your dissertation committee.

Culture, Institutions, and Society (CIS) Concentration

In CIS, you will examine the broader cultural, institutional, organizational, and social contexts relevant to education across the lifespan. What is the value and purpose of education? How do cultural, institutional, and social factors shape educational processes and outcomes? How effective are social movements and community action in education reform? How do we measure stratification and institutional inequality? In CIS, your work will be informed by theories and methods from sociology, history, political science, organizational behavior and management, philosophy, and anthropology. You can examine contexts as diverse as classrooms, families, neighborhoods, schools, colleges and universities, religious institutions, nonprofits, government agencies, and more.

Education Policy and Program Evaluation (EPPE) Concentration

In EPPE, you will research the design, implementation, and evaluation of education policy affecting early childhood, K–12, and postsecondary education in the U.S. and internationally. You will evaluate and assess individual programs and policies related to critical issues like access to education, teacher effectiveness, school finance, testing and accountability systems, school choice, financial aid, college enrollment and persistence, and more. Your work will be informed by theories and methods from economics, political science, public policy, and sociology, history, philosophy, and statistics. This concentration shares some themes with CIS, but your work with EPPE will focus on public policy and large-scale reforms.

Human Development, Learning and Teaching (HDLT) Concentration

In HDLT, you will work to advance the role of scientific research in education policy, reform, and practice. New discoveries in the science of learning and development — the integration of biological, cognitive, and social processes; the relationships between technology and learning; or the factors that influence individual variations in learning — are transforming the practice of teaching and learning in both formal and informal settings. Whether studying behavioral, cognitive, or social-emotional development in children or the design of learning technologies to maximize understanding, you will gain a strong background in human development, the science of learning, and sociocultural factors that explain variation in learning and developmental pathways. Your research will be informed by theories and methods from psychology, cognitive science, sociology and linguistics, philosophy, the biological sciences and mathematics, and organizational behavior.

Program Faculty

The most remarkable thing about the Ph.D. in Education is open access to faculty from all Harvard graduate and professional schools, including the Harvard Graduate School of Education, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the Harvard Kennedy School, the Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School, and the Harvard School of Public Health. Learn about the full Ph.D. Faculty.

Jarvis R. Givens

Jarvis Givens studies the history of American education, African American history, and the relationship between race and power in schools.

Paul L. Harris

Paul Harris is interested in the early development of cognition, emotion, and imagination in children.

Meira Levinson

Meira Levinson is a normative political philosopher who works at the intersection of civic education, youth empowerment, racial justice, and educational ethics. 

Luke W. Miratrix

Luke Miratrix is a statistician who explores how to best use modern statistical methods in applied social science contexts.

Eric Taylor

Eric Taylor studies the economics of education, with a particular interest in employer-employee interactions between schools and teachers — hiring and firing decisions, job design, training, and performance evaluation.

Paola Uccelli

Paola Ucelli studies socio-cultural and individual differences in the language development of multilingual and monolingual students.

View Ph.D. Faculty

Dissertations.

The following is a complete listing of successful Ph.D. in Education dissertations to-date. Dissertations from November 2014 onward are publicly available in the Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) , the online repository for Harvard scholarship.

• 2022 Graduate Dissertations (265 KB pdf)
• 2021 Graduate Dissertations (177 KB pdf)
• 2020 Graduate Dissertations (121 KB pdf)
• 2019 Graduate Dissertations (68.3 KB pdf)

Student Directory

An opt-in listing of current Ph.D. students with information about their interests, research, personal web pages, and contact information:

Doctor of Philosophy in Education Student Directory

Introduce Yourself

Tell us about yourself so that we can tailor our communication to best fit your interests and provide you with relevant information about our programs, events, and other opportunities to connect with us.

Program Highlights

Explore examples of the Doctor of Philosophy in Education experience and the impact its community is making on the field:

The Human Element of Data and AI

Gahyun Callie Sung's journey to HGSE and the LIT Lab is reflected in her research into data and using AI to improve student outcomes

Improving the Teacher Workforce

With her research work, doctoral marshal Mary Laski, Ph.D.'24, is trying to make teaching in K–12 schools more sustainable and attractive

Smart. Open. Grounded. Inventive. Read our Ideas Made to Matter.

Which program is right for you?

Through intellectual rigor and experiential learning, this full-time, two-year MBA program develops leaders who make a difference in the world.

A rigorous, hands-on program that prepares adaptive problem solvers for premier finance careers.

A 12-month program focused on applying the tools of modern data science, optimization and machine learning to solve real-world business problems.

Earn your MBA and SM in engineering with this transformative two-year program.

Combine an international MBA with a deep dive into management science. A special opportunity for partner and affiliate schools only.

A doctoral program that produces outstanding scholars who are leading in their fields of research.

Bring a business perspective to your technical and quantitative expertise with a bachelor’s degree in management, business analytics, or finance.

A joint program for mid-career professionals that integrates engineering and systems thinking. Earn your master’s degree in engineering and management.

An interdisciplinary program that combines engineering, management, and design, leading to a master’s degree in engineering and management.

Executive Programs

A full-time MBA program for mid-career leaders eager to dedicate one year of discovery for a lifetime of impact.

This 20-month MBA program equips experienced executives to enhance their impact on their organizations and the world.

Non-degree programs for senior executives and high-potential managers.

A non-degree, customizable program for mid-career professionals.

PhD Program

Program overview.

Now Reading 1 of 4

Rigorous, discipline-based research is the hallmark of the MIT Sloan PhD Program. The program is committed to educating scholars who will lead in their fields of research—those with outstanding intellectual skills who will carry forward productive research on the complex organizational, financial, and technological issues that characterize an increasingly competitive and challenging business world.

Start here.

Learn more about the program, how to apply, and find answers to common questions.

Admissions Events

Check out our event schedule, and learn when you can chat with us in person or online.

Start Your Application

Visit this section to find important admissions deadlines, along with a link to our application.

Click here for answers to many of the most frequently asked questions.

PhD studies at MIT Sloan are intense and individual in nature, demanding a great deal of time, initiative, and discipline from every candidate. But the rewards of such rigor are tremendous:  MIT Sloan PhD graduates go on to teach and conduct research at the world's most prestigious universities.

PhD Program curriculum at MIT Sloan is organized under the following three academic areas: Behavior & Policy Sciences; Economics, Finance & Accounting; and Management Science. Our nine research groups correspond with one of the academic areas, as noted below.

MIT Sloan PhD Research Groups

Behavioral & policy sciences.

Economic Sociology

Institute for Work & Employment Research

Organization Studies

Technological Innovation, Entrepreneurship & Strategic Management

Economics, Finance & Accounting

Accounting  

Management Science

Information Technology

System Dynamics  

Those interested in a PhD in Operations Research should visit the Operations Research Center .  

PhD Program Structure

Additional information including coursework and thesis requirements.

MIT Sloan Predoctoral Opportunities

MIT Sloan is eager to provide a diverse group of talented students with early-career exposure to research techniques as well as support in considering research career paths.

Rising Scholars Conference

The fourth annual Rising Scholars Conference on October 25 and 26 gathers diverse PhD students from across the country to present their research.

Now Reading 2 of 4

The goal of the MIT Sloan PhD Program's admissions process is to select a small number of people who are most likely to successfully complete our rigorous and demanding program and then thrive in academic research careers. The admission selection process is highly competitive; we aim for a class size of nineteen students, admitted from a pool of hundreds of applicants.

What We Seek

• Outstanding intellectual ability
• Excellent academic records
• Previous work in disciplines related to the intended area of concentration
• Strong commitment to a career in research

MIT Sloan PhD Program Admissions Requirements Common Questions

Dates and Deadlines

Admissions for 2024 is closed. The next opportunity to apply will be for 2025 admission. The 2025 application will open in September 2024. 

More information on program requirements and application components

Students in good academic standing in our program receive a funding package that includes tuition, medical insurance, and a fellowship stipend and/or TA/RA salary. We also provide a new laptop computer and a conference travel/research budget.

Funding Information

Throughout the year, we organize events that give you a chance to learn more about the program and determine if a PhD in Management is right for you.

PhD Program Events

June phd program overview.

During this webinar, you will hear from the PhD Program team and have the chance to ask questions about the application and admissions process.

July PhD Program Overview

August phd program overview, september 12 phd program overview.

Complete PhD Admissions Event Calendar

Unlike formulaic approaches to training scholars, the PhD Program at MIT Sloan allows students to choose their own adventure and develop a unique scholarly identity. This can be daunting, but students are given a wide range of support along the way - most notably having access to world class faculty and coursework both at MIT and in the broader academic community around Boston.

Now Reading 3 of 4

Profiles of our current students

MIT Sloan produces top-notch PhDs in management. Immersed in MIT Sloan's distinctive culture, upcoming graduates are poised to innovate in management research and education.

Academic Job Market

Doctoral candidates on the current academic market

Academic Placements

Graduates of the MIT Sloan PhD Program are researching and teaching at top schools around the world.

view recent placements 

MIT Sloan Experience

Now Reading 4 of 4

The PhD Program is integral to the research of MIT Sloan's world-class faculty. With a reputation as risk-takers who are unafraid to embrace the unconventional, they are engaged in exciting disciplinary and interdisciplinary research that often includes PhD students as key team members.

Research centers across MIT Sloan and MIT provide a rich setting for collaboration and exploration. In addition to exposure to the faculty, PhD students also learn from one another in a creative, supportive research community.

Throughout MIT Sloan's history, our professors have devised theories and fields of study that have had a profound impact on management theory and practice.

From Douglas McGregor's Theory X/Theory Y distinction to Nobel-recognized breakthroughs in finance by Franco Modigliani and in option pricing by Robert Merton and Myron Scholes, MIT Sloan's faculty have been unmatched innovators.

This legacy of innovative thinking and dedication to research impacts every faculty member and filters down to the students who work beside them.

Faculty Links

• Accounting Faculty
• Economic Sociology Faculty
• Finance Faculty
• Information Technology Faculty
• Institute for Work and Employment Research (IWER) Faculty
• Marketing Faculty
• Organization Studies Faculty
• System Dynamics Faculty
• Technological Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Strategic Management (TIES) Faculty

Student Research

“MIT Sloan PhD training is a transformative experience. The heart of the process is the student’s transition from being a consumer of knowledge to being a producer of knowledge. This involves learning to ask precise, tractable questions and addressing them with creativity and rigor. Hard work is required, but the reward is the incomparable exhilaration one feels from having solved a puzzle that had bedeviled the sharpest minds in the world!” -Ezra Zuckerman Sivan Alvin J. Siteman (1948) Professor of Entrepreneurship

Sample Dissertation Abstracts - These sample Dissertation Abstracts provide examples of the work that our students have chosen to study while in the MIT Sloan PhD Program.

We believe that our doctoral program is the heart of MIT Sloan's research community and that it develops some of the best management researchers in the world. At our annual Doctoral Research Forum, we celebrate the great research that our doctoral students do, and the research community that supports that development process.

The videos of their presentations below showcase the work of our students and will give you insight into the topics they choose to research in the program.

Attention To Retention: The Informativeness of Insiders’ Decision to Retain Shares

2024 PhD Doctoral Research Forum Winner - Gabriel Voelcker

Watch more MIT Sloan PhD Program  Doctoral Forum Videos

• [email protected]

Keep Exploring

Ask a question or register your interest

Faculty Directory

Meet our faculty.

• Communications
• Computer Science
• Criminal Justice
• Environmental Management
• Forensic Psychology
• Healthcare Admin
• Human Resources
• Project Management
• Social work
• Special Education
• Sports Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Adult Education
• Business Intelligence
• Early Childhood Education
• Educational Technology
• Homeland Security
• Information Systems Security
• Information Technology
• International Business
• Management Information Systems
• Nonprofit Management
• School Counseling
• Academic Publishing Guide
• Building a Graduate School Resume or CV
• Choosing Between a Thesis or Non-thesis Master's Degree
• Expert Guide to Studying Abroad
• FAQ: Online Master's Degrees
• Grad School Guide Book
• Graduate School for Students with Disabilities
• Green Graduate Degrees
• How to Be a Successful Grad Student
• How to Choose the Right Graduate Program
• How to Get a Master's Degree in an Unrelated Field
• How to Transfer College Credits in Grad School
• How to Write a Winning Personal Statement
• Inside Graduate Admissions
• Ivy League Grad Schools
• Master's Degrees for Veterans
• Master's Degree for Women
• Mental Health in Grad School
• Progressive LGBTQ Graduate Degrees
• Should You Apply for a Graduate School Assistantship?
• Surviving Grad School with a Family
• Taking a Gap Year Before Grad School
• Women in STEM Graduate Resources
• Writing a Successful Statement of Purpose
• Alternative Ways to Pay for School
• The Best Part-Time Jobs During Grad School
• Company Funded Graduate School
• FAFSA For Grad Students
• Financial Aid Resources
• Graduate Student Loans
• Paying for Your Master's Degree
• Paying Off Student Loans
• Paying for Your PhD
• Fellowship Opportunities
• LGBTQ Scholarships
• MBA Scholarships
• Scholarship Resources
• Scholarships for Veterans
• Scholarships for Women
• Crushing the GRE Guidebook
• GMAT Guidebook
• Guide to the LSAT
• MCAT Prep for Medical School
• Study Guide: Exam Resources
• TOEFL Prep for Non-Native English Speakers
•       Resources       Publish or Perish: Graduate Students' Guide to Publishing

Publish or Perish: Graduate Students' Guide to Publishing

In addition to endless piles of reading, demanding expectations in the classroom, student teaching responsibilities, and the always-looming awareness that they need to research, write, and edit a high-quality dissertation before graduating, today’s Ph.D. students also commonly feel stress about another topic: publishing. As more prospective employers expect degree seekers to get their names in academic journals and conferences while still in school, many learners feel overwhelmed by the prospects of making the grade. The following guide answers some of their most pressing questions, provides guidance on the ins and outs of publishing while still in school, and offers expert advice from a professor who knows better than most what it takes to publish rather than perish.

Understanding Publishing in Graduate School

Getting published as a grad student can feel overwhelming at first, because there’s so much to learn about the process and expectations surrounding it. With a bit of research, however, students can familiarize themselves with the specific language surrounding publishing and make in-roads towards getting their first paper published.

What Does it Mean to Get Published?

Within the context of graduate school, publishing refers to getting essays, papers, and research findings published in one of the academic journals or related forms seen as a leader in the field. As jobs in academia continue to become more competitive, it isn’t enough for learners to simply do well in their coursework. The degree seeker who hopes to land an important post-doctoral fellowship or find a teaching position at a college or university must make themselves stand out in other ways.

When Should a Ph.D. Candidate Get Published?

Getting a paper published takes a lot of time and effort, and those students who wait until the final year or two of a doctoral program may fail to actually have any published materials by the time they graduate. According to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Graduate Connections program , getting a paper published – especially if it’s your first – can take up to three years. In addition to the fact that most journals publish quarterly, the panel review process typically takes a significant amount of time and those submitting for the first or second time usually need to make a large number of edits and complete rewrites in order to reach a publishable standard.

How to Get Published

In order to get published, students submit their work to the journal or conference of their choosing. They frequently also provide a cover letter outlining their research interests. Most journals put out generic calls for submissions once or twice a year, while some may ask for papers addressing specific topics that have a much shorter turnaround time. Grad students may find it intimidating to go up against more seasoned academics, but another option revolves around partnering with their dissertation supervisor or another professor with whom they work closely with to co-author a paper. This not only helps ensure the validity of their findings, but alerts the academic world know that this other, more recognized faculty member believes in the research the student is doing.

Who Should Get Published?

Learners most anxious to get published are those who see their future careers in teaching and research. Because the world of academia is relatively small when divided into individual subjects, it’s important for students who want to break into these ambitious arenas to make a name for themselves early on and create a curriculum vitae that captures the attention of hiring committees.

Where Should Students Get Published?

When deciding which publications to pursue, students should consider the research aims of each and their likelihood of getting published. Newer journals tend to take more submissions as they are still working on building up their roster of contributors. While less venerated than other publications, getting printed in these can help build up name recognition and make it easier to break into the top-tier publications over time.

In terms of where work is published, the majority of students look to academic journals when sending out cover letters and examples of their work. But other options exist as well. Presenting papers at conferences is a popular avenue, as are chapters in books. The following sections takes a more in-depth look at how and where to publish.

Realities & Challenges of Getting Published

Getting published, especially while still in grad school, takes tenacity, focus, and a thick skin. Those who continue working on their craft, presenting at conferences, collaborating with others, and not taking no for an answer, however, frequently find success. Some of the challenges students may encounter include:

Lack of time

It’s no secret that doctoral students have busy schedules that seldom allow for outside – or sometimes, even related – interests to take up much of their days. Because publishing is not a degree requirement, carving out the time needed to research, write, and edit the type of paper required for publishing can feel impossible. With this in mind, student should look for ways to multitask. If presenting at a conference, think about how that paper could be transformed into a journal article.

Lack of confidence

Studies have shown that mental stress and illness frequently increase in grad school as students feel intense pressure to stand out from their peers. These feelings are often intensified when considering publishing, as learners are going up against academics and researchers who have been working in the field far longer than them. It’s important to remember that each of those renowned individuals had to start somewhere.

Lack of funding

Completing the research needed for a competitive paper doesn’t only take time – it requires money. Whether traveling to archives or printing all the necessary documentation, funding for outside research can be scarce while in school. Some programs provide competitive grants for research travel to help offset these costs.

Intense competition

As discussed earlier, competition for publishing is fierce. Academic journals and conferences only have space for so many authors and trying to get noticed can feel like a losing battle. In addition to seeking out newer publications and co-authoring with more notable figures, consider taking part in symposiums at the school you attend to get your foot in the door. While research on the average number of rejections is lacking, don’t feel discouraged if it takes a long time to be chosen for publication.

Finding the right publisher

While getting your name in print within an academic journal you greatly admire is the ultimate goal, it may take some years for it to come to fruition. One of the biggest mistakes students make is applying to ill-suited publications. Look for journals with editorial board members whose names you recognize. If a professor knows one of them, don’t be afraid to ask if they can help get your paper in front of them.

Adequately addressing feedback

Getting a paper published often requires intense editing and even completely restructuring and rewriting what you conceived in the initial abstract. If an academic journal shows interest in your essay but suggests rewrites, pay close attention to their requests and try to work with an advisor to ensure you meet all the stated requirements.

What do Graduate Students Publish?

Academic journals may receive the lion’s share of discussion in the publishing world, but graduate students can actually choose from numerous outlets and paths for getting their work to a larger audience. Students should review the options listed below and think about which format might showcase their work best.

Tips for Publishing

Despite the great amount of work required to publish, students who meet the challenges and persevere stand to position themselves favorably for future job opportunities. The following section addresses some of the most common questions about the process and alleviates general fears about how publishing (or not) reflects upon them.

How many papers should a Ph.D. student try to publish before graduating?

According to scholar-practitioner Dr. Deniece Dortch, no single answer exists. “There is no hard and fast rule as to the number of publications students should have prior to graduation,” she notes. “The reality is students in STEM disciplines and those who use quantitative methods are more likely to have publications prior to graduation because they often work in research teams and labs. This is not to say that qualitative scholars or those in other disciplines aren’t, but it’s a much more standardized practice in STEM for students to graduate with two or three publications. Personally, I had one sole-authored publication accepted prior to graduation, one first-authored piece, and one second-authored piece.”

How many journal articles is it possible to publish during a PhD?

“The answer varies and is determined by factors such as length of program, research team access, and faculty relationships,” says Dr. Dortch. “I’ve seen folks finish with as many as 10 publications, although this is extreme and doesn’t happen often.” She continues, “Imagine you are in a four-year program and you get your idea to write an article in year two. You submit that article in year three after getting approval, collecting data, analyzing it, and then writing your paper. Year three you submit that paper; it may be accepted in year four after months of revisions at the request of the editor. You finally have one published paper as you graduate.”

Are there PhD students who have no journal publications? Should they be worried about that?

“It depends on the type of employment the student is seeking upon graduation,” says Dr. Dortch, “Students applying to or wanting to work in institutions and organizations with the highest levels of research productivity who have no publications may want to consider post-doctoral positions so they have the time and space to work on increasing their publication record after graduation.” She continues, “Postdocs are a very common practice in many disciplines and are used as a way to gain additional training and expertise in research and teaching.”

Is it absolutely essential to have publications to apply for a PhD program?

In a word, no. Individuals working toward doctoral degrees have many reasons for doing so, not all of which require them to publish. Admissions panels also recognize that students focus their efforts on many different goals (e.g. jobs, internships, presenting at symposiums) throughout bachelor’s and master’s programs. As long as learners can demonstrate an ongoing commitment to scholarship, publishing is not an absolute requirement.

Does publish or perish begin before starting a PhD program?

It’s true that many students begin worrying about publishing before starting a Ph.D. program, but the reality is that they have ample time during and after completing a doctorate to make their mark on the world of scholarship. According to a recent article by Inside Higher Ed , some individuals in the academy now wonder if too much emphasis is being placed on grad students publishing. Learners unsure about this should speak to a trusted advisor or mentor to figure out when to focus on getting published.

What is the difference between a published article and a Ph.D. thesis?

While a Ph.D. thesis is required for satisfactory completion of a degree, a published article is not. A Ph.D. also takes a much longer form than a published article, averaging approximately 90,000 words. Academic journal entries, conversely, are usually between 4,000 and 7,000 words.

Should I first write my Ph.D. thesis or publish journal articles?

Though publishing at the doctoral level is increasingly seen as a requirement in the job market, it is not part of degree requirements. With this in mind, students should prioritize the research and writing of their thesis above all else. If they have the time and mental clarity needed to publish journal articles, this can be a secondary focus.

From the Expert

Dr. Deniece Dortch is a scholar-practitioner known for her commitment to diversity, social justice and activism. Dr. Dortch holds a Ph.D. in Educational Leadership & Policy Analysis from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, an Ed.M. in Higher & Postsecondary Education from Columbia University, an M.A. in Intercultural Service, Diversity Leadership & Management from the School for International Training and a B.A. in Spanish from Eastern Michigan University. Hailed a graduate school expert by NPR, she has published numerous articles on the experiences of historically underrepresented undergraduate and graduate students. She is the creator of the African American Doctoral Scholars Initiative at the University of Utah and currently a Visiting Assistant Professor of Higher Education at The George Washington University .

Publishing as a student can feel intimidating. Why is this process important for learners to go through?

Long gone are the days of getting a good job by just having a solid dissertation or an award-winning thesis. Publishing your work while in school demonstrates a commitment to answering and understanding our world’s most complex problems. Further, institutions want to know that you have the capacity to publish. Now, publishing doesn’t mean you have to be first author or that you must publish sole-authored pieces only. Collaboration is also sufficient and often encouraged. The publishing process is intimidating for folks because it involves critique and, most often, rejection.

Receiving and giving critical feedback is part of the learning process and students should not shy away from it because it will only serve them well in the end as they learn to cope with disappointment and reward. But more importantly, there is no point spending months and years conducting research if you are just going to keep your findings to yourself. What you learn is meant to be shared.

What are some common mistakes these learners make when preparing their first papers?

Common mistakes that individuals make include not adhering to the guidelines outlined in the submission process. Examples of this can include ignoring formatting requirements (e.g. APA, MLA, etc.), going over the stated word count, inadequately proofreading, and not submitting a cover letter. This is probably the most important one.

What specific advice do you have for them in terms of finding the right outlet, preparing their work, and submitting to journals?

Students should have multiple individuals read over their work before submission. Writing is a process and even after it is submitted, it will need to be revised many more times before you will read it in print. It is part of the process. To find a good outlet for your work, pay attention to where other scholars are submitting their work. If you’re subject is aligned with theirs, you have a shot. Make a list of at least three outlets that fit your article. Also look out for special calls. A special call for submissions usually goes a lot faster than the regular submission process, so if you’re a student who is about to go on the job market, submit to those first. Also, the more competitive the academic, the longer the process, so keep that in mind. If you are rejected, just re-submit to the the next journal on your list.

In addition to publishing in journals, how else might a student go about getting recognition in their field while still in school?

Apply for all fellowships, grants, and awards that are specific to you and what you do. People in the academy love an award winner and they especially love people whose work has been recognized and/or funded by outside groups. A great way to increase a student’s visibility is to publish outside academic journals and publish in other media outlets. Also attend conferences in your field. Try to get on the program as a presenter or facilitator so that people in your field will start to know who you are and your research interests.

Doctor of Philosophy in Health Quality

Click here to learn how to apply!

The PhD in Health Quality (PhDHQ) will prepare experts who will improve the delivery of healthcare through teaching, developing new methodologies and theoretical frameworks, as well as testing innovation in the field of health quality. The PhDHQ program offers a collaborative approach to comprehend and address the complexities within the healthcare system. Graduates of the program will be prepared to take senior leadership roles in health quality portfolios in practice and policy settings across Canada and will also be educated to assume tenure track positions in university programs. While the degree is research intensive, it will also be grounded in pragmatism and will help prepare independent researchers for quality improvement research and developing leadership capabilities in health settings.

The PhDHQ program is a four-year, interdisciplinary program using a combination of synchronous and asynchronous study as well as interactive online videoconferencing. The PhDHQ program consists of five (5) courses in year one, including an internship over the summer months. The internship will be tailored to the learners’ interests and to broadening their perspectives on health quality. In the fall term of year two, students complete the comprehensive exam. In the winter and summer terms of year two (2) students will focus on the development of their thesis proposal and complete HQRS 905 Current Topics in Health Quality. After a successful oral examination of the thesis proposal, students submit their project for ethics review and then proceed to data collection, analysis, and writing. The thesis requires independent, original research and makes up at least two-thirds of the time normally required for the program. Upper year students are expected to visit campus at least once per year; students are required to attend the final thesis examination in person. Nurtured by close mentoring relationships with faculty supervisors, the Queen’s model is to ensure graduate students present and publish their research, and normally complete their program in 4 years.

University of Houston Study Shows Electric Vehicles Can Have Positive Impact on Air Quality and Public Health in Some Cities, Not All

Why a complete switch to electric vehicles could have negative impacts in Los Angeles

By Rashda Khan — 713-743-7587

• Science, Energy and Innovation

What do Houston, Los Angeles, New York and Chicago have in common? Dense population, high traffic volume and air quality that fails to meet ozone standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Those circumstances made each city a prime candidate for a University of Houston study assessing the impact of vehicle electrification on air quality and public health.

Titled “Air quality and health co-benefits of vehicle electrification and emission controls in the most populated United States urban hubs: insights from New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston,” the study looked at changes in air pollution, specifically PM2.5 and ozone levels in these major U.S. cities under different electrification scenarios. The work was published in the journal Science of the Total Environment .

The study found that by switching to electric vehicles Houston could prevent 157 premature deaths each month, while New York and Chicago could see even greater benefits – avoiding 796 and 328 premature deaths per month, respectively. In Los Angeles, a scenario with a 29% EV share for light-duty vehicles could save 104 lives each month but full electrification could increase mortality in Los Angeles due to higher PM2.5 and ozone levels.

“Our findings indicate vehicle electrification generally contributes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving air quality, and lowering the mortality rate associated with exposure to toxic air pollutants,” said the first author of the paper Ali Mousavinezhad, who earned a Ph.D. from the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences of UH’s College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics this year.

“However, due to the complex atmospheric chemistry and unique meteorological and geographical conditions of Los Angeles, complete electrification might lead to increased concentrations of secondary aerosols, potentially causing adverse impacts on human health and the economy by raising mortality rates,” he added. “This underscores the need for region-specific environmental regulations.”

In the full electrification, also known as the FullE, scenario PM2.5 levels—tiny particles that can harm our lungs—dropped by up to 2.29 μg/m³ in many areas. Surprisingly, parts of eastern Los Angeles saw PM2.5 levels rise by up to 0.67 μg/m³. This was due to an increase in secondary organic aerosols, caused by changes in nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds dynamics, and a spike in hydroxyl radical concentrations.

The unique weather and geography in and around Los Angeles, including a mountain range to the east, can trap air pollutants in downwind areas. This can lead to higher concentrations of pollution.

The study also found significant reductions in nitrogen oxides and maximum daily average 8-hour ozone levels in the FullE scenario, with drops to 14.00-32.34 parts per billion and 2.58-9.58 ppb, respectively. However, some areas experienced increases in MDA8 ozone, highlighting the complexity of air quality management.

Economically, the FullE scenario promises significant health-related savings, ranging from $51 million to $249 million per day for New York, Chicago, and Houston. Conversely, Los Angeles could face economic losses up to $18 million per day.

“The four largest U.S. cities have distinct anthropogenic sources of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, “said Yunsoo Choi, corresponding author and professor of atmospheric chemistry, AI deep learning, air quality modeling and satellite remote sensing. “Each city requires unique regulations or strategies, including different scenarios for the adoption of electric vehicles, to reduce concentrations of these pollutants and greenhouse gases effectively.”

The overall impact on air quality is a more complex undertaking than many realize. Estimating future scenarios related to electric vehicles and changes in other sources – such as industry, residential areas, biogenic emissions, oceanic emissions, and others – contribute to this complexity.

However, both Choi and Ali see a lot of opportunity in the current push for electrification of the transportation sector.

“In the future, we anticipate an increase in the number of electric vehicles on the road, which will help reduce the emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases from vehicle tailpipes. By considering the expected percentage of electric vehicles in the future, we can estimate the impact of these changes on air pollutant and greenhouse gas concentrations, which ultimately affect human health,” Choi said.

This study shows that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Effective and nuanced air quality management is crucial to a cleaner, healthier world. “The findings of this study will assist policymakers in tailoring their regulations to the specific characteristics of different regions to enhance quality of life,” Ali said.

As America and the world move towards a greener future with electric vehicles, these findings underscore the need for a balanced and thoughtful approach to ensure both environmental and public health benefits are fully realized.

Top Stories

May 22, 2024

The Neural Basis of Human Creativity

University of Houston neuroscientist Jose Luis Contreras-Vidal, the pioneer of brain-machine interfaces, has been invited to speak and present emergent research on brain computer interfacing and artificial intelligence at the United Nations AI for Good Global Summit.

May 21, 2024

University of Houston Graduate Students Selected for Prestigious U.S. Dept. of Energy Program

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science has chosen three University of Houston graduate students for its prestigious graduate research program. UH doctoral candidates Farzana Likhi, Caleb Broodo and Leonard Jiang were among 86 students from 31 states selected for Office of Science Graduate Student Research (SCGSR) program which provides world-class training and access to state-of-the-art facilities and resources at DOE national laboratories.

May 15, 2024

With $5M NASA Grant, University of Houston to Open Aerospace Engineering Research Center

With a multi-million-dollar grant from NASA, the University of Houston will open an aerospace engineering research center to extend human presence on the moon and Mars for sustainable, long-term space exploration, development and utilization.

Florida State University

FSU | The Graduate School

Main navigation Pulldown

The graduate school.

• Prospective Students
• Graduate Admissions

International Admissions

We are now accepting Graduate applications for Fall 2024, and Spring 2025.* *Please contact your department for application open terms and deadlines.

Our community welcomes you

Each year, the university enrolls approximately 1,700 international students. We are proud to offer extensive support and services to our international population. International applicants should plan to apply early so they have ample time to obtain their immigration documents and make living arrangements in the U.S. Any F-1/J-1 students planning to obtain their I-20/DS-2019 should contact the Center for Global Engagement at [email protected] . Please check with your department regarding deadlines. 

International Admissions Requirements

In addition to meeting graduate university admissions requirements, international applicants must also meet the following University requirements to be considered for admission. 

English Language Proficiency Requirement

Official English Language Proficiency results are required of all international applicants whose native language is not English. The following are the minimum scores required for admission to the University, although some departments require higher scores at the graduate level: 

Internet based TOEFL ( IBTOEFL ): 80 

Paper based TOEFL ( TOEFL ): 550 

International English Language Testing System ( Academic IELTS ): 6.5 

Pearson Test of English ( PTE ): 55 

Duolingo : 120 (Summer 2022 and Forward)

Cambridge C1 Advanced Level : 180  (Fall 2022 and Forward)

Michigan Language Assessment : 55  (Fall 2022 and Forward)

Although official scores are required, most departments will begin to review your application with self-reported scores, while they are waiting for the official scores to arrive. You can self-report your scores on your Online Status Page, after you submit your application. 

The English Language Proficiency requirement can be waived, at the University-level, for applicants who have earned a minimum of a BA or higher in the US or in an English-Speaking Country. Please note, your department may still require proof of English-Language proficiency. *A variety of countries are exempt from the English language proficiency requirement.

Transcript and Credential Evaluation Requirements

All transcripts/academic records that are not in English must be accompanied by certified English translations. 

To be considered "certified," documents should be true copies that are signed and dated by an educational official familiar with academic records. Any translated record should be literal and not an interpretive translation. Documents signed by a notary or other public official with no educational affiliation will not be accepted. 

If the transcript/academic record does not indicate the degree earned and date the degree was awarded, separate proof of degree is required. 

International applicants or degrees earned from international institutions must submit their official transcripts through the SpanTran pathway portal, or from another NACES approved evaluator. SpanTran has created a custom application for Florida State University that will make sure you select the right kind of evaluation at a discounted rate. Florida State University recommends SpanTran as our preferred credential evaluation because it offers an easy way to streamline the application process.

Please read more about our general transcript requirements on our  Graduate Admissions page. 

International Transfer Credit

International transfer credit is awarded for coursework completed at an accredited (recognized) institution of higher learning. No credit is awarded for technical, vocational, or below-college-level coursework, or courses completed with grades below "D-." An official course-by-course evaluation is required for all academic records from non-U.S. institutions. We recommend the evaluation be done by a member of the  National Association of Credential Evaluation Services . 

SUPPORT TO HELP YOU THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.

The Center for Global Engagement (CGE) and its staff are here to serve international students and their families. They may advise you about:

• F and J visa requirements
• Cultural adjustment
• Employment matters
• Housing assistance
• Assistance with personal concerns
• Maintaining your visa status

Many academic programs only accept applications for a specific admit term. Contact your academic department to determine which admit term to apply. It is recommended that you submit your application as soon as the admit term opens. CGE also assists students throughout the New International Student Checklist and Process . You may learn more about what CGE has to offer by emailing [email protected] . 

Center for Intensive English Studies

Need to improve your English skills? FSU’s Center for Intensive English Studies can help! At CIES, you will be given personalized instruction by highly qualified teachers in a safe, friendly environment.

Please note that admission to and completion of the CIES program does not necessarily guarantee admission to the University as a degree-seeking student.

CIES also offers:

• TEFL certification  opportunities
• Credit-bearing courses and workshops  to enhance your English speaking ability

Learn more about how the Center for Intensive English Studies can help you.  

Florida State University is required by U.S. federal regulations to verify the financial resources of each applicant prior to issuing the Form I-20. If granted admission to the University, an email with instructions on how to complete the I-20 will be sent from the Center for Global Engagement (CGE). You will provide information verifying your financial support (bank statements, award letters, scholarships, etc.) through the I-20 application. FSU requires proof of financial support for the first year of study and demonstrated availability of funds for the length of your academic program

Estimated International Student Costs:

For more information on estimated costs of living and the I-20 process, please visit  CGE’s website .  

I-20 Application

Shortly after admission, students will receive an email with instructions for completing the online I-20 application to demonstrate proof of adequate funding. Florida State University is required by U.S. federal regulations to verify the financial resources of each applicant prior to issuing the Form I-20. Applicants must show proof of financial support for the first year of study and confirm availability of funds for the length of the academic program.

For more information, contact the Center for Global Engagement at [email protected] .

US Federal Grants and Loans are not Awarded to International Students

Graduate students may apply to their respective departments for assistantships or fellowships, although funds are very limited. For further information, please contact your academic department directly. 

SPEAK (Speaking Proficiency English Assessment Kit) is a test for evaluating the English speaking ability of non-native speakers of English. At FSU, the SPEAK test is administered by the Center for Intensive English Studies to international students who have been appointed or will be appointed as teaching assistants in an academic department at Florida State University.

For more information, click here .

  Explore Funding Opportunities 

May the TOEFL be waived?

The TOEFL may only be waived as a test requirement if the student has received a bachelor's or master's degree from a U.S. institution.

Can you review my documents prior to applying?

Students must submit the application, application fee, and any required departmental materials for application materials to be reviewed.

Can the application fee be waived?

Unfortunately, the Office of Admissions is unable to waive the application fee payment for graduate applicants.  In order to complete your application for review, you must submit the application fee payment by logging in to your Application Status Check ,  along with any other documents required by the department. 

When will I receive a decision?

Applications are reviewed holistically by each graduate department. Please contact your department for information about decision timelines. Please note that the application must first be completed before it can be reviewed. Contact your department for more information.

Can the GRE be waived?

FSU is currently waiving the GRE requirement for most master’s and specialist programs through Fall 2026*. For more information on whether the requirement can be waived, please contact your graduate department. 

* Excludes the College of Business

What if I don’t meet the English Language Proficiency score requirements?

​​​​​​ The FSU Center of Intensive English Studies (CIES) offers comprehensive courses to help students improve their English skills. Students who complete the top-level of the CIES program will not have to take an English Language Proficiency test.

What is the F-1 visa/I-20 process?

• Students can learn more about the I-20 process here .
• Students can learn about the visa here .

Do you have funding available for International students?

• The Graduate School offers fellowship and grant opportunities for graduate students. For current FSU students, the  Office of Graduate Fellowships and Awards  assists in identifying and applying for external funding opportunities. In addition,  here is some more information  about additional funding opportunities for international students. 
• There may also be additional funding opportunities through your department. Please contact your graduate representative for assistance. If you do not know who to contact, please email us at [email protected] for assistance.

Are there on-campus housing opportunities?

University housing costs are not included in the tuition and fees at Florida State University. If you want the option of living on campus, you can apply for housing online as soon as you are officially admitted to FSU. Housing at university-owned residence halls and apartments fill quickly. You can also find off-campus housing options by clicking here .

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

Korean PhD overwork culture ‘getting worse’ as research cuts bite

Postgraduate students and postdoctoral researchers say they are often subject to supervisors’ whims, leaving some feeling exploited.

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

Cuts to research and development spending in South Korea have exacerbated poor working conditions among PhD students and postdoctoral researchers, many of whom already feel unfairly treated, according to academics.

Earlier this year, the government reduced R&D spending by 14.7 per cent, impacting some students and early career academics. Stipends have been reduced by 100,000 won (£57) a month since March, with more than half of students reporting struggling with living costs as a result, according to a survey conducted by the graduate student council at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) .

Low pay is exacerbating discontent with what many find to be a demanding and, in some cases, exploitative work environment.

Posting on X, one former postdoctoral researcher claimed to have been “locked” in a laboratory overnight “for a discussion about my work ethic” after refusing to work on a Saturday.

The post generated a wide response, with others sharing their own experiences of the intense work culture at universities in the country, including being taken advantage of by supervisors who asked them to run personal errands on their behalf.

According to Jisun Jung, an associate professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Hong Kong , in South Korea, “excessive” workers are “seen as more professional and competent”. At the same time, vague employment contracts can leave PhD students open to abuse.

“Most full-time PhD students make earnings by participating in supervisors’ research projects, teaching assistance or department administrative work,” said Dr Jung. “However, there are no explicit restrictions on working hours or minimum wage, as the payment is based on a ‘scholarship’ without signing an employment contract.”

This is not the first time that Korean universities have been in the spotlight for maltreatment of graduate students. In an extreme example, a professor was jailed in 2015 after having forced a student to eat human faeces, while another was found in 2022 to have repeatedly slapped students.

Campus resource collection: Unplug from academia

Such reports have fuelled a long-running debate about the power imbalance between supervisors and their charges, exacerbated by the Korean cultural norm of respect for elders.

This can discourage junior staff from “challenging those in higher positions, regardless of the reasonableness of the argument”, said Kyuseok Kim, a project manager at edtech company Uway who recently completed a PhD at Korea University . “In academia, this dynamic often resulted in professors having substantial power that was rarely questioned,” he said.

Dr Jung added that a student’s working conditions could vary depending on their supervisor’s requirements . “Unfortunately, there [have been] several reported cases of excessive workload, unreasonable requirements including personal errands, and unstable financial support,” she said. “Many PhD students are reported to have stress and burnout, leading to dropout[s].”

She said these problems were caused in part by a “lack of financial resources” for PhD programmes. “The situation has worsened with the significant reduction to the R&D budget in recent years,” she said.

Theodore Jun Yoo, an associate professor at Yonsei University , agreed, saying the discontent was “part of a larger problem” of shrinking government spending.

While funding may be limited, many institutions have taken steps in recent years to address the concerns, including introducing guidelines about acceptable working conditions.

Dr Kim argued that the situation was improving, suggesting that while there continue to be anecdotal reports of “undemocratic” research environments, “things are becoming better gradually”.

[email protected]

Register to continue

Why register?

• Registration is free and only takes a moment
• Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
• Sign up for our newsletter

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

• Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
• Digital editions
• Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

Related articles

Quality ‘at risk’ as cash-strapped Korean campuses look overseas

Chungbuk National University head says simply ‘selling degrees’ is not in the interest of students or the sector

How row over medical school places thwarted Korean president

Analysts suggest Yoon Suk-yeol’s handling of admissions dispute contributed to his unpopularity ahead of his party’s electoral defeat

Top Korean institution criticised for handling of pay disputes

Wage disagreements with language institute and cleaning staff lead lecturers and students to express dismay about treatment of employees

Two-thirds of Cambridge researchers on temporary contracts

Scale of research precarity at top UK university and its effect on staff laid out in new report

How ‘will you be my supervisor’ emails control entry to PhD study

Late responses to PhD applicant enquiries and lack of signposting might contribute to poor ethnic minority representation at doctoral level, researchers say

NIH raises postdoctoral salaries, but below target

Top US funding agency manages record increase in key programme for younger scientists, and sees gains in overall equity, while absorbing net cut in its annual budget

Featured jobs