phd student characteristics

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

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

21k 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.

Current students

• Staff intranet
• Find an event
• Graduate qualities

Researcher graduate qualities for the PhD

The researcher graduate qualities will assist you to develop the skills and knowledge you need to become an exceptional PhD researcher and get career-ready.

The University of Sydney has developed a set of graduate qualities to define and enrich the PhD, and support you to get ready for a post-doctoral career in industry or research.

The researcher graduate qualities focus on building deep disciplinary expertise and a range of broader, transferrable skills that will enhance your research activities and career possibilities.

The eleven qualities cover cultural competence, interdisciplinary effectiveness, professional, ethical, personal identity, influence, critical thinking and problem-solving, communication, information and digital literacy, inventiveness, engagement and project planning and delivery.

From 2021 onwards, early career researchers will have access to development activities including coursework, mentoring programs, workshops, global mobility experiences, self-reflection exercises and competitions, challenges or projects.

What this means for your candidature

The researcher graduate qualities have been designed to help guide students and supervisors through a student's PhD candidature. During your supervision meetings, the graduate qualities will provide you with a point-of-reference to contemplate your achievement of skills and experience as your candidature progresses, and to have a conversation with your supervisor about further development opportunities or training you may need while you complete your thesis project.

How to update your Research graduate qualities record

After your supervision meetings, you will need to log your graduate qualities discussion in RECS. Log into RECS , select ‘My project’, then ‘Researcher graduate qualities’. Here you can review previous submission by selecting the relevant date or you can add a new record. Once you have completed a new record, there is an option to send to your supervisor for comment.

The eleven qualities

• Website feedback

Your feedback has been sent.

Sorry there was a problem sending your feedback. Please try again

You should only use this form to send feedback about the content on this webpage – we will not respond to other enquiries made through this form. If you have an enquiry or need help with something else such as your enrolment, course etc you can contact the Student Centre.

• Find an expert
• Media contacts

Student links

• How to log in to University systems
• Class timetables
• Our Rankings
• Faculties and schools
• Research centres
• Campus locations
• Find a staff member
• Careers at Sydney
• Emergencies and personal safety

• Accessibility

• Latest Posts
• Undergraduate Bloggers
• Graduate Bloggers
• Study Abroad Bloggers
• Guest Bloggers
• Browse Posts
• Browse Categories

Camille Bou

October 7th, 2022, what makes a “good” phd student.

0 comments | 2 shares

Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

Over the course of my PhD, I have talked to many individuals, from family and friends to prospective students, about what it’s like to pursue a doctorate degree. More often than not, I heard them say variations of “props to you – I don’t know if I could undertake a PhD” at some point in the conversation.

I’m a firm believer that, much like any other degree or professional activity, anybody could undertake a PhD if they were presented with the opportunity and if they’d want to – ie be motivated to, be willing to invest the time, and bear the financial costs (even with a doctoral studentship, as United Kingdom studentships don’t offer much funding and you’re not considered an employee of the university). That is not to say that I am diminishing the experience in itself – being in a doctoral programme is incredibly demanding and challenging, so it is an impressive feat – but I am saying that everybody could be up for the challenge.

Doctoral students often face imposter syndrome during the pursuit of their PhDs. I’ve struggled with imposter syndrome myself over my first year , and was able to manage my negative thought patterns through help from the PhD Academy coaching. However, I still sometimes get stuck in a perfectionism-procrastination-paralysis-cycle when my work anxiety becomes too overwhelming. Point being that if you are a PhD student who is wondering whether they belong and are “good enough” to be in their programme, or a prospective student wondering whether they are “good enough” to apply, I see you and I empathise with you.

As I’m now at the end of my third year, I’ve had time to reflect on what makes a “good” PhD student – unsurprisingly, it’s not about being the smartest person in the room. Rather, I believe that to be a good PhD student, one must embody the following traits: integrity, curiosity and conscientiousness. I believe these traits help acquire the skills which are useful to finish a doctoral thesis or paper – and a good PhD is a finished PhD.

A good PhD student also knows how to adopt a growth mindset, understanding that failures do not reflect a lack of intelligence or talents, and do no represent their value as academics, but opportunities to learn and ask further questions. As one of my professors once told me: “Even a non-significant result is significant”. Research is not just about proving or disproving your hypotheses, but also about the discussion surrounding your findings. Coming up with a good discussion requires a passion for the subject matter and creativity.

There are many articles on the internet about tips to be a good PhD student, not all of them applied to the social sciences. Some of them suggest, for instance, keeping a lab journal or working “long days all week and part of most weekends”. I wouldn’t worry too much about not being a good PhD student if you’re not following these tips – every journey looks different, and as you settle into your PhD programme you will find what works best for you, and if you don’t there are plenty of resources at LSE to help you (your supervisors and peers included). So don’t self-reject if you want to pursue a PhD and try not to worry if you currently are in one. You’ve got this!

About the author

I'm Camille, a PhD student in the Department of Health Policy. I'm interested in how context shapes the experiences of young informal carers in the United Kingdom. When I'm not analysing data, I enjoy listening to music and podcasts, catching up on TV series, walking in London's abundant green spaces, and exploring the city’s diverse art, food, and drinks scene!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Related Posts

ABC: My 3 struggles in the first year of my PhD (and how I overcame them)

March 31st, 2021.

Are you suffering from Imposter Syndrome?

February 28th, 2020.

Important LSE Resources for PhD Students

August 4th, 2020.

How to Manage the LSE PhD Upgrade

June 3rd, 2020.

Bad Behavior has blocked 1623 access attempts in the last 7 days.

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

Clarivate welcomes the barcelona declaration on open research information.

Demonstrating socioeconomic impact – a historical perspective of ancient wisdom and modern challenges

Unlocking U.K. research excellence: Key insights from the Research Professional News Live summit

• 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).
• 45,877 views
• 6,911 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.

• Evolutionary Biology

Evolutionary trade-offs in dormancy phenology

Seasonal animal dormancy is widely interpreted as a physiological response for surviving energetic challenges during the harshest times of the year (the physiological constraint hypothesis). However, there are other mutually non-exclusive hypotheses to explain the timing of animal dormancy, that is, entry into and emergence from hibernation (i.e. dormancy phenology). Survival advantages of dormancy that have been proposed are reduced risks of predation and competition (the ‘life-history’ hypothesis), but comparative tests across animal species are few. Using the phylogenetic comparative method applied to more than 20 hibernating mammalian species, we found support for both hypotheses as explanations for the phenology of dormancy. In accordance with the life-history hypotheses, sex differences in hibernation emergence and immergence were favored by the sex difference in reproductive effort. In addition, physiological constraint may influence the trade-off between survival and reproduction such that low temperatures and precipitation, as well as smaller body mass, influence sex differences in phenology. We also compiled initial evidence that ectotherm dormancy may be (1) less temperature dependent than previously thought and (2) associated with trade-offs consistent with the life-history hypothesis. Thus, dormancy during non-life-threatening periods that are unfavorable for reproduction may be more widespread than previously thought.

Intra- and interspecific diversity in a tropical plant clade alter herbivory and ecosystem resilience

Declines in biodiversity generated by anthropogenic stressors at both species and population levels can alter emergent processes instrumental to ecosystem function and resilience. As such, understanding the role of biodiversity in ecosystem function and its response to climate perturbation is increasingly important, especially in tropical systems where responses to changes in biodiversity are less predictable and more challenging to assess experimentally. Using large-scale transplant experiments conducted at five neotropical sites, we documented the impacts of changes in intraspecific and interspecific plant richness in the genus Piper on insect herbivory, insect richness, and ecosystem resilience to perturbations in water availability. We found that reductions of both intraspecific and interspecific Piper diversity had measurable and site-specific effects on herbivory, herbivorous insect richness, and plant mortality. The responses of these ecosystem-relevant processes to reduced intraspecific Piper richness were often similar in magnitude to the effects of reduced interspecific richness. Increased water availability reduced herbivory by 4.2% overall, and the response of herbivorous insect richness and herbivory to water availability were altered by both intra- and interspecific richness in a site-dependent manner. Our results underscore the role of intraspecific and interspecific richness as foundations of ecosystem function and the importance of community and location-specific contingencies in controlling function in complex tropical systems.

Be the first to read new articles from eLife

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

Tress Academic

#46: What makes PhD students succeed?

March 24, 2020 by Tress Academic

Have you ever thought about what causes a PhD candidate to succeed in the end? What do those who complete successfully on time do differently from those who take way longer than initially planned or never make it in the end? – I would like to encourage you to do so! It can give you valuable insights for your own chances of successful completion. In this post I describe the top 5 factors that characterise successful PhD students, and you get an awesome free test to ‘Assess the factors that determine your own PhD success?’

The question ‘what makes PhD students succeed’ has puzzled me for many years. In the SMART ACADEMICS blogpost #39 ‘Why I teach PhD students how to succeed’ I have shared my initial motivation for this topic: during my PhD time I witnessed nearly all of my PhD colleagues drop out or complete many years later than originally planned. Years later when I was a university lecturer, that experience led me to start a course that helps PhD students overcome typical challenges, work that I have continued over the past decade at TRESS ACADEMIC. 

Working with over 2,000 international PhD students for 12+ years now, I have witnessed many times which skills differentiate those that are successful from those who are not. In this blog post, I want to give you the benefit of my experience and share with you the 5 factors that typically differentiate successful PhD candidates from the unsuccessful ones.  

How does this relate to you? If you are determined to complete your PhD on time, this is a golden ticket for you. Because as you’ll see, the factors that I describe do not come down to fate, genius, intelligence, or innate abilities! All of the factors boil down to complementary skills that you can learn! Yes, you can learn these skills! And if you are struggling with one or the other factor that I mention, you can start today and improve your underlying skill-set! You ARE able to increase your chances for a successful, on time completion! 

But I won’t simply tell you which factors determine success, I have compiled an awesome free test so you can ‘Assess the factors that determine PhD success for yourself’ 

What does ‘successfully on time’ mean?

There are numerous studies showing that a high percentage of PhD students do not complete within the given timeframe, or drop out and give up altogether. Among the first and most comprehensive studies are the US’ Council of Graduate Schools, 2008 and the UK’s HEFCE 2007 surveys. The US survey, which included PhD candidates from 29 US and Canadian Universities and tracked PhD candidates over 12 years, showed that only 55% had completed after 10 years. Not even 5% completed within a three year period. The UK survey shows the same low completion rate of less than 5% within a three year bracket. A recent study from the University of Delft in the Netherlands showed a completion rate of less than 5% in the standard period of four years (TU Delft 2019) . Several Scandinavian studies (Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse 2007, Högskoleverket 2011, NIFU 2012) and a study from the European Science Foundation (2017) show slightly better completion rates, but across countries and studies they still evidence that the majority of PhDs are completed with a big delay.

But let me clarify what I mean by ‘successfully on time’. In the end, there are two factors that make for a successful completion. One is the quality of your PhD dissertation, the other is the time it took you to complete it. As for the quality, you should always strive for the highest possible scientific quality within the available timeframe. So ’on time’ is always relative – in the end you determine what exactly this means for you! Let me give a few more details to make this point clear:

The vast majority of PhD candidates today has limited time available for the PhD. Their time is set by either the length of the contract, grant or scholarship, the PhD programme itself, or influenced by the traditions of the country in which you undertake the PhD. Presently, a period of 3 to 4 years for a full-time PhD-education is the most common. In addition, universities may limit the time you can be enrolled as a PhD student, so that it may not permit you to be enrolled in a PhD-study for more than 5 years initially, which can sometimes be prolonged through applying for an extension. So ‘on time’ is very clearly defined for most PhD students, but varies at the individual level. ‘On time’ for you means the time you have available, the time you were given by your programme or funding agency.

Exceeding the time granted by your funding can have multiple negative consequences ( Rooij et al. 2019) . And don’t get me wrong here, we’re not talking about a delay of a couple of weeks, we’re talking about delays of months or years. If you don’t manage to complete on time, you may be left entirely without funding, or be stuck depending on short-term stints as a researcher or teaching assistant while you still trying to finish your PhD. And there are detrimental side effects for your personal life, mental well-being and further career as well. But apart from ‘having to finish’ I assume you do ‘want to finish’ because this enables you to move on with your life and career and harvest the fruits of your PhD efforts sooner!

What do PhD candidates think the determining success factors are?

I pose the above question occasionally to participants in my course “How to complete your PhD successfully on time” to see how clear PhD students are on their ability to influence their success. And recently, I posted the following open question to several discussion groups on social media to see what PhD student’s own experience was: 

“What do you think makes some finish their PhD on time while others struggle for many years or drop out altogether? Ultimately – what makes the success of a PhD student?”

Here is a selection of the top answers:

“Perseverance.”

“Grit and commitment.”

“Determination.”

“Determination, grit, resilience”

“Determination, commitment and perseverance most of all. But having support makes a huge difference too.”

“Success of a PhD research student largely involves determination and focus, however, a supportive and committed supervisor with constructive feedback is the key to success.”

“Individuals who complete have realised that obtaining a doctorate isn’t completely based on intellectual capacity, but perseverance, endurance, and fortitude.”

“Not giving up in moments of anxiety and helplessness.”

“Clear goals, hard work is essential, but not sufficient.”

“Goals and targets. Manageable tasks. Believe in yourself.”

“PhDs are hard. Good supervision and writing habits help.”

“When I started my programme I told them I’ve got 2 and a quarter years. The department chair tried to tell me otherwise, but I don’t listen well. I have a timeline for my life and so 2 years and 1 quarter later I finished! You’ve got to make-up your mind before you start.”

“They told me the average is 6 years here. I was like ‘not I said the cat!’ I told them I’d finish in 3.5 years and I did. That’s the commitment I made to myself. So there you have it: 1. Clear goals. 2. self care, 3. support system. That’s how you finish on time.”

“Tenacity and really great time management skills are absolutely necessary for success. I developed a strong sense of resilience and stayed focused on my ultimate goal of completing the PhD.”

My experience

These comments very much reflect my own experience after teaching PhD students for so many years. The vast majority of answers point to one or more specific complementary skill! There are a handful of factors that stick out and are mentioned over and over again. And if you have a closer look, you’ll realise that they are not science related! 

Producing new scientific insights is a must, of course, and you need scientific knowledge and methods for this. I will always suggest you strive for the highest possible scientific quality in your work. But there’s a whole lot of things that, strictly speaking have little to do with how good your science is. In the end, there’s a number of decisive factors and their underlying complementary skills that are necessary in order to complete successfully (see figure 1).

Figure 1:  Decisive factors influencing PhD success

Let me give you more details on the determining factors and related skills and then you can see for yourself how good you are at mastering them with our free test ‘Assess the factors that determine PhD success?’

The top 5 distinguishing factors of successful PhD students:

1. mental strengths: focus, determination & commitment.

PhD candidates who complete successfully often display a burning desire to obtain the PhD degree from the start. The have the ability to singularly focus on their PhD study and concentrate their efforts – like a laser beam – on the one goal of getting their PhD degree. That makes them good at shrugging off distractions and prevents them from getting sidetracked. They display commitment in not only saying they want a PhD degree, but putting in all available efforts and resources to make it happen. They ‘own’ their project and show a high degree of responsibility for every single aspect and its timely completion. Determination helps them in times when the PhD work is anything but fun, when working on difficult tasks, when they experience major setbacks, when they do not seem to make progress or the final success still seems light years away.  

These characteristics require mental strength, a high degree of self-control and self-awareness, which may require a shift in mindset. It is possible to work on these traits and there are smart techniques that can help you to adapt a different mindset that will allow you to increase your chances of successful completion. Since you determine the attitude with which you approach your PhD, you can influence this factor! Sport athletes, world-class musicians and top-performers in businesses use techniques to influence their mind-set to be more successful and so can you!

2. Manag ing time

PhD candidates who complete successfully have a clear sense that time is a limited and precious resource. They have a sense of urgency for their PhD and therefore avoid wasting time with activities that have little effect on their PhD projects in the end. They have the time management skills to make the best possible use of their time in the long run, but more importantly practicing it every single day. They plan their days out, know what to do and focus their efforts accordingly. 

Excellent time-management can be learned – there are fantastic and proven techniques that are fine-tuned for scientific environments, can easily be implemented into your workday and can super boost your productivity. If you master a few key techniques and your time better, you will increase you chances for timely completion.

3. Goal-setting and managing the PhD project

Successful PhDs have a clear and specific goal for their project. It’s not just a lofty idea that meanders and changes, but a set of written research questions that they have shared and discussed with their supervisors. As a consequence, they also have a clear idea of how to approach their research questions, like which methods to apply. That enables them to breakdown the major steps in their project and plan the timeline until completion. 

The underlying skill here is project-management, and there are sophisticated methods for dealing with the specific requirements of scientific projects. It can be learned! Planning and managing your project increases your chances to finish with the results you want in the time you have.

4. Good writing skills

PhD candidates who complete successfully are able to find time to write and produce scientific text regularly. They approach writing as a task that has to be done, just as they work on any other task for their PhD project. They have the ability to tackle the challenge of writing and have mastered the technique itself. They don’t procrastinate or keep dissertation writing until it is too late, but start writing bits and pieces early on, often in preliminary formats. Successful PhDs master the various types of scientific communication like peer-reviewed papers, abstracts, conference papers, the dissertation, a monograph, or book chapters (depending on how relevant they are for their subject area). They understand that writing about one’s research results is an inherent part of their work as a scientist. For them, it’s like two sides of one coin: they do research and communicate about it. 

One underlying ability of successfully academic writing is having the right ‘frame of mind’ and the confidence to tackle a challenging writing task (an entire dissertation). Another is to master the craft of writing. This means realizing that no one is born a ‘great scientific writer’, but that you will be able to become a prolific writer with professional input and the right writing strategies. Writing is a skill that you can train like a muscle and there are super efficient strategies to beef-up your writing abilities. Like any muscle, you’ve got to practice to get stronger! Check-out our SMART ACADEMICS blog-post no 5: How to get started with writing!  

5. Supervis ion

Successful PhD students manage to work with their supervisors in a way that supports them in undertaking their research and completing their projects. Not all supervisors provide excellent supervision, but successful PhD students manage to complete nonetheless. They often display the ability to benefit from the strengths of their individual supervisors and use it to their advantage, while carefully navigating or compensating for the deficiencies of others. 

The underlying skill is to be able to communicate with supervisors in a professional and efficient way. This is a relationship between two professionals, you and your supervisor. How you act, behave and communicate has a great deal of influence on the relationship. Professional communication with the supervisor can of course be learned, and through good and open communication, you can improve and optimise your supervision. 

What does this mean for you?

You’re probably not used to this way of thinking and you have eventually not thought about what will make you succeed with your PhD in the end. Maybe you need a while to get around to this way of thinking and then you realise how powerful it is! What I described above has two logic consequences for you: 

• First: You can influence your own PhD success! The underlying skills that are required can be trained by professionals and you can implement them in your own PhD. It’s not massively difficult, but it needs dedicated skills training, practice and attention!
• Second: Because the 5 factors mentioned above have such a big influence on PhD success, you should look at how competent you are at these required skills right now. Then you can figure out which ones you have to improve in order to optimise your chances of completion. If you can master these skills, you can master your PhD. For this purpose and to let you start right now, we’ve created our awesome free test ‘Assess the factors that determine PhD success?’

You know it is part of our mission at TRESS ACADEMIC to help academics succeed and PhD candidates complete! We’re on a continuous journey to improve our offers for you and that’s why we offer a short free PhD Webinar that will give you further hints how to recalibrate your PhD process and gear it towards success. Sign up now , so you don’t miss out on this opportunity and we’ll give you a short when the next one is available.

Related resources:

• Smart Academics Blog #5: How to get started with writing papers
• Smart Academics Blog #47: Plan your project – save your PhD!
• Smart Academics Blog #56: Breaking these 5 habits will speed up your thesis writing!
• Smart Academics Blog #85: Planning your PhD workday
• Smart Academics Blog #100: PhD success stories that motivate!
• Expert Guide: 5 reasons why PhD students delay and how to avoid
• Council of Graduate Schools (ed.) 2008. Ph.D. Completion and Attrition: Analysis of Baseline Demographic Data from the Ph.D. Completion Project. CGS-Publications: Washington DC.
• Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse 2007. Ph.d.er i tal. Forskeruddannelsesstatistik 2005-2006. 
• European Science Foundation: 2017 Career Tracking Survey of Doctorate Holders. Project Report . 
• Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) 2007. PhD research degrees – update. Entry and completion. HEFCE Issues paper 2007/28.
• Högskoleverket, Statistika centralbyrån (SCB) 2011. Universitet och högskolor. Doktorander och examina på forskarnivå 2011. Serie Utbildning och forskning. 21 Juni 2012.
• Manathunga, C. 2005. “Early Warning Signs in Postgraduate Research Education: A Different Approach to Ensuring Timely Completions.” Teaching in Higher Education 10 (2): 219–233. 
• Norsk Institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning (NIFU-STEP), 2009. Gjennomstrømning i doktorgradsutdanningen. NIFU-STEP Rapport 40/2009.
• Norsk Institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning, (NIFU) 2012. PhD education in a knowledge society. An evaluation of PhD education in Norway. NIFU Report 25/2012. 
• Rooij E. van, Fokkens-Bruinsma  M., & Jansen E. 2019: Factors that influence PhD candidates’ success: the importance of PhD project characteristics, Studies in Continuing Education, DOI: 10.1080/0158037X.2019.1652158  
• Schoot R. van de, Yerkes M. A. Mouw J. M., and Sonneveld H. 2013. “What Took Them So Long Explaining PhD Delays among Doctoral Candidates.” PLOS ONE 8 (7): e68839.

Related courses and services:

• PhD Success Lab (Digital mentoring programme)
• Supervision-Coaching (1-to-1 Advice package)

More information: 

Do you want to successfully complete your PhD study? If so, please sign up to receive our free guides .    

© 2020 Tress Academic

Photograph by thisisengineering at unsplash.com

#PhDCandidate, #PhD, #PhDstudy, #PhDCompletion, #PhDSuccess, 

What Makes A Productive PhD Student? PhD Productivity Explored

Embarking on a PhD journey is akin to navigating a complex labyrinth of academic challenges and personal growth. In the quest to uncover what makes a productive PhD student, we dive deep into the myriad factors that intertwine to shape a successful academic journey. 

From the influence of mentorship to the power of resilience, this article explores the key elements that define productivity in PhD studies, offering insights and guidance for aspiring scholars on their path to excellence.

What Makes A Productive PhD Student?

What does a productive phd student look like.

Unraveling the secrets behind what makes a productive PhD student can be enlightening. There are many articles looking into this area. Through a blend of biographic and academic characteristics, we can discern patterns that contribute to scientific productivity.

Meeting Deadlines

Being able to meet deadlines is a key indicator of productivity for a PhD student, as it reflects several important attributes: 

Effective time management: Crucial in academia, where multiple tasks like research, writing, and seminars often need to be balanced. Meeting deadlines signifies that you can prioritize tasks, allocate time efficiently, and work within set time frames.

Good Work Ethic & Discipline: Consistently meeting deadlines indicates a good work ethic and discipline, as it requires regular effort and the ability to stick to a schedule. This discipline is essential in a self-driven environment like a PhD program.

Good Project Management Skills: It shows that the student can plan, execute, and complete tasks effectively, which is crucial for the successful completion of complex research projects.

Ability To Work Professionally In The Future:  Keeping deadlines prepares you for future professional roles where time management and project completion are key. You may become more attractive in the eyes of future employers.

Able To Raise Funds And Get Grants

One of the clearest indicators of productivity for a PhD student is being able to secure funding and grants.

It demonstrates your ability to effectively communicate the importance and potential impact of your research. This skill is crucial in academia, where the ability to convey complex ideas clearly and persuasively is essential.

Securing funding often requires:

• A deep understanding of the research topic,
• A well-structured research proposal, and
• A clear plan of action.

This reflects the your thorough preparation and dedication to your field of study, key aspects of productivity.

Obtaining grants is a very competitive process, requiring not only academic excellence but also strategic planning and perseverance. Successfully navigating this process indicates a high level of competence and initiative.

Access To Scientific Network

Speaking of resources, access to a rich scientific network is also pivotal.

A larger network, particularly when it includes a supervisor with a high academic status, offers diverse perspectives and opportunities.

However, the National Bureau of Economic Research points out that the benefits of a large network and a prestigious supervisor can vary.

The mentorship experience negatively associates with productivity in some cases, particularly when the mentor’s style doesn’t align with the student’s needs.

Access to scientific network also helps a PhD student to access funding, grants and publication opportunities, further helping you to show more results. 

Supervised By A Mid-Career Academic

The training period is a transformative phase where your productivity as a PhD student is shaped. It’s during this time that your develops your own research identity, styles and approaches.

Being supervised by a mid-career scientist, as opposed to a novice or a highly established academic, can strike a balance between guidance and independence. 

This balance is crucial for fostering research independence, which is key to a PhD student’s success.

Publishing Regularly 

If there is one thing that showcases a productive PhD student, its by publishing regularly. Publishing regularly helps with:

• Demonstration of Progress and Knowledge : Regular publications show that you are actively engaging with their research topic, contributing to the field. It’s a tangible measure of your ability to produce new knowledge or insights.
• Skill Development : The process of publishing helps in honing vital academic skills like writing, critical thinking, and argument formulation. It also demonstrates your ability to communicate complex ideas effectively, a key skill in academia.
• Academic Contribution : Regular publications contribute to the body of knowledge in a field, establishing you as a serious and active researcher. 
• Professional Networking and Visibility : Publishing in journals or at conferences increases the your visibility in the academic community. This can lead to networking opportunities, collaborations, and recognition by peers.

How To Maintain PhD Productivity?

PhD is a long marathon – common to many long term commitment, there are times when you feel down and are not as productive.

How do you stay productive as a PhD student, especially when you’re not just juggling research and coursework, but also striving to thrive in a demanding academic environment? 

Have Clear Goals And Milestones

Setting clear goals and milestones is vital for a PhD student’s productivity for several reasons. It provides direction and focus, ensuring that your efforts are aligned with their overall objectives.

This focus is especially important in research, where it’s easy to get sidetracked by interesting but non-essential inquiries.

Breaking down the PhD journey into manageable milestones makes the process less overwhelming and helps in tracking progress. Each completed milestone serves as a motivational boost and a tangible indicator of achievement.

Clear goals facilitate better time management. They allow students to:

• Prioritize tasks effectively,
• Allocate time efficiently, and
• Set realistic deadlines.

Well-defined goals can facilitate clearer communication with supervisors, as they provide a framework for discussing progress and feedback. 

Have A Supportive Social Environment

Having a supportive social environment is crucial for productivity as a PhD student. It offers a network of encouragement and resources, vital for navigating the challenging journey of doctoral research.

Peers and mentors within this environment helps you to develop intellectual ability and resilience through: 

• Emotional support,
• Critical feedback, and
• Diverse perspectives, 

This social backing helps you overcome research setbacks and maintain motivation. A supportive social circle often leads to collaborative opportunities, enhancing the quality and scope of your research.

It also fosters a sense of belonging and reduces feelings of isolation common in PhD studies, thereby improving overall well-being and focus, which are key to maintaining high levels of productivity.

Stay Focused And Avoid Distractions

Staying focused and avoiding distractions is essential for productivity as a PhD student.

In a field where deep, concentrated effort is needed to understand complex subjects and conduct intricate research, maintaining focus allows for more efficient use of time.It enables you to delve deeper into your research, leading to more meaningful and impactful findings.

Minimising distractions also helps in retaining and processing information more effectively, crucial for the extensive reading and analysis required in PhD studies.

This focused approach fosters better time management, allowing you to complete tasks on time, and sticking to deadlines. 

Stay Physically And Mentally Healthy

Maintaining mental and physical health is crucial for a PhD student to stay productive. Good mental health provides the resilience to cope with the pressures of PhD studies . This is because you will have a lot of deadlines to keep, as well as papers and reports to write. Keep a healthy mental frame by: 

• Managing stress,
• enhancing concentration, and
• fostering a positive outlook.

Physically, a healthy body supports a healthy mind. Regular exercise improves cognitive functions, increases energy levels, and boosts overall well-being. It also helps in reducing the risk of chronic illnesses, which can impede academic performance. 

You can also help your body to stay healthy by watching what you eat. A balanced diet provides you the necessary nutrients for brain health and energy. Adequate sleep is also essential for memory consolidation and emotional regulation. 

Together, mental and physical health form a foundation that enables a PhD student to maximize their productivity, creativity, and academic success.

Structure Your Days

Creating a clear, well-defined daily structure is crucial for a PhD student’s motivation and productivity. This structure brings a sense of routine and predictability, which can be particularly comforting when dealing with the often chaotic and uncertain nature of research.

By segmenting the day into designated periods for various tasks, you can manage their time more effectively and reduce feelings of overwhelm. These tasks can include:

• Organising citations, or
• Arranging appointments.

This approach also helps in maintaining a healthy work-life balance, crucial for long-term motivation and mental well-being. It also aids in combating procrastination by setting clear expectations for what needs to be accomplished each day. 

The best thing about having a structure day is that it encourages regular progress, even in small increments, which is vital in a long-term project like a PhD.

Draw Motivation From Your Department

The right environment can dramatically influence your productivity. It’s about finding a place where you feel challenged yet supported, allowing you to thrive both academically and personally.

This starts with ensuring you choose the right university, or department to study in . However, even if your department’s environment are not as positive as you have hoped, you can always use the problems in the department to motivate yourself to finish the study, and get out from the place. Call this reverse psychology. 

In the end, a successful PhD journey is about harnessing these diverse elements to create a path that’s uniquely yours.

Get Mentored By The Right People

Your mentorship experience plays a vital role too. Being supervised by a mid-career scientist can offer a balance of guidance and autonomy, crucial for your early career performance.

Remember, the goal is not just to increase publication quantity but to ensure the quality and impact of your research.

You might find it surprising, but the National Bureau of Economic Research highlights the positive impact of having a female supervisor. This is associated with a higher scientific network size and, consequently, better access to resources and mentorship.

It’s not just about gender; it’s about the unique perspectives and support systems that a female supervisor can bring. You can have a male supervisor and achieve the same thing too.

Develop Mental Resilience

Developing strong mental resilience is vital for PhD students in maintaining motivation and productivity. The PhD journey is often riddled with challenges, including:

• Rigorous academic demands,
• Research setbacks, and
• Intense scrutiny.

Mental resilience helps you to navigate these challenges without becoming overwhelmed. It fosters a mindset that views obstacles as opportunities for growth rather than insurmountable barriers. This perspective is essential for sustaining motivation even when faced with failure or criticism.

Resilient students are more adaptable, able to adjust their strategies and approaches in response to feedback or changing circumstances. They are also better at managing stress, which is crucial for maintaining mental clarity and focus needed for high-level research.

The most important thing however, is that mental resilience helps in preserving enthusiasm and passion, which is a key driver of intrinsic motivation and sustained productivity. 

Can Supervisors Help PhD Students To Be Productive?

The role of supervisors in enhancing a PhD student’s productivity is a topic of rich debate.

Delving into the intricacies of this relationship reveals how the dynamics between a student and their mentor can significantly influence the trajectory of a productive PhD journey.

Recent studies, including those conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research, shed light on fascinating correlations. Students who graduated in France between 2000 and 2014 under the guidance of a female supervisor were often associated with a larger scientific network size.

Sounds trial, but theres more subtance here.

A robust scientific network is a critical component that makes a productive PhD student. It’s not just about the number of connections, but the quality of these networks in fostering scientific productivity.

Interestingly, the impact of mentorship experience on student productivity is multifaceted.

While a supervisor with a strong academic and fundraising ability can be a boon, it’s intriguing to note that this often benefits only one specific dimension of productivity – usually measured by publication quantity.

Moreover, the presence of many peers or female peers in a PhD student’s social environment shows varying effects on their productivity, sometimes positively correlating, other times showing negative associations.

Breaking down the sample by field of research uncovers more complexities. For example, in STEM fields, the biographic and academic characteristics of a supervisor, along with the home department conditions, play a pivotal role in shaping the student’s productivity during the training period.

The mentor’s academic status shows mixed effects according to the productivity dimension considered, highlighting that what makes a productive PhD student in one field may differ in another.

Wrapping Up

The journey to becoming a productive PhD student is multifaceted and unique to each individual. It encompasses a blend of many things, such as:

• Disciplined time management, 
• Effective mentorship,
• Resilient mindset, and
• A well-nurtured academic network.

As we’ve explored, productivity in a PhD context is not just about output but also about the quality of the academic and personal growth journey.

Embracing these elements can guide your towards a fulfilling and successful academic career, marked by both personal satisfaction and scholarly contributions.

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

Are You A Good PhD Candidate? Check Out These Characteristics

February 21, 2020.

Many PhD aspirants say that they never considered pursuing a career in research because they thought they didn’t possess the characteristics or skills to qualify for a doctoral program. What are these characteristics which make you a good PhD candidate? Are you good at research? Can you be persistent despite multiple failures? Do you have an innate sense of curiosity? This article brings you the ten most essential qualities of an ideal PhD candidate.

Academic Ability

Ability to understand new information and ideas is the fundamental skill needed to pursue a PhD. This quality shows your academic competence which is considered one of the most common characteristics of a good PhD candidate.

Accountability

The ability to take ownership with minimal supervision can take you a long way as a PhD candidate.

Persistence

One of the most critical skills required for PhD is the commitment towards successful research degree completion. The ‘P’ in PhD means persistence to get the most out of your research degree. Perseverance and commitment are the essential skills required for pursuing a PhD.

Good Communication Skills

Other vital skills required for PhD include excellent communication (writing and language) skills and the ability to express and organize ideas in a meaningful way.

Time Management

The ideal research degree student knows how to manage time efficiently. Organizational efficiency is another skill needed for a PhD which involves work planning, meeting deadlines, being attentive and giving regular updates to supervisors.

Open-mindedness and Curiosity to Learn Something New

The most important characteristic of a good PhD candidate is his/her willingness to learn something new. A good PhD scholar has an inquiring mind, who is willing to ask questions, challenge the findings of his/her project and take some valuable inputs to learn new things.

A successful PhD student is enthusiastic, passionate and has a deep interest in the subject of research. The most important characteristics of a good PhD candidate are dedication and enthusiasm. Problem-solving and finding logical solutions to problems come with a strong passion and commitment.

Ability to Think

The ability to work and think logically and independently is one of the necessary skills required for a PhD. The student should be able to analyze both objectively and subjectively.

Research requires hard work and diligence. Other than hard work, strong work ethics, discipline, focus, efficiency, attentiveness and professionalism are all necessary skills needed for conducting successful research.

One of the most important characteristics of a good PhD candidate is that they are highly ambitious and self-motivated. Self-motivation is an essential skill required for pursuing a PhD that will help make aspirants successful.

We hope that this article can help you assess yourself objectively and see whether you make a suitable PhD aspirant or not.

PhD in Management from an IIM in India

An IIM in India is an excellent place to pursue a PhD in management. Graduates with a doctoral degree from an IIM in India are well-equipped for a calling in academia and research. IIM PhD program by IIM Udaipur is designed for students with strong academic credentials who aspire to undertake demanding original research.

• StumbleUpon

Pin It on Pinterest

Clearing Universities & Courses

Clearing advice.

Recommended Clearing Universities

Popular Course Categories

Course Search & Discover

Start the search for your uni. Filter from hundreds of universities based on your preferences.

Search by Type

Search by region.

Recommended Universities

Ravensbourne University London

London (Greater) · 88% Recommended

SOAS, University of London

London (Greater) · 90% Recommended

Middlesex University

London (Greater) · 87% Recommended

Search Open Days

What's new at Uni Compare

Study at Middlesex Uni, a global university renowned for innovation in education.

Leeds Beckett University

AdvanceHE awarded LBU a national award for ambitions to advance race equality.

Ranking Categories

Regional rankings.

More Rankings

Top 100 Universities

Taken from 65,000+ data points from students attending university to help future generations

About our Rankings

Discover university rankings devised from data collected from current students.

Guide Categories

Advice categories, recommended articles, popular statement examples, statement advice.

What to include in a Personal Statement

Personal Statement Tips

Phd students.

The PhD is a long-standing UK qualification and has been part of the fabric of UK universities for as long as higher education has been around.

How do PhD students cope with the stresses of PhD qualifications and how many papers should a PhD student publish?

What is a PhD student?

A PhD research student takes on a project focusing on a particular topic. They will zone in on a research hypothesis, explore it and write up the results. Once they complete this they obtain a Doctor of Philosophy degree - which is the highest level of higher education.

A PhD research student will spend between three to seven years - full or part-time - completing their thesis which will add value to the research world in their chosen subject.

What does a PhD student do?

So, what do you do as a PhD student? Doctorate students work on a research project or hypothesis for several years, completing a large piece of work that is original in that subject area. The thesis will provide new research and insight in its contribution to that field.

Other than completing their huge thesis, a PhD student could be teaching, with many teaching or working as assistants within their department at university. Some institutions expect their PhD students to do this, whilst others offer it as an optional extra. You could find yourself assisting with lectures or tutorials and helping with supervising undergraduates.

Most PhD students are still full-time students, they are often passionate and engrossed in their particular field and work part time jobs whilst completing their degree.

But if you’re wondering how many papers does a PhD student publish? It’s typically their thesis that is completed in the end, but this could change after their doctorate, as many continue in the academic field.

However, regarding how many papers should a PhD student read? This is entirely down to the individual learner, although it’ll most likely be hundreds. A thesis can be 80,00-100,000 words, and the amount of research needed is substantial, much more than the 12,000 word Master’s dissertation. This is why it takes so long to complete.

What is it like to be a PhD student?

The life of a PhD student will vary for each person but the foundations will be the same; studying, working, and research.

PhD student life is full of papers, reading and analysing, as well as researching their own topic. It may include lectures and seminars that they teach as part of their Doctorate, it might involve a part time job they do on weekends, but every PhD student’s day-to-day life can differ.

Some may document their journey through a PhD student blog, whilst others may still live at home, much like individuals in any area of life, they’re all unique.

Working towards a doctorate is a lengthy and intense process - but it offers huge rewards. The average age of a PhD student in the UK is usually someone in their 30s. PhD’s expect their students to have a Master’s and undergraduate degree which take some time to complete. Further, most PhD’s cost a lot if you can’t secure funding so this may take time-saving up for. Because of all of this PhD students can range from 22-years-old to 60 - the possibilities are endless.

What makes a good PhD student?

There isn’t an essential checklist to being a good PhD student, but there are several things you can do to ensure you keep yourself on track.

Strong time management is one of the vital parts of studying for a Doctorate. Treat it as a full time job and set enough time aside each day to work on it, it’s a long and difficult process that can be broken down into pieces and seem more manageable. This will help when you’re writing your thesis, as all the time and effort you’ve put into it will start showing, as well as providing experiences of working to a schedule. Although you should put a lot of time into your work, it’s just as important to enjoy life, socialise and allow yourself ‘down time’.

Don’t send large pieces of work to your supervisor - they also have large workloads - instead, send short submissions regularly to receive constructive and helpful feedback. This will be more productive as you’ll have the chance to assess the points highlighted instead of having less support on huge pieces of work that are thousands and thousands of words.

It’s fine if other areas of life are taking up too much of your time, like teaching, being a student representative, or work and life commitments. If this is the case address the situation maturely and calculate how much time you can give and what you need to realign. It may be that you work fewer hours or you stop going out three times a week.

Your PhD degree or other areas in your life should work in a balance. For example, how many hours should a PhD student work? This is down to you and how much you have to get through each day and week.

How to manage your time as a PhD student?

For any prospective PhD student, the average week can depend on a number of factors; your learning style; the subject area; work patterns and facilities like lab access; what stage you are at for your PhD; what you have agreed with your supervisor; personal preference for working patterns and the university’s regulations.

Some students can work between 25 to 70 hours a week - depending on all of their commitments. Completing a doctorate is hard work and the individual areas of the thesis require different demands on your time. Peer pressure and overbearing supervisors may contribute to feeling like it’s taking up a large part of your life, but address each issue as it comes along and it won’t feel so uncomfortable or that it’s ‘too much work’.

It’s important to remember that your supervisor and university want you to complete a successful PhD and they are essentially supporting you - they want you to come out with something amazing!

For a lot of people, finishing a PhD degree is a huge academic achievement, as it’s the final product of several years of commitment, higher education, and the earned right of being specialised in your topic.

Who can supervise a PhD student?

A strong and positive student-supervisor relationship is vital to the success of your degree. Supervisors are appointed to supervise any work you do.

Supervisors are friendly enough people, but if you feel you need to work on your relationship, be honest about it with them - you’ll be with them for several years! And the final resort is changing your supervisor by speaking to the department and university, however, this is an extreme circumstance that most PhD students don’t need to do.

How much does a PhD student earn in UK?

This is down to how much the university pays it’s PhD students for working at their establishment as a lecturer or in student support. The PhD student salary for UK universities can vary, so it’s worth checking before applying to study for a doctorate at that establishment. Not all universities require their PhD students to work whilst they study, if this is the case, you won’t get a ‘salary’ but may receive financial support for living costs and tuition fees.

Next, there are many different types of PhD student jobs available outside the university grounds. University towns or cities usually have higher retail and restaurants available, because of the student life and atmosphere in general. These are great at offering more flexible hours, including evenings and weekends, which can be perfect for your research.

However, a PhD student salary is something that can’t be calculated as an average, as it’s down to the individual and how much they are working.

How much does it cost to fund a PhD student?

This is an important question if you live at home, with parents, with a partner or even on your own. There is PhD loan student finance in the form or PhD studentships or scholarships from universities, research councils and charities. There is also a PhD student loan provided by the government which you end up paying back via your earnings afterwards.

Securing funding can be a major worry for a lot of PhD students as it costs a pretty penny to complete the doctorate. However, there are lots in place to aid those who are embarking on the journey. For example, PhD student council tax is free, meaning students don’t have to pay council tax. If you are living with one other person who isn’t a student, they can apply for 25% off of their bill, as they’re seen the same as a single person living in the accommodation. But this isn’t in place for a full household (unless you’re all students!). Additionally, as soon as you submit your PhD you must start paying your council tax.

Next, as a lot of PhD students are mature or at an older age than the typical student population, some may be interested in buying a home with a partner, friend or even on their own. Because of this, many wonder about PhD student mortgage options. A mortgage is a contract with the bank on a property, where the bank or building society will buy the property, and you pay back what you owe in mortgage repayments every month. It isn’t the easiest thing to secure, and if you’re studying for a PhD you should work out if you can afford to apply for a mortgage before going ahead with either. Doctorate students don’t earn a high salary, as they are studying and working around their research project.

However, it could be a viable option following the completion of your PhD and once you secure a job. For international student PhD funding in UK, it can differ as most universities offer places to those living in the UK. It doesn’t mean there aren’t options out there, as some institutions have clauses they can work around to offer PhD studentships or scholarships to international students.

It’s worth checking with your chosen universities to find out if they provide funding to international students before applying.

Are there student loans for PhD programs?

The student loan game is changing in the UK and the government now offers a PhD student loan. The student finance PhD loan offers up to £25,000 for those wanting to become an academic doctor. The amount you receive is not based on you or your family’s income and is not means-tested.

However, for anyone looking into PhD funding student finance options they should know the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) may take your loan into account when working out any benefits you receive, if you’re applying for Universal Credit, as an example.

The PhD student loan is paid directly to you and you can use it for your fees and living costs, and it’ll be divided equally across each year of your course.

You can also apply for it in any year of your degree, but if you apply after your first year you might not get the maximum amount, as it’s goal is to support PhD students throughout the entire doctorate. If you apply after the first 12 months you might receive around £10,906 per year.

What is the difference between PhD student and candidate?

So, what’s the difference between PhD student and PhD candidate? They are actually separate things with a thesis or final exam in the way. It works similar to a postgraduate diploma and a Master’s degree, where people are awarded the diploma if they don’t complete or choose to do the dissertation at the end.

A candidate is someone who has fulfilled all the requirements for the PhD degree except the thesis. This could also be an option for anyone who needs a break - PhDs are a long and difficult process!

Some institutions allow you to become a Candidate of Philosophy instead, or grant a Master’s degree en route to the doctoral degree. It can also be referred to as PhD ABD, which means ‘All but Dissertation’.

In theory, everyone is a PhD candidate or student until they submit their project or thesis, but the title has to be awarded by the university if you choose to take a break or not to finish your final dissertation. Not all universities offer the option of becoming a PhD candidate, so if you’re having troubles during your doctorate talk to your supervisor as the first port of call.

How to make money as a PhD student?

Funding a PhD can be tough - but it’s not impossible. Many choose to take on part time jobs, either at the university or outside. First, most PhD student employment status is someone who is working - as the rent and living costs aren’t going to pay for themselves!

If you need to make money, look at writing your CV as a PhD student. You’ll need to apply for jobs that’ll offer hours that can work around your schedule. A PhD student CV doesn’t need to go into detail about your doctorate or research if you’re looking to work in the retail, food or warehouse sector.

Set up your CV like you would for any job opportunities you regularly would, input your greatest achievements and set it out smartly and clearly. Then you can apply for jobs that suit your needs and ability.

How to write a reference letter for a PhD student?

When PhD students are applying for their course via a Research Council or university they will usually write a proposal. This may include a reference letter, or a recommendation letter for a PhD student from a professor they’ve worked with before. They allow the panel or admissions department to discover why they should offer a place to that individual.

When you are looking to fill out your proposal, you should seek a letter from someone who has seen your hardwork and who is able to sing your praises - because you want to show the best side of you!

If you’re writing a reference for a PhD student, focus on the good things they’ve done, especially within the academic and research field. A PhD student needs to be focussed, committed, dedicated and hardworking, as well as holding many other great attributes.

postgraduate Universities

Postgraduate uni's.

Northumbria Uni

241 courses

129 courses

Want to learn more about a university?

Get your questions answered by sending them an enquiry now.

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
• Front Psychol

Profiles of PhD students’ satisfaction and their relationships with demographic characteristics and academic career enthusiasm

Associated data.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

The satisfaction of doctoral students is very important for the quality of higher education. Based on two-factor theory (also known as Herzberg’s motivation–hygiene theory), this study used a person-centered approach to examine possible doctoral student satisfaction profiles. In total, 4,964 participants were included in the study, and the results of latent profile analysis showed that they could be classified into four subgroups: (i) the low-motivation–low-hygiene group (700 participants, 14.1% of the sample), (ii) the low-motivation–high-hygiene group (979, 19.7%), (iii) the high-motivation–low-hygiene group (1,554, 31.3%), and (iv) the high-motivation–high-hygiene group (1,731, 34.9%). Analyses showed that the PhD students differed significantly in their satisfaction-profile membership depending on their gender, age, country, study-abroad status, work status, and caring responsibilities. Specifically, male students, younger students, and students studying abroad tended to be more satisfied with both motivation and hygiene factors. Besides, regarding maintaining and stimulating doctoral students’ academic career enthusiasm, motivation factors can compensate for the negative impact of the absence of hygiene factors, not the other way around. Therefore, it can be seen that two-factor theory has a certain explanatory power for changes in academic career enthusiasm, but it must be adjusted in a certain way considering the special characteristics of the population.

Introduction

Doctoral education is experiencing rapid expansion worldwide ( Gruzdev et al., 2020 ) and is becoming an increasingly important factor in driving socioeconomic development ( Dericks et al., 2019 ). In this context, the quality of doctoral education is of widespread concern to both governments and society ( Byrne et al., 2013 ). As the key subjects of doctoral education, the feelings of PhD students about the training process are regarded as an important indicator for evaluating the quality of doctoral education. Setting performance indicators is a management tool to guarantee the quality of higher education, but its market-oriented nature inevitably leads to the commodification of higher education and the consequent transformation of students into “consumers” ( Naidoo and Williams, 2014 ). A study of six European countries partially supports this view, pointing to an increased tendency toward consumerism in higher education policy and practice ( Brooks, 2022 ). It can be concluded that to some extent, PhD students are to doctoral education as consumers are to various other products ( Marzo-Navarro et al., 2005 ). Therefore, as a special commodity, the quality of doctoral education is closely related to the satisfaction of doctoral students with the training process ( Cheng et al., 2016 ). In this context, PhD students’ satisfaction (PhD-SS) has been regarded as an effective means of assessing and promoting the quality of doctoral education ( Barnes and Randall, 2012 ). PhD-SS can be defined broadly as feelings or perceptions that are used to express PhD students’ responses to whether the doctoral training process meets their expectations ( Hartman and Schmidt, 1995 ; Rowley, 1996 ; Munteanu et al., 2010 ; Kahu, 2013 ). Previous studies of PhD-SS have found that satisfaction with the training process can improve academic performance and contribute to positive organizational behavior ( Pike, 1993 ; Sung and Yang, 2009 ; Gibbons et al., 2015 ). Based on that previous research, we can reasonably infer that PhD-SS may inspire PhD students to identify with and be passionate about their academic research careers ( Dericks et al., 2019 ).

Although less abundant than studies on undergraduate student satisfaction, those on PhD-SS have produced some valuable research results, particularly in two main aspects. First, much research effort has gone into providing empirical evidence for the causal relationship between PhD-SS and its outcomes, including positive outcomes (e.g., retention, success) ( Fairbanks, 2016 ; van Rooij et al., 2021 ) and negative outcomes (e.g., attrition, delay, mental-health problems) ( Golde, 2005 ; Pyhältö et al., 2009 ). Another body of research on PhD-SS has been focused on identifying its composition and determinants ( Dericks et al., 2019 ; Kulikowski et al., 2019 ), and most of those studies generally suggested that supervisors play a vital role in PhD-SS ( Erichsen et al., 2014 ; Boyce et al., 2019 ; Gruzdev et al., 2020 ). Besides, course quality, team climate, financial support, and future job prospects have also been confirmed to be closely correlated with PhD-SS ( Shapiro et al., 2017 ; Shin et al., 2018 ). However, those previous studies on PhD-SS relied mainly on a variable-centered approach assuming that all samples were perfectly homogeneous, which is far from reality ( Hofmans et al., 2020 ). Admittedly, the variable-centered approach is useful for examining the relationship between PhD-SS and its antecedents and outcomes, but it misses another core element of PhD-SS, i.e., the PhD students themselves. In other words, satisfaction is an individual’s active perception, and the same factor in exactly the same situation may contribute to different levels of satisfaction in different populations. This is because the individual’s background, experience, and other personal factors might interact with the external factors to form a “satisfaction” judgment.

Indeed, “satisfaction” consists of various elements that may contradict each other; for example, something that helps students to develop intellectually may be a dissatisfied experience emotionally ( Collini, 2012 ). Therefore, PhD-SS should be understood as a complex process. However, the existing research on PhD-SS has been overly focused on how well institutions and especially supervisors help doctoral students’ success ( Cheng et al., 2016 ), trying to study PhD-SS from a variable-centered perspective. However, few studies have acknowledged the heterogeneity in the doctoral student population, meaning that individual differences have been ignored for a long time, thereby leaving this area largely understudied. To fill this research gap, we adopted a person-centered approach in the form of latent profile analysis (LPA). Using the NATURE PhD SURVEY 2019 dataset, we identified possible profiles of PhD-SS in the training process and explored the related demographics (i.e., gender, age, country, work status, caring responsibilities) that may be the antecedents of the different profiles. In addition to identifying satisfaction profiles, we explored career development process by comparing changes in academic career enthusiasm (ACE) (i.e., decrease, no change, and increase).

Theoretical framework

Developed by Herzberg et al. (1993) , two-factor theory is also known as motivation–hygiene theory. According to this theory, the factors that influence the performance of employees can be divided into two categories: (i) motivation factors, which are necessary for individuals’ professional growth and self-actualization, leading to positive behavior and attitudes to work when people feel satisfied with these factors, and (ii) hygiene factors, which produce no motivation effects even if satisfied, resulting in negative behavior when people feel unsatisfied with them. Two-factor theory is considered as a breakthrough of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory and is applied widely in job-satisfaction research ( Dion, 2006 ). Scholars have extended this theory, applying it to research on higher education. Some of them have taken the university student population as their subject, investigating the study motivators and engagement of college students and the persistence of STEM students under two-factor theory ( Rizkallah and Seitz, 2017 ; Gibbs and Wood, 2021 ; Pedraza and Chen, 2021 ). The others have paid more attention to teachers working in higher-education institutes. By using Herzberg’s two-factor theory, they have explored lecturers’ motivations to teach ( Bett, 2019 ) and to take up teaching as a career ( Amoako et al., 2020 ), while Marasi et al. (2022) sought the determining factors influencing teachers’ satisfaction with online teaching. Based on previous studies, we propose Herzberg’s two-factor theory may serve as a useful conceptual framework to help us identify potential categories of PhD-SS.

According to the two-factor theoretical framework, the factors that may influence a doctoral student’s perception of a doctoral program can be summarized into two parts. One is motivation factors, which comes from the attraction of academic research itself, leading to a sense of achievement from academic work. The other is hygiene factors, which comes from the external environment ( DeShields et al., 2005 ), leading to a negative feeling of disgust or resistance to academic career when a PhD student is dissatisfied with those factors. It is almost impossible for every PhD student to be satisfied with all of the above elements of the PhD training process ( Collini, 2012 ). Thus, we assumed that PhD students can be classified into four potential categories based on their satisfaction with motivation and hygiene factors.

Scholars have explored the relationship between demographic characteristics and PhD-SS. Existing studies have shown that satisfaction with doctoral study among female doctoral students is significantly lower than that of men ( van Rooij et al., 2021 ; Wang et al., 2021 ). A significant difference in satisfaction was also found among students of different nationalities ( van Rooij et al., 2021 ). In addition, Harman (2003) found that international doctoral students were more satisfied overall than were national ones, which was supported by a study from Denmark ( Kolmos et al., 2008 ). Besides, scholars have suggested that doctoral students with parenting responsibilities are more likely to face mental health problems ( Levecque et al., 2017 ), which may impact their satisfaction. Considering that doctoral students of different age and work status may have different expectations of doctoral programs, it is reasonable to suspect that PhD-SS also differs in these two characteristics. Thus, we assumed that sociodemographic characteristics (i.e., gender, age, country, study-abroad status, work status, caring responsibilities) are associated with PhD-SS latent class membership.

ACE refers to the intention and interest of doctoral students in pursuing academic research as a career. The PhD program is an important training phase for doctoral students toward an academic career, where young students become closely connected to academic work. Therefore, satisfaction at this stage may be highly relevant to their eventual career choices. Given the positive association between PhD-SS and ACE ( Dericks et al., 2019 ; van Tienoven et al., 2022 ), we assumed that the change of students’ ACE differs as a function of latent class membership.

The present research

The objective of this study is to investigate the profiles of PhD-SS and its association with demographic variables and the changes in ACE. According to previous study, three hypotheses were proposed, as follows:

Hypothesis 1: PhD students can be classified into four potential categories based on their satisfaction with motivation and hygiene factors .

Hypothesis 2: Gender, age, country, study-abroad status, work status, and caring responsibilities are associated with PhD-SS latent class membership .

Hypothesis 3: PhD-SS profiles are associated with the changes in ACE .

Materials and methods

Participants.

The data were selected from the questionnaire responses of a global survey of PhD students ( Nature Research, 2019 ) with a total of 6,812 valid cases. Given that this dataset contains information from all over the world and on various topics related to PhD students, there is no doubt about its representativeness ( Li and Horta, 2021 ). Data on responses to two scales (reported in the Measures Section) were included in this analysis. The data were cleaned according to a seven-point scoring system, and those samples for which either participants failed to respond or the answers were outside the range of 1–7 were excluded from the analysis, leading to a final sample of 4,964 participants. This number of observations is large enough to ensure a good level of statistical power. Among the valid samples, most were studying in Europe (1,677 participants, 33.78% of the sample), Asia (1,469, 29.59%), North America (1,404, 28.28%), and others in Africa, Australasia and South America (414, 8.35%); more specifically, the largest number of cases came from the United States (1,162, 23.41%), followed by China (673, 13.56%), India (398, 8.02%), Germany (341, 6.87%), the United Kingdom (334, 6.73%), and cases from other countries (2056, 41.42%). The gender ratio of those observations was near 1:1, though there are some disparities in gender ratios between countries (i.e., In China, female:male = 0.52:1; in UK, female:male = 1.53:1; in USA, female:male = 1.34:1; in Germany, female:male = 1:1). Also, most cases were between the ages of 25 and 34.

PhD student satisfaction

To measure PhD-SS, a question that included 18 items was used, namely, “How satisfied are you with each of the following attributes or aspects of your PhD?.” The respondents rated the extent to which they agreed with those 18 items using a seven-point scale (reported in Table 1 ), with higher values indicating higher satisfaction. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to establish the essential structure of those 18 items and synthesize them into a few core factors, and in this way four factors with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted. Factor 1 contained eight items, such as “recognition from supervisor/PI” and “number of publications”; based on its common characteristics, we named it satisfaction with academic cultivation (SAC). Factor 2 contained the two items of “ability to attend meetings and conferences” and “ability to present research at conferences”; we named it satisfaction with academic interaction (SAI). Factor 3 contained five items, such as “work–life balance,” “vacation time,” and “social environment”; we named it satisfaction with academic life (SAL). Factor 4 contained three items, such as “availability of funding” and “stipend financial support”; we named it s atisfaction with economics (SWE). Based on the two-factor theoretical framework, we regard factors 1 and 2 as being motivation factors because they are closely related to the academic research itself, while we regard factors 3 and 4 as being hygiene factors because they are focused more on the external environment, especially on the lives of doctoral students.

Results of exploratory factor analysis.

SAC, satisfaction with academic cultivation; SAI, satisfaction with academic interaction; SAL, satisfaction with academic life; SWE, satisfaction with economics.

Academic career enthusiasm

To measure the changes in ACE of the PhD students, we selected the question “How much more likely are you now to pursue a research career than when you launched your PhD program?” The changes were estimated by means of five options: (i) “equally likely” indicates unchanged ACE during the PhD program, (ii) “much less likely” and (iii) “somewhat less likely” indicate a large decrease and a small decrease, respectively, while (iv) “somewhat more likely” and (v) “much more likely” indicate a small increase and a large increase, respectively.

Demographic variables

General information about the PhD students was reported in this survey, including gender, age, country, study-abroad status, work status, and caring responsibilities.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis involved three stages. In the first stage, some preliminary analyses were conducted using Excel and SPSS: Excel was used to exclude cases with missing values, while SPSS 21.0 was used to conduct descriptive statistical analysis and EFA. In the second stage, LPA was conducted to extract PhD-SS profiles using Mplus 8.3: we started with two profiles and then added one more each time, stopping when the fit indices (LMR and BLRT) were no longer significant; other fit indices including AIC, aBIC, and Entropy were used to select the best-fitting model. In the third stage, antecedents and consequences of satisfaction were examined using SPSS 21.0; multiple logistic regression was conducted to explore how the satisfaction profiles differ by demographic variables, while a Chi-square test was conducted to compare the retained profiles’ differences in changes of ACE.

Common method bias analysis

Because the data were collected in a self-reported questionnaire, common method bias was a possibility. Therefore, we used Harman single-factor inspection ( Zhou and Long, 2004 ) to examine this possible problem before data analysis. The results showed KMO = 0.877 ( p  < 0.001); four common factors with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted, with the first factor accounting for 36.60% of the variance. Therefore, there was no serious common method bias in this study.

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations

Table 2 gives the means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlation coefficients. The means indicate that there is still room for improvement in both the satisfaction and ACE of doctoral students. In addition, PhD students’ ACE is positively associated with their satisfaction, as well as with each dimension of satisfaction.

Descriptives and correlations ( N  = 4,964).

** p < 0.01; M ranges from 1 to 5.

Latent profile analysis of PhD students’ satisfaction

The 18 items of the satisfaction scale were included as indicators to conduct LPA, and the fit indices are given in Table 3 . As can be seen, the value of LMR is not significant ( p  = 0.153) when continuing to seven subgroups, indicating that the seven-profile model is not better than the six-profile one ( Berlin et al., 2014 ). Further comparison of the models with two to six profiles shows that the values of AIC, BIC, and aBIC decrease with increasing number of profiles (the lower those fit indices, the better the model fit). However, the decrease becomes slighter between the four-profile and five-profile solutions, and the four-profile one has excellent classification accuracy with a high entropy value ( Spurk et al., 2020 ) of 0.862, which is higher than those of the five-profile (0.853) and six-profile (0.850) solutions. Considering the principle of parsimony, the four-profile model is an interesting alternative. Furthermore, the average class probabilities of the four subcategories range from 0.89 to 0.95, indicating that the classification results of each category are reliable. In summary, the four-profile solution was retained as the best model of PhD-SS ( Table 4 ).

Model fits for optimal number of profiles in latent profile analysis.

N = 4,964; AIC, Akaike information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; SaBIC, sample-adjusted Bayesian information criterion; LMR( p ), value of p for adjusted Lo–Mendell–Rubin test; BLRT( p ), value of p for bootstrapped likelihood ratio test; LCP, average latent class probability for most likely latent class membership.

Description of latent profiles ( N  = 4,964).

*** p  < 0.001; SAC, satisfaction with academic cultivation; SAI, satisfaction with academic interaction; SAL, satisfaction with academic life; SWE, satisfaction with economics. SAC and SAI referred to “motivation factors;” SAL and SWE referred to “hygiene factors.”

Figure 1 shows the means of the 18 satisfaction indicators for the four-profile model. The four identified profiles are interpreted based on this two-factor theoretical framework. Profile 1 ( n  = 700, 14.1% of the sample) shows the lowest values in all four dimensions of PhD-SS, so it is named the low-motivation–low-hygiene group. Profile 2 (979, 19.7%) shows a slightly higher value of SAC than that of profile 1 but lower than those of profiles 3 and 4, and it shows higher values of SAL and SWE than those of profile 3 but lower than those of profile 4, so it is named the low-motivation–high-hygiene group. The trend of the line graph for profile 3 (1,554, 31.3%) is opposite to that for profile 2, so we name the former the high-motivation–low-hygiene group. Profile 4 (1,731, 34.9%) shows the highest values in all four dimensions, so it is named the high-motivation–high-hygiene group and is the largest of the four subgroups.

Mean scores of indicators for four-profile solution ( N  = 4,964). sac = satisfaction with academic cultivation; sai = satisfaction with academic interaction; swe = satisfaction with economics; sal = satisfaction with academic life.

According to the results of the one-way analysis of variance, these four profiles show significant differences in SAC ( F  = 4694.99, p  < 0.001), SAI ( F  = 843.84, p  < 0.001), SAL ( F  = 1943.12, p  < 0.001), and SWE ( F  = 751.70, p  < 0.001). In addition, the post-hoc test results show that significant differences are found for all possible pair-wise comparisons.

Differences between latent profiles in demographic variables

In this step of the analysis, logistic regression analysis was conducted to explore the effects of demographic variables on satisfaction. Because a single multinomial logistic model can only compare one group with three other groups, which does not allow for a two-by-two comparison of all types, a binomial logistic regression model is more applicable in this study. The logistic regression was conducted six times so that the results included all pair-wise comparisons, as given in Table 5 .

Association between profiles and demographic variables.

N = 4,740; OR, odds ratio; the profile before “vs.” is the reference group for multiple regression. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

The results show that gender, study-abroad status, age, country, work status, and caring responsibilities all contribute to predicting the PhD-SS profile. Specifically, women were less likely to be classified in the high-motivation–low-hygiene and high-motivation–high-hygiene groups but not the low-motivation–low-hygiene group, while PhD students who studied in their home countries were more likely to be classified in the high-motivation–low-hygiene group than in the low-motivation–low-hygiene and low-motivation–high-hygiene groups. Also, there was no continuity in the differences between age groups, as evidenced by the fact that compared to PhD students older than 35, those aged 18–24 were more likely to be classified in the high-motivation–high-hygiene group than in the low-motivation–low-hygiene group, while those aged 25–34 were more likely to be classified in the low-motivation–high-hygiene group than in the high-motivation–high-hygiene group. Then, compared to PhD students studying in China, those studying in the US, UK, and Germany were more likely to be classified in the high-motivation–high-hygiene group than in the low-motivation–low-hygiene group. Additionally, PhD students who had a job alongside their studies were more likely to be classified in the low-motivation–low-hygiene group than in the high-motivation–low-hygiene group, while PhD students without caring responsibilities were more likely to be classified in the low-motivation–high-hygiene group than in the others.

Relationship between academic career enthusiasm and PhD students’ satisfaction profile

Table 6 displays the results of comparing the four profiles in terms of changes in ACE. The results of the Chi-square tests show that the changes differed significantly across the four profiles ( p  < 0.001). On one hand, the results of horizontal comparison find that the proportion of PhD students who experienced a decline (slight or serious) in ACE decreased with increasing satisfaction, with 48.1% of samples in the low-motivation–low-hygiene group and only 15.5% in the high-motivation–high-hygiene group; of these, only 3.8% of PhD students in the high-motivation–high-hygiene group had a serious decrease in ACE. Conversely, the proportion of PhD students who experienced an increase (slight or sharp) in ACE increased with increasing satisfaction, with more than 50% of samples in the high-motivation–high-hygiene group and ca. 25% in the low-motivation–low-hygiene group. Besides, the percentage of PhD students with no change in ACE was around 30% in all profiles. On the other hand, some interesting results were found from a vertical perspective. First, in the low-motivation–high-hygiene group, the ratio of decreasing, unchanged, and increasing ACE was close to 1:1:1. Then, in the high-motivation–high-hygiene group, the number of students with increasing ACE was more than three times that with decreasing ACE. Also, there was a mirroring characteristic of the ratio of increasing and decreasing ACE between the low-motivation–low-hygiene and high-motivation–low-hygiene groups; i.e., the proportion with increasing ACE in the low-motivation–low-hygiene group was only half of that with decreasing ACE, whereas the reverse was the case in the high-motivation–low-hygiene group. Overall, the ACE of more than half of the PhD students either remained the same or decreased during their doctoral program, with only 42.95% of them reporting an increase.

Association between profiles and ACE.

N = 4,740; *** p < 0.001.

Conclusion and discussion

The main goal of this research was to identify the unobserved profiles of PhD-SS by focusing on their feelings about various aspects of the PhD training process. Using LPA, we identified four profiles, and referring to two-factor theory, we labeled them as low-motivation–low-hygiene , low-motivation–high-hygiene , high-motivation–low-hygiene , and high-motivation–high-hygiene , respectively. Also, we found that the different PhD-SS profiles were closely linked with the demographic characteristics of the PhD students and their changes in ACE.

This is the first empirical study to identify the profiles of PhD-SS using a person-centered approach. Our findings provide initial evidence supporting the heterogeneous characteristics of PhD-SS with various aspects of the doctoral training process. As mentioned above, four groups were found in this study according to the levels of satisfaction in different items, which means that the patterns of PhD-SS can typically be differentiated by the extent to which the training process satisfies students regardless of aspects. Most of the PhD students showed high satisfaction with academic-related factors (76.2% with academic cultivation and 86.1% with academic interaction). These findings do not categorically contradict previous research suggesting that Chinese PhD students have higher satisfaction in mentoring and competency development ( Yuan and Li, 2017 ), indicating that the doctoral training process is at least rewarding in terms of the professional growth of PhD students. In contrast, hygiene factors were not well satisfied, as shown by the low satisfaction with life and financial support, which is highly consistent with the findings of Xiao et al. (2021) .

After identifying the four-profile solution, we examined the associations between PhD student demographic characteristics and PhD-SS profiles. The logistic regression found that the four groups differed significantly in gender, age, work status, caring responsibilities, country, and study-abroad status.

When it comes to gender, female PhD students were less likely to be classified in the high-motivation groups. A possible reason for this is that women might be constrained by traditional social values (e.g., cultural expectations of subordinating to male authority) ( Carter et al., 2013 ), leading to the academic path becoming rougher and bumpier for women. Existed studies have found that female PhD students are less likely to receive external funding ( Hoffer et al., 2001 ) and become research assistants ( Smith, 1995 ), and some female PhD students felt upset that they did not encounter a suitable mentor ( Maher et al., 2004 ). All the aforementioned factors may contribute to lower satisfaction with the PhD training process among female students.

In terms of age, younger PhD students were more likely to be classified in the high-motivation–high-hygiene group. This may be because younger PhD students are less likely to be under pressure from financial issues, family responsibilities, etc. As the existing literature suggests, psychological stress has a negative impact on job satisfaction and life satisfaction ( Brauchli et al., 2013 ), which echoes to some extent the differences in satisfaction categories regarding work status and caring responsibilities.

Regarding nationality, the probability of classifying PhD students in the high-motivation–high-hygiene group is significantly higher in the USA, UK, and Germany than in China. Lacking “the same breadth of externally funded scholarship programs as their counterparts have in the West” ( Lam, 2011 ) may be an important reason for this difference. Finally, students studying for a PhD abroad were more likely to be satisfied with both motivation and hygiene factors, which is generally consistent with previous research ( Harman, 2003 ).

Additionally, this study has provided some interesting results about the relationship between satisfaction profile and change in ACE in a population of PhD students. Previous research on early-stage scholars concluded that many factors—such as supervisors and economics—have a great impact on students’ decisions about whether to pursue a lifelong academic career ( Barrett and Barrett, 2011 ; Sauermann and Stephan, 2012 ; Pilbeam et al., 2013 ; Roumell et al., 2014 ), which is also supported by the present study. Furthermore, we find that increasing or decreasing ACE is related more closely to motivation factors among PhD students. Even if the hygiene factors are not well satisfied, PhD students may still hold higher ACE if they have higher satisfaction with motivation factors. Conversely, PhD students with higher satisfaction with hygiene factors but lower satisfaction with motivation factors may lose enthusiasm for academia. That is, in the case of maintaining and stimulating ACE, motivation factors can compensate for the negative impact of the absence of hygiene factors, not the other way around. Therefore, it can be seen that two-factor theory has a certain explanatory power for changes in ACE, but it must be adjusted in a certain way considering the special characteristics of the population.

Contributions and limitations

The theoretical and practical value of this study is reflected mainly in the following. First, four subcategories of PhD-SS were identified by adopting a latent profile analysis, which preserves individual integrity, leading to a more accurate assessment of the students’ feelings about the training process. Second, this study examined the differences in satisfaction in terms of the demographic characteristics of each category, thereby enriching the knowledge about the antecedents of PhD-SS. Finally, the significant influence of the training process on PhD students’ ACE has also been revealed. To some extent, this study has also verified the application value of Herzberg’s two-factor theory in motivating PhD students’ ACE.

However, this study still has some limitations. For example, the questionnaire was collected mainly from PhD students who were studying science and technology, so we must be cautious when extending the results to other disciplines; future studies with various PhD student datasets from different disciplines or specialties are needed before drawing general conclusions about different population groups. Also, this study used cross-sectional data from a self-reported technique to identify PhD-SS profiles, and we only compared the proportion of PhD students in different profiles in terms of increasing or decreasing ACE; we cannot make a causal inference about the relationship between PhD-SS and ACE. So, future research could conduct a longitudinal study to find the changes in ACE of PhD candidates at various stages of the PhD program and further find a causal link between these two variables.

Data availability statement

Ethics statement.

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent from the (patients/ participants OR patients/participants legal guardian/next of kin) was not required to participate in this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author contributions

YY: conception, conceptualization, theoretical direction, interpretation of the statistical analyses and results, and original draft preparation. JC: supervision and the writing-reviewing of this project. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This study was supported by the Social Science Foundation of Hunan province (18YBQ092).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Amoako G. K., Dartey-Baah K., Sokro E. (2020). Factors influencing teaching as a career choice in both public and private universities in Ghana . J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 12 , 633–648. doi: 10.1108/JARHE-07-2018-0163 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes B. J., Randall J. (2012). Doctoral student satisfaction: an examination of disciplinary, enrollment, and institutional differences . Res. High. Educ. 53 , 47–75. doi: 10.1007/s11162-011-9225-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barrett L., Barrett P. (2011). Women and academic workloads: career slow lane or cul-de-sac? High. Educ. 61 , 141–155. doi: 10.1007/s10734-010-9329-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berlin K. S., Williams N. A., Parra G. R. (2014). An introduction to latent variable mixture modeling (part 1): overview and cross-sectional latent class and latent profile analyses . J. Pediatr. Psychol. 39 , 174–187. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jst084, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bett H. K. (2019). Are Kenyan lecturers motivated to teach? J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 12 , 599–607. doi: 10.1108/JARHE-08-2018-0164 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyce B. A., Napper-Owen G., Lund J. L., Almarode D. (2019). Doctoral students’ perspectives on their advisors . Quest 71 , 321–332. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2019.1618076 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brauchli R., Schaufeli W. B., Jenny G. J., Füllemann D., Bauer G. F. (2013). Disentangling stability and change in job resources, job demands, and employee well-being—a three-wave study on the job-demands resources model . J. Vocat. Behav. 83 , 117–129. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brooks R. (2022). Students as consumers? The perspectives of students’ union leaders across Europe . High. Educ. Q. 76 , 626–637. doi: 10.1111/hequ.12332 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byrne J., Jorgensen T., Loukkola T. (2013). Quality Assurance in Doctoral Education: Results of the ARDE Project. Brussels: European University Association. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter S., Blumenstein M., Cook C. (2013). Different for women? The challenges of doctoral studies . Teach. High. Educ. 18 , 339–351. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2012.719159 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng M., Taylor J., Williams J., Tong K. (2016). Student satisfaction and perceptions of quality: testing the linkages for PhD students . High. Educ. Res. Dev. 35 , 1153–1166. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2016.1160873 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Collini S. (2012). What are Universities for? London: Penguin Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dericks G., Thompson E., Roberts M., Phua F. (2019). Determinants of PhD student satisfaction: the roles of supervisor, department, and peer qualities . Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 44 , 1053–1068. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1570484 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeShields O. W., Kara A., Kaynak E. (2005). Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: applying Herzberg's two-factor theory . Int. J. Educ. Manag. 19 , 128–139. doi: 10.1108/09513540510582426 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dion M. J. (2006). The Impact of Workplace Incivility and Occupational Stress on the Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention of Acute Care Nurses. Storrs: University of Connecticut. [ Google Scholar ]
• Erichsen E. A., Bolliger D. U., Halupa C. (2014). Student satisfaction with graduate supervision in doctoral programs primarily delivered in distance education settings . Stud. High. Educ. 39 , 321–338. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2012.709496 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fairbanks A. J. (2016). Relationship Factors Influencing Doctoral Student Retention and Success: A Study of Faculty Advisor and Doctoral Student Perceptions. Manhattan: Kansas State University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibbons S., Neumayer E., Perkins R. (2015). Student satisfaction, league tables and university applications: evidence from Britain . Econ. Educ. Rev. 48 , 148–164. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.07.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibbs B., Wood G. C. (2021). How can student partnerships stimulate organisational learning in higher education institutions? Teach. High. Educ. 1 :14. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2021.1913722 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Golde C. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition: lessons from four departments . J. High. Educ. 76 , 669–700. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2005.0039 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gruzdev I., Terentev E., Dzhafarova Z. (2020). Superhero or hands-off supervisor? An empirical categorization of PhD supervision styles and student satisfaction in Russian universities . High. Educ. 79 , 773–789. doi: 10.1007/s10734-019-00437-w [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harman G. (2003). International PhD students in Australian universities: financial support, course experience and career plans . Int. J. Educ. Dev. 23 , 339–351. doi: 10.1016/S0738-0593(02)00054-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartman D. E., Schmidt S. L. (1995). Understanding student/alumni satisfaction from a consumer’s perspective: the effects of institutional performance and program outcomes . Res. High. Educ. 36 , 197–217. doi: 10.1007/BF02207788 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herzberg F., Mausner B., Snyderman B. B. (1993). The Motivation to Work NewYork: Transaction Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoffer T. B., Dugoni B. L., Sanderson A. R., Sederstrom S., Ghadialy R., Rocque P. (2001). Doctorate recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 2000. Survey of Earned Doctorates .
• Hofmans J., Wille B., Schreurs B. (2020). Person-centered methods in vocational research . J. Vocat. Behav. 118 :103398. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103398 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahu E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education . Stud. High. Educ. 38 , 758–773. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.598505 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolmos A., Kofoed L. B., Du X. Y. (2008). PhD students’ work conditions and study environment in university- and industry-based PhD programmes . Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 33 , 539–550. doi: 10.1080/03043790802588383 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kulikowski K., Potoczek A., Antipow E., Król S. (2019). How to survive in academia: demands, resources and study satisfaction among polish PhD students . Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 19 , 65–79. doi: 10.12738/estp.2019.4.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lam T. K. T. (2011). China needs to boost funding for graduate students to stay competitive . Nat. Med. 17 :655. doi: 10.1038/nm0611-655, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levecque K., Anseel F., De Beuckelaer A., Van der Heyden J., Gisle L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students . Res. Policy 46 , 868–879. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li H., Horta H. (2021). Factors influencing PhD students’ intentions to pursue careers in the government and nonprofit sectors: evidence from a global survey . High. Educ. Res. Dev. 1 :16. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2021.1948975 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maher M. A., Ford M. E., Thompson C. M. (2004). Degree progress of women doctoral students: factors that constrain, facilitate, and differentiate . Rev. High. Educ. 27 , 385–408. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2004.0003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marasi S., Jones B., Parker J. M. (2022). Faculty satisfaction with online teaching: a comprehensive study with American faculty . Stud. High. Educ. 47 , 513–525. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1767050 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marzo-Navarro M., Pedraja-Iglesias M., Pilar Rivera-Torres M. (2005). Measuring customer satisfaction in summer courses . Qual. Assur. Educ. 13 , 53–65. doi: 10.1108/09684880510578650 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Munteanu C., Ceobanu C., Bobâlcă C., Anton O. (2010). An analysis of customer satisfaction in a higher education context . Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 23 , 124–140. doi: 10.1108/09513551011022483 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Naidoo R., Williams J. (2014). Students agreements and student consumers: the marketization of learning and the erosion of higher education as a public good . Peking Univ. Educ. Rev. 2014 , 36–52; 188–189. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-9468.2014.01.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nature Research (2019). Data retrieved from 2019 Nature PhD Students Survey Data. https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/2019_Nature_PhD_Students_Survey_Data/10266299
• Pedraza L., Chen R. (2021). Examining motivator factors of STEM undergraduate persistence through two-factor theory . J. High. Educ. 93 , 532–558. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2021.1999722 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pike G. R. (1993). The relationship between perceived learning and satisfaction with college: an alternative view . Res. High. Educ. 34 , 23–40. doi: 10.1007/BF00991861 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pilbeam C., Lloyd-Jones G., Denyer D. (2013). Leveraging value in doctoral student networks through social capital . Stud. High. Educ. 38 , 1472–1489. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.636800 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pyhältö K., Stubb J., Lonka K. (2009). Developing scholarly communities as learning environments for doctoral students . Int. J. Acad. Dev. 14 , 221–232. doi: 10.1080/13601440903106551 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rizkallah E. G., Seitz V. (2017). Understanding student motivation: a key to retention in higher education . Sci. Ann. Econ. Bus. 64 , 45–57. doi: 10.1515/saeb-2017-0004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roumell E., Bolliger D., Halupa C. (2014). Student satisfaction with graduate supervision in doctoral programs primarily delivered in distance education settings . Stud. High. Educ. 39 , 321–338. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2012.709496 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowley J. (1996). Measuring quality in higher education . Qual. High. Educ. 2 , 237–255. doi: 10.1080/1353832960020306 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sauermann H., Stephan P. (2012). Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science . Organ. Sci. 24 , 889–909. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1946768 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shapiro V. B., Hudson K. D., Downey M. M. (2017). Institutional expectations, opportunities, and interest in the professoriate: a mixed-methods examination of satisfaction among doctoral students in social work . J. Soc. Work. Educ. 53 , 520–534. doi: 10.1080/10437797.2016.1275897 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shin J. C., Kim S. J., Kim E., Lim H. (2018). Doctoral students’ satisfaction in a research-focused Korean university: socio-environmental and motivational factors . Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 19 , 159–168. doi: 10.1007/s12564-018-9528-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith B. (1995). Hidden rules, secret agendas: challenges facing contemporary women doctoral students. Presented at the annual meeting of the American . American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA . [ Google Scholar ]
• Spurk D., Hirschi A., Wang M., Valero D., Kauffeld S. (2020). Latent profile analysis: a review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research . J. Vocat. Behav. 120 :103445. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103445 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sung M., Yang S.-U. (2009). Student–university relationships and reputation: a study of the links between key factors fostering students’ supportive behavioral intentions towards their university . High. Educ. 57 , 787–811. doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-9176-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Rooij E., Fokkens-Bruinsma M., Jansen E. (2021). Factors that influence PhD candidates’ success: the importance of PhD project characteristics . Stud. Contin. Educ. 43 , 48–67. doi: 10.1080/0158037X.2019.1652158 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Tienoven T.P., Glorieux A., Minnen J., te Braak P., Spruyt B. (2022). Graduate students locked down? PhD students’ satisfaction with supervision during the first and second COVID-19 lockdown in Belgium . PLoS ONE 17 :e0268923. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268923 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang W. P., Yuan J., Yang J., Liu H. Q. (2021). Is it true that women are less satisfied with their doctoral studies?—an empirical analysis based on Nature’s 2019 global survey of doctoral students . High. Educ. Explor. 7 , 47–56 (in Chinese). [ Google Scholar ]
• Xiao M., Ning X., Li Y. J. (2021). The cultivation environment satisfaction influence on doctoral students and their learning gains: an analysis based on a satisfaction survey of 1,350 doctoral students at a university . J. Grad. Educ. 2 , 36–42. doi: 10.19834/j.cnki.yjsjy2011.2021.02.06 (in Chinese). [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yuan B. T., Li W. H. (2017). Doctoral student training and the construction of world-class disciplines: an empirical analysis based on the survey of doctoral students’ research experience . Jiangsu High. Educ. 2 , 1–6. doi: 10.13236/j.cnki.jshe.2017.02.001 (in Chinese). [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou H., Long L. (2004). Statistical remedies for common method biases . China J. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 12 , 942–950. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-3710.2004.06.018 (in Chinese). [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Crimson Careers
• For Employers
• Harvard College
• Harvard Kenneth C. Griffin Graduate School of Arts & Sciences
• Harvard Extension School
• Premed / Pre-Health
• Families & Supporters
• Faculty & Staff
• Prospective Students
• First Generation / Low Income
• International Students
• Students of Color
• Students with Disabilities
• Undocumented Students
• Explore Interests & Make Career Decisions
• Create a Resume/CV or Cover Letter
• Expand Your Network
• Engage with Employers
• Search for a Job
• Find an Internship
• January Experiences (College)
• Find & Apply for Summer Opportunities Funding
• Prepare for an Interview
• Negotiate an Offer
• Apply to Graduate or Professional School
• Access Resources
• AI for Professional Development and Exploration
• Arts & Entertainment
• Business & Entrepreneurship
• Climate, Sustainability, Environment, Energy
• Government, Int’l Relations, Education, Law, Nonprofits
• Life Sciences & Health
• Technology & Engineering
• Still Exploring
• Talk to an Advisor

Leveraging Your PhD: Why Employers Value Your Skills

• Share This: Share Leveraging Your PhD: Why Employers Value Your Skills on Facebook Share Leveraging Your PhD: Why Employers Value Your Skills on LinkedIn Share Leveraging Your PhD: Why Employers Value Your Skills on X

Guest post by Heer Joisher (Griffin GSAS Candidate in Developmental Biology) for MCS.

Harvard’s Mignone Center for Career Success recently hosted an insightful discussion spotlighting the remarkable journeys of a select group of GSAS alumni who have masterfully leveraged their Ph.D. degrees to forge unique and gratifying career paths. Their experiences not only illuminate the expansive landscape of career possibilities for graduate students but also stand as beacons of inspiration for Ph.D. students and recent graduates navigating their own professional journeys.  Here are some reflections I’ve summarized from the panel discussion on exploring non-academic career paths: the motivations, the timing, and the process.

Why? – A Multitude of Motivations

Dean Emma Dench’s opening remarks for the panel, noting that approximately 50% of Harvard PhDs become intellectual leaders outside academia, set the stage for a discussion on the motivations driving individuals to explore non-academic career paths. These motivations are as diverse as the individuals themselves, ranging from financial considerations to differing interpretations of job satisfaction and expectations.  Moreover, panelists emphasized the presence of abundant opportunities available beyond academia and the importance of gaining a comprehensive understanding of the broader professional landscape. Embracing this perspective involves stepping outside the traditional academic paradigms, challenging preconceptions about career paths dictated by one’s degree or department. Instead, it involves introspectively questioning what truly fosters personal fulfillment and utilizing one’s unique background and expertise to craft a career trajectory that aligns with individual aspirations.

When? – The Sooner, the Better

The panel collectively emphasized the importance of early exploration into non-academic career paths, highlighting the immense value in stepping beyond conventional trajectories and embracing diverse experiences. Their insight underscores that this journey isn’t solely about finding a different career path; it’s about broadening perspectives and building a vibrant professional community, irrespective of the ultimate career trajectory.   While transitioning out of academia may be smoother for some fields or labs compared to others, actively delving into learning about alternative career paths enables individuals to challenge norms and foster connections with mentors who can offer invaluable support along the way. The environment at Harvard, with its diverse peers and alumni network, facilitates this exploration and openness to new opportunities, acting as a catalyst for personal and professional growth.

How? – Navigating the Process

Drawing from their diverse career paths, the panelists offered valuable strategies and frameworks to guide individuals through the transition process. Each insight struck a chord with attendees, offering relatable anecdotes and invaluable guidance. Below is a compilation of key takeaways distilled from the discussion:

• Embrace Career Exploration and Experimentation:
• Explore diverse opportunities and pathways even if they seem unconventional or outside your comfort zone
• Recognize that your first job doesn’t have to be perfect, and that career progression often involves trying different roles and industries
• Utilize resources like alumni and LinkedIn to learn about different careers, and experiences
• Identify the transferable skills gained during your academic journey and identify your strengths. Introspect on how your strengths align with roles outside academia, consider doubling down on skills you excel in and enjoy.

• Cultivate Meaningful Professional Relationships:
• Approach networking with a mindset of curiosity and growth, fostering genuine relationships that support your career development.
• Articulate your accomplishments and expertise with confidence to bolster your credibility and draw opportunities towards you.
• Engage in informational interviews to gain valuable insights into various job responsibilities, organizational cultures, and career paths, allowing you to assess your fit within different professional contexts.
• Take a proactive approach to relationship-building by categorizing connections based on shared interests and goals. Remember, networking is a two-way street; look for opportunities to offer support, share insights, and connect others within your network.

• Invest in Your Professional Growth:
• View informational interviews, hands-on learning opportunities and internships as pivotal investments in shaping your future career path.
• Proactively seek out opportunities that foster continuous learning, cultivate enduring professional relationships, and steer your career in desired direction.
• Hone the art of articulation and effective communication to confidently convey your skills, experiences, and achievements, aligning them with the needs of different roles and organizations.
• Conquer decision paralysis by taking action: apply for open positions and initiate conversations with new connections. Embrace the interview process as an opportunity for growth and learning, gaining valuable insights along the way.

In conclusion, the panel discussion offered profound insights into navigating non-academic career paths. These key takeaways underscore the significance of charting one’s unique path with confidence and purpose in the dynamic landscape of non-academic careers.

Meet the Panelists:

• Elias Bruegmann, PhD : Head of Product Data Science at Stripe
• Victoria Tillson Evans, PhD : Founder & President of Distinctive College Consulting
• Marinna Madrid, PhD : Co-Founder and Chief Product Officer at Cellino
• Jessica Paige, PhD : Social Scientist at RAND
• Paul Schwerda, PhD : Investment Manager at Baillie Gifford
• Roger Vargas, PhD : Computational Scientist at Moderna

Quotes from Attendees:

“As an upper-level PhD student, the seminar provided valuable information and insights on careers outside of academia. It was great to hear from a diversity of people with different perspectives and who followed various career paths.” – Stephan Foianini, G5, Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University

• What Can You Be with a PhD
• Beyond the Professoriate

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Increasing phd student self-awareness and self-confidence through strengths-based professional development submission type: research article provisionally accepted.

• 1 Department of Physiology, Pharmacology, and Toxicology, School of Medicine, West Virginia University, United States
• 2 Health Sciences Center, West Virginia University, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Strengths-based programs have emerged as asset-based approaches to professional development that promote positive student engagement and success. This paper shares the outcomes of a strengths-based professional development program provided to biomedical and health sciences graduate doctoral students within an academic health center. Program outcomes and changes in participants’ perceived confidence when identifying and applying their strengths in different contexts were evaluated through a mixed methods design that included a Likert-based survey and thematic analysis of qualitative responses. Findings strongly suggest that most participants lacked the self-confidence and/or self-awareness to recognize their own strengths prior to the program. Themes that emerged upon implementation of the program point to the following outcomes: participants gained an increased understanding of their strengths, confidence that the knowledge gained about their strengths would help them learn more effectively in laboratory settings, an increased belief that they possess natural talents and skills that make them good scientists and strong members of their research team, and confidence that applying their strengths will help them to overcome both personal and professional challenges. This program shows promise to strengthen graduate student self-awareness and self-confidence. Further studies are needed to understand and measure how asset-based programs such as this can impact graduate student resilience, science identity, and overall student success.

Keywords: graduate, Strengths, Professional Development, biomedical, Health Sciences, Science identity, stem

Received: 31 Jan 2024; Accepted: 22 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Lockman and Ferguson. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Dr. Julie A. Lockman, West Virginia University, Department of Physiology, Pharmacology, and Toxicology, School of Medicine, Morgantown, United States

People also looked at

• Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering >
• PhD Program >
• PhD in Industrial Engineering >

Human Factors/Ergonomics

Degree concentration for phd, industrial engineering.

Human factors and ergonomics (HFE) applies industrial engineering, physiology, psychology, and computer science to the design of working and living environments with explicit consideration of the physical and mental characteristics of users.

Faculty and students in HFE conduct research in areas such as human-automation interaction, mathematical modeling of human performance, inclusive design, occupational safety, workplace design, cognitive engineering, and biomechanics.

Our department has a 50-year history of quality education and research in HFE. UB's IE program is one of the few graduate programs offered within an engineering school to be accredited by the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. We have an active student body, as evidenced by our award-winning student chapter of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 

HFE research is funded by such agencies as the U.S. Department of Transportation, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health, as well as national and local corporations.

Our graduating students take human factors positions in academic institutions, federal laboratories, and national corporations.

Required Core Courses

IE PhD students who concentrate in HFE complete at a minimum:

• IE 531 Research Methods
• IE 507 Design and Analysis of Experiments
• IE 532 Human Information Processing
• IE 536 Physiological Foundations of Human Factors
• One Elective Course:  Choose one 500 or 600 level Human Factors Course (e.g., IE 541, Human Factors in Safety; IE 535, Human Computer Interaction; any 600 level special topics course or other HF course)

Data Tables

These tables present detailed data on the demographic characteristics, educational history, sources of financial support, and postgraduation plans of doctorate recipients. The Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) data tables were reorganized and renumbered in 2021; see table B-1 in the " Technical Notes " for a crosswalk comparing the current tables with those prior to 2021. Explore SED data further via the interactive data tool and the Restricted Data Analysis System . Kelly Kang Survey Manager, SED NCSES

• All Formats (.zip 8.0 MB)
• PDF (.zip 6.9 MB)
• Excel (.zip 1.1 MB)
• MORE DOWNLOADS OPTIONS

Trends in research doctorate recipient characteristics

Trends in postgraduation commitments of research doctorate recipients, field and demographic characteristics of research doctorate recipients, financial support and education-related debt of research doctorate recipients, educational and background characteristics of research doctorate recipients, postgraduation commitments and salaries of research doctorate recipients, doctorate institutions, locations, and countries of origins of research doctorate recipients, statistical profiles of research doctorate recipients, postgraduation plans of research doctorate recipients.

• Open access
• Published: 19 April 2024

Causes and outcomes of at-risk underperforming pharmacy students: implications for policy and practice

• Alice Campbell 1 ,
• Tina Hinton 1 , 2 ,
• Narelle C. da Costa 1 ,
• Sian E. O’Brian 1 ,
• Danielle R. Liang 1 &
• Nial J. Wheate 1  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  421 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

242 Accesses

Metrics details

This study aimed to understand the key determinants for poor academic performance of students completing a Bachelor of Pharmacy (BPharm), Bachelor of Pharmacy and Management (BPharmMgmt), or Master of Pharmacy (MPharm) degree.

Data were collected on pharmacy students who had not met academic progression requirements between 2008 and 2018 at The University of Sydney, Australia. This included: age at the start of pharmacy degree; gender; whether they transferred from another university; whether they were a domestic or international student; Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank upon entry, previous studies in biology, chemistry, or mathematics; show cause triggers (units of study failed); number of show causes; students’ written show cause responses; weighted average mark at last show cause or graduation; whether they graduated and were a registered pharmacist; and, the number of years they spent studying the degree. Descriptive studies were used to analyse student characteristics using SPSS software, and student self-reported reasons for poor performance were analysed reflexively using thematic analysis procedures using NVivo.

This study included 164 pharmacy students enrolled in a BPharm (79.3%, n  = 130), BPharmMgmt (1.2%, n  = 2), or MPharm (19.5%, n  = 32). Of the students, 54% ( n  = 88) were men, 81% ( n  = 133) were domestic students, 15% ( n  = 24) transferred from another degree program, and 38% ( n  = 62) graduated from the course. Show cause students were less likely to graduate if they transferred from another degree program ( P  = 0.0002) or failed more than three units of study (UoS; P  < 0.0001). The most commonly failed UoS were related to organic or pharmaceutical chemistry, and the top student self-reported reasons for poor performance was stress/anxiety, physical health, and depression.

Pharmacy schools should aim to address student foundational knowledge in chemistry, identify at-risk students early using pre-subject testing, and provide better services to address student mental health.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

A student’s academic performance in higher education is typically defined by their achievement of learning outcomes and demonstration of their ability to apply the concepts taught. Measurement of these attributes can include assessments, quizzes, role plays, field work, practical placements, workshops, tutorials, laboratories, and examinations. In most higher education programs, a minimum standard of academic achievement is required in order to progress through the course, to ensure the student has gained adequate knowledge and skills, and that they have achieved the specified learning outcomes. In this regard, poor academic performance can be defined by instances where a student fails to meet the expected minimum academic standard. Usually this comprises a minimum overall score in a subject and/or passing a specific barrier assessment, which is ultimately linked to their retention or attrition.

Understanding the key determinants of student success, failure, retention, and attrition has become increasingly important for higher education institutions, and has been the subject of extensive research over the past few decades. Early studies on student attrition focused primarily on student characteristics [ 1 ], before attention shifted to interactions between the student and their institutions. Prominent researchers, including Spady [ 2 , 3 ], Tinto [ 4 , 5 ], and Bean [ 6 ] proposed models to explain the interplay between academic and social integration leading to underperformance, and eventually, attrition. More recently, interest has increased in examining student engagement [ 7 , 8 , 9 ], where the student and institutions have a joint responsibility for academic success. To be successful, a student needs to participate, and higher education institutions need to provide an appropriate learning environment, opportunities, and support [ 10 ].

Studies on the key determinants of student underperformance reveal an array of contributing factors. Recent systematic reviews on underperformance and dropout rates show that key determinants fall into categories relating to the institution, personal life, demographics, and social integration [ 11 , 12 ]. Within higher education institutions, studies have found that an academic’s professional knowledge and pedagogical skills, along with the institution’s learning resources, course structure, and environment, are key factors that influence academic performance and non-completion [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Teaching methods that higher institutions adopt have also been evaluated, with student-centered approaches that encourage active learning resulting in better performance when compared with a traditional teacher-centered approach [ 15 , 16 ].

In terms of individual factors, studies have found a lack of effort, distraction, poor time management, and no longer being interested in the course as having a negative impact on academic performance [ 14 , 15 , 18 , 19 ]. Active learning (e.g. self-quizzes, completing problem sets, and explaining concepts) has been found to yield better academic outcomes when compared with passive learning (e.g. reading lecture slides or class notes, watching lecture videos, and reading textbooks) [ 20 , 21 ]. In the same study, how early a student studied in relation to their exam did not affect their outcome, whereas students who were more distracted during the time they allocated for study, performed worst [ 20 , 22 ]. Education-related stress, poor mental health, exam anxiety, and sleep quality are also factors found to cause poor performance [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ]. Other studies have shown that part-time students and those who have previously failed subjects are at risk of further poor performance and attrition [ 17 , 28 , 29 ]. Social factors including cyberbullying [ 30 ], homesickness for international students [ 31 ], and excessive socialising [ 16 ] also have a negative effect on academic performance.

Working status was found to negatively impact academic performance [ 27 ], where poor academic outcomes were correlated with a longer time spent at work [ 16 , 28 , 32 ]. Many studies have associated the lower socioeconomic status of students and their family, or financial strain with poor academic performance [ 27 , 28 , 29 ]; whereas, other studies have shown that students in families where one parent has attended higher education tend to achieve higher grades [ 31 ]. Some studies have found men and minority students are more at risk of poor performance [ 31 , 33 ]. Part-time students are much more likely cite work and family responsibilities as reasons for stopping their studies [ 17 ]. Research on students whose first language is not that of the higher education institution is mixed, with some confirming it to be a key attributor to underperformance [ 34 , 35 , 36 ], along with students with a migrant background or who are first-generation university attendees (commonly referred to as first-in-family) [ 31 , 37 , 38 ]. In contrast, other studies have found that academic performance of international students was similar, or better, than domestic students [ 39 , 40 ].

A government panel in Australia reported that the leading drivers for non-completion in higher education are both institution-related (learning environment, an academic’s ability to teach, student to staff ratios, student engagement, and support services) and student-related (health, finance, and personal responsibilities) [ 41 ]. A survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) identified the top three reasons for attrition for students studying a bachelors degree to be: loss of interest, employment/financial reasons, and personal reasons (health, family, or other personal reasons). For postgraduate courses, reasons for attrition were highest in the order of personal reasons, employment/financial, followed by loss of interest [ 42 ].

Where a student has underperformed, they may be offered remediation assessments; to re-enroll and attempt the entire subject again, which may result in a delay in degree completion; or in some cases, be excluded from reenrolling into the same course for a period of time [ 43 , 44 ].

Consequences of poor performance vary across higher education institutions and may depend on the reasoning provided, extent of underperformance, and number of failed subjects. Key stake holders impacted by poor performance and attrition from higher education can include the students and their families, the higher education institution they are enrolled in, their community workforce, and government. Non-completion directly impacts the funding and reputation of an institution [ 17 , 45 , 46 ]. In Australia, where the cost of higher education for domestic students is subsidised by the federal government, non-completion incurs a direct cost to both the student and the tax-payer. The cost to the student includes lost time, psychological health, student debt, and forgone income [ 9 ]. From the perspective of workforce planning, a delay or non-completion of study reduces the number of employees entering into the workforce, and can lead to workforce shortages and place a burden on those currently in the field.

There are many studies that have examined the key determinants for student success or underperformance and attrition in health; however, most have focused on nursing or medical education [ 13 , 15 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ]. Consequently there are limited studies that have examined the rate and reasons for attrition within pharmacy degrees. Being a degree known to be difficult in technical content, and which requires students to achieve a high level of competence, it is important to investigate reasons for attrition and potential opportunities for improvement in student teaching and engagement.

In this study we analysed 10 years of demographic data and responses to why academic progression requirements had not been met in a cohort of students enrolled in a Bachelor of Pharmacy (BPharm), Bachelor of Pharmacy and Management (BPharmMgmt), or Master of Pharmacy (MPharm) degree at The University of Sydney. Our aim was to understand the key determinants for poor performance within this group of students and identify opportunities for policy and practice to reduce underperformance in the future.

Approval for this study was granted by the Human Research Ethics Committee of The University of Sydney (2022/815).

Data collection

The inclusion criteria for this study were students enrolled in a BPharm, BPharmMgmt, or MPharm degree between the period of 2008 and 2018 (inclusive), who were required to provide a minimum of one show cause at any stage of their study. Data collected on each student included: age at the start of pharmacy degree; gender; whether they transferred from another university; whether they were a domestic or international student; Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank (ATAR) upon entry, which is a percentile score that ranks Australian students finishing secondary school in relation to their academic achievement [ 51 ]; previous studies in biology, chemistry, or mathematics; show cause triggers (units of study failed); number of show causes; students’ written show cause responses; weighted average mark (WAM) at last show cause or graduation (WAM is an average grade score indicating a student’s overall academic performance over the course of their degree and is similar to a grade point average) [ 52 ]; whether they graduated; and, the number of years they spent studying the degree. Whether those students who had graduated were currently registered as a pharmacist in Australia was retrieved using the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency online registry list [accessed in 2023].

Data analysis

Researchers Da Costa, O’Brien, and Liang collected, screened, and de-identified the data, and researchers Campbell, Hinton, and Wheate analysed the data. Descriptive statistics, including mean ± SD, median, and frequencies (count and percentage) were calculated using Microsoft Excel. Mann-Whitney U tests were undertaken in GraphPad Prism 9.0 (GraphPad Software, Boston, MA, USA) to ascertain any differences between ATAR scores. Chi Square analyses were undertaken in GraphPad Prism 9.0 to compare categorical data including differences between men and women, domestic and international students, transferring and non-transferring students, and graduating and non-graduating students.

Written show cause responses were transcribed by Campbell and uploaded into NVivo (1.5.1) software (QSR International, Massachussets USA). The show cause responses were analysed reflexively using inductive thematic analysis procedures [ 53 ].This involved manually reviewing each show cause response to identify emerging themes relating to the reasons stated by the student for their poor performance. From the themes identified, a total of 43 codes were generated based on the ideas, trends, and content. Coding was conducted in a theory-driven manner, seeking to code information referencing the specific themes arising from the show cause response [ 53 ]. Themes were guided by the frequency of mention, and reported in the results if there was more than a single mention. The frequency of the subthemes was analysed to demonstrate the prevalence of stated factors that the student believed led to their poor performance.

Show cause process

Pharmacy students who do not meet the progression requirements of their degree enter one of three stages of academic intervention (Fig.  1 ). Triggers for a student not meeting the requirements for progression include: awarded a fail grade in over 50% of total units of study (subjects; UoS) taken in a semester or teaching period; an average grade (WAM) less than 50 across all UoS in a semester or teaching period; failing one, or more, barrier or compulsory UoS which includes CHEM1611, CHEM1612, PHAR2822, and any 3000 or 4000 level UoS for BPharm/BPharmMgmt; and any single UoS for MPharm; any practical component (e.g. field work or clinical work), failing the same UoS twice, having unsatisfactory attendance, or exceeding the maximum time limit allowed for the degree to be completed.

Students who fail to meet progression requirements for the first time are placed on Stage 1 of the at-risk register at which point they receive a letter from the Faculty of Medicine and Health, and are advised to complete a ‘Stay on Track’ survey and information session. At the discretion of the Associate Dean of Education, some students at Stage 1 may be required to consult an academic adviser. If a student is enrolled in a degree with a duration of less than two years full-time (e.g. MPharm), they are advised that should they fail to meet progression requirements in the following semester, they would be asked to ‘show good cause’ in order to be allowed to re-enrol in the same program; that is, they would be excluded from the degree for two years unless they could give reasons for why they should be allowed to remain studying. They are also recommended to speak to an academic advisor.

Stage 2 is triggered for a student in a 4 or 5 year undergraduate degree program (e.g. BPharm and BPharmMgmt) if they fail to meet progression requirements after being placed on Stage 1 in the previous semester, at which point the faculty sends a letter, advising the student to complete the ‘Staying on Track’ survey if they had not yet done so, and to consult an academic adviser. Stage 3 is triggered if a student fails to meet progression requirements a third time, or fails the same compulsory or barrier UoS, or any practical component twice. Students on Stage 3 are required to ‘show good cause’ and provide reasonable evidence to be allowed to re-enrol into the degree program.

The three at-risk stages of academic intervention for students who fail to meet course progression requirements. Show cause is required at Stage 2 (MPharm) or Stage 3 (BPharm/BPharmMgmt) in order to re-enrol

Demographics

In total, 164 pharmacy students received at least one show cause notification between the period of 2008 to 2018 (inclusive) and were enrolled in a BPharm (79.3%, n  = 130), BPharmMgmt (1.2%, n  = 2), or MPharm (19.5%, n  = 32) degree (Table  1 ). Of the students, 54% ( n  = 88) were men, and 81% ( n  = 133) were domestic students.

Students who transferred from another degree program made up 15% ( n  = 24) of the sample, and were a median two years older than those who did not transfer (median age 21, range 19–43 years). All students who transferred from another degree, were enrolled in the BPharm. Ninety-two percent of transfer students ( n  = 22) were domestic and 71% ( n  = 17) were women.

The age of students at the start of their degree was positively skewed, with a median age of 19 years for BPharm and BPharmMgmt (range 17–43 years). For MPharm, the median age at commencement was 24 (range 20–24) years. The median age of domestic students at the start of their BPharm or BPharmMgmt degree was 19 (range 17–43) years compared with international students at 22 (range 18–33) years. For MPharm, the median age for domestic students at commencement was 24 (range 20–54) years while for international students it was 24.5 (range 22–38) years.

Performance on entry and exit of the degree

The ATAR scores of the students in either the BPharm or BPharmMgmt were not normally distributed ( n  = 78, mean ATAR 88.8 ± 4.8) (Supplementary Figure S1 ). The average ATAR required for entry into BPharm and BPharm/Mgmt at the University of Sydney is around 90. Of the 24 students who transferred from another degree program, the ATAR score was available for four students, with an average of 78.8 ± 9.8, including two outliers who had ATAR scores of 67.80 and 74.15. The average ATAR on entry to the degree of the students who graduated was 89.4 ± 3.4, which was similar to those who did not graduate, 88.5 ± 5.4. A Mann-Whitney U test showed this difference was not statistically significant (W = 702.5, p  = 0.937).

The proportion of students who graduated after receiving at least one show cause was 37.8% ( n  = 62), of which 77.4% ( n  = 48) were registered as pharmacists at the time of data collection (Fig.  2 ). One student did not graduate their BPharm; however, they did return and complete the MPharm degree and was registered as a pharmacist at the time of data collection. The median time taken to graduation was 7 (range 1–9) years for students enrolled in the BPharm and 3 (range 2.5-8) years for those enrolled in the MPharm. During the study period, 188 students were enrolled in the BPharmMgmt degree but only two (1.1%) were required to show cause due to poor performance. Neither of those two students graduated.

A WAM score was available for all but three of the 164 students. The overall average WAM either at last show cause, if the student had not graduated, or at degree completion was 52.1 ± 12.0. For students who graduated (38.5%, n  = 62), the average WAM was 62.2 ± 5.1, while for those who did not graduate (61.5%, n  = 99), the average WAM was 45.7 ± 10.5.

When the proportion of students who graduated was compared across the ATAR bands (Table S1 ), it was evident that show cause students who entered their degree with an ATAR between 85 and 89.99 were more likely to graduate (44%) when compared with those who entered their degree with lower (27%) and higher (25–35%) ATAR scores.

Units failed

Across the cohort, show cause students received between 1 and 8 show cause notifications (Fig.  1 ). When the proportion of students who graduated was compared across the number of show causes received for those who received 1–5 show causes, the rate of graduation ranged from 36 to 50%, while none of the students who received six or more show causes graduated.

Percentage of students who graduated (black) and did not graduate (grey) by number of show causes received

Number of failed UoS

The median number of UoS failed across the three degree programs was 8 (BPharm, range 2–33), 9 (BPharmMgmt, range 5–13), and 5 (MPharm, range 2–12), respectively. In total, 8.5% ( n  = 14) students were required to show cause because they failed 2 or 3 UoS, 19.5% ( n  = 32) students failed 4 or 5 UoS and 72% ( n  = 118) students failed more than 6 UoS. Of the 14 students who failed 2 or 3 UoS, 86% were studying the MPharm degree and the remaining were BPharm students. Students who failed 4 or 5 UoS, were studying a BPharm (66%), BPharmMgmt (3%), or MPharm (31%) degree. The majority of students who failed more than 6 units were studying BPharm (91%), followed by MPharm (8%), and BPharmMgmt (1%). Students who failed 2 or 3 UoS were significantly more likely to graduate when compared with those who failed 4 or 5 UoS, or more than 6 UoS \( (X_2^2=21.86, \text{P}<0.0001)\) (Supplementary Figure S2 ).

Type of failed UoS

The most failed UoS that triggered a show cause across students in the BPharm and BPharmMgmt degrees were a mix of pharmaceutical sciences, chemistry and biology, across the first and second years of the degree programs (Table  2 ). The top five UoS failed were Basic Pharmaceutical Sciences (8.8%, 116/1314 fails; unit code: PHAR1812), Chemistry 1B (Pharmacy) (6.9%, 91/1314 fails; unit code: CHEM1612), Drug Discovery and Design 1 (6.7%, 88/1465 fails; unit code: PHAR2811), Molecular Biology and Genetics (6.5%, 86/1314 fails; unit Code: MBLG1001), and Chemistry 1A (6.2%, 81/1314 fails; unit code: CHEM1611).

For students studying the MPharm, the majority of UoS failed were for pharmaceutical sciences in first year and one specific pharmacy practice unit (PHAR5717) in the second year. The top three UoS failed for MPharm were Pharmaceutical Chemistry 1A (12.6% 19/151 fails; unit code: PHAR5513), Pharmaceutical Science (7.9%, 12/151 fails; unit code: PHAR5515), and Pharmaceutical Chemistry 1B (7.9%, 12/151 fails; unit code: PHAR5516) (Table  3 ).

Gender, transfer and international students

There was no significant difference between the number of men and women who graduated after receiving at least one show cause \( (X_1^2=0.056, \text{P}=0.813)\) . There was also no significant difference in the number of UoS failed \( (X_2^2=2.249, \text{P}\hspace{0.17em}=\hspace{0.17em}0.325)\) or number of show causes received \( (X_6^2=2.829, \text{P}=0.830)\) between men and women.

Students who transferred from another degree program were significantly less likely to graduate \( (X_1^2=13.53, \text{P}\hspace{0.17em}=\hspace{0.17em}0.0002)\) . The likelihood of graduating was not statistically significant different between domestic and international students who received a show cause \( (X_1^2=0.88, \text{P}<0.348)\) (Supplementary Figure S3 ).

Student responses to show causes

There were 293 show causes in total, of which only 141 show cause response letters were available. Reasons given by students for their poor performance could be classified under four major themes: personal life matters, institutional aspects, social integration, and interest in the course (Fig.  3 ). Personal life matters could be further sub-divided into health, study familiarity, responsibilities, and other personal life matters.

The majority of show cause responses attributed poor performance to personal life reasons (87%, 396 responses), followed by institution-related (8.8%, 40 responses), lack of interest in the degree (2.2%, 10 responses), and social integration (2%, 9 responses). The five most mentioned personal life reasons that led to poor performance were stress and anxiety ( n  = 63, 45%), physical health ( n  = 51, 36%), and depression ( n  = 39 28%). This was followed by family health, mentioned 37 times (26%), and reasons relating to employment or financial health, mentioned 33 times (23%). Reasons that related to the institution totalled 40, interest of the course totalled 10, and social reasons totalled 9. Personal life health-related reasons accounted for 41% of show cause responses. These included a combination of physical, mental, and unspecified health issues.

All show cause responses provided by students could be categorised into four major themes. Personal life was subcategorised into health, study skills, responsibilities, and other personal life

Some students identified a lack of study-related skills and study familiarity as a source of underperformance. Reasons included: carelessness in exams, poor study habits, language barrier, being an international student or mature age student, misjudging the course difficulty, overloading, burning out after high school, and being unaware of opportunities to apply for special consideration. Another set of reasons provided for underperformance included: needing to meet responsibilities and commitments for family, friendships, and romantic relationships. A variety of other personal life reasons were provided, which included: employment, finance, transition to independent living or a new country, living environment, distance to travel to the university, needing to relocate, and being physically unable to attend classes.

Student show cause responses that attributed poor performance to inefficiencies within the institution included UoS changes, error or poor timing of exams, dissatisfaction with the course and staff, and unhelpful support. Some students found the UoS content too difficult. Social reasons that lead to poor performance included: bullying, stigma from peers once failing, and homesickness (for those studying abroad). Another reason provided was no longer being interested or committed to the course.

This study investigated the key determinants of underperformance by pharmacy students at an Australian higher education institution. Our findings indicate that across the students enrolled in BPharm, BPharmMgmt, and MPharm degrees, those who had failed more UoS overall, were less likely to graduate. The types of UoS failed were weighted towards chemistry-based subjects, and the most frequent student-reported reasons for poor performance were related to personal health.

Our study also found that students who transferred from another higher education institution were less likely to graduate compared with students who had not transferred. Some studies in the US have found that students who transfer to bachelors programs from similar institutions or community colleges, which are US institutions that only offer two year undergraduate associate degrees that lead to a specific skilled job or can be used to transfer into a bachelor course [ 54 ], experience ‘transfer shock’ where grade point average (GPA) declines at the post transfer institution, which can eventually result in attrition [ 55 , 56 ]. In contrast, other studies have found no significant effects from transfers, and an overall lack of consensus on this as a universal experience [ 57 , 58 ]. A study that examined transferring engineering students found that students who transferred from similar degrees were more likely to graduate when compared with students who transferred from less comprehensive degrees [ 56 ]. A literature review that examined transferring student performance found factors that negatively influenced persistence and course completion included: a lack of social integration, limited transferrable credits, lower GPAs, lack of funding, distance from institution, academic rigour, and personal work/life balance [ 57 ].

Our analysis also found that students failing more than three UoS were more likely to not graduate when compared with those who failed fewer UoS. This finding parallels many studies that show students with poor academic outcomes are more likely to not complete their degree [ 59 , 60 ]. A recent study on student attrition, found that students who failed one subject were more likely to fail more subjects, and also had a four-fold higher likelihood of not graduating [ 27 ]. The Grattan Institute presents similar statistics, where students who consistently fail to meet academic progression requirements eventually decide to leave or are excluded from re-enrolling by the university [ 61 ].

The high occurrence of underperformance in relation to chemistry is consistent with other studies [ 62 , 63 ]. Pancyk et al. found that chemistry marks were correlated with attrition while biology marks predicted likelihood of delayed graduation for Master of Science (in Pharmacy) students. Another study found that the prior attainment of a Bachelor of Science degree to be a predictor of performance in a Doctor of Pharmacy program [ 64 ]. In countries, such as the US, where a specialised pre-admissions pharmacy test (Pharmacy College Admissions Test; PCAT) is used for entrance into a pharmacy program, the PCAT score correlated with student academic performance in the pharmacy course [ 65 ]. There are five areas examined by the PCAT, including: writing, biological processes, chemical processes, critical reading, and quantitative reasoning [ 66 ]. There is also evidence that better outcomes attained in pre-pharmacy biology and mathematics GPA [ 67 , 68 ], or having completed a four-year bachelor course, contributes to student performance in American pharmacy colleges [ 64 , 69 , 70 ]. Another study found prior academic achievement in secondary school, or pre-university study, can predict performance in an UK MPharm course; however, not the likelihood of graduation [ 71 ]. Other studies have found that pre-tests, for certain UoS, like biochemistry and pharmaceutical calculations conducted before starting a subject are correlated with overall subject performance, which makes these tests a good predictor for at-risk students [ 67 , 68 ].

The most common reasons reported by students for their underperformance in the present study were stress and anxiety, personal health, and depression. This is consistent with current literature [ 17 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ], and the 2022 Australian Student Experience Survey [ 72 ], which reported that health or stress, followed by work/life balance were the leading causes for students attrition. A specific study in pharmacy students found that exam anxiety had a negative impact on student performance in pharmacy practical exams [ 26 ]. Psychological distress among students completing a higher education degree in Norway showed negative impacts on their self-perceived academic ability, and course progression [ 73 ]. Another study investigating students’ self-reported explanations for their poor academic performance found mental health as a contributing factor, and vice versa, where poor performance intensified mental distress [ 27 ]. Although the Australian Bureau of Statistics also reported personal health reasons as a major contributor for non-completion in bachelor programs between 2018 and 2019, the leading reason was that students were no longer interested in their chosen degree. In the same report, non-completion of masters degrees was driven by family, health, or other personal reasons [ 42 ]. Student mental health is a significant driver of attrition and is common across both private and public higher institutions in Australia [ 41 ]. The mental health burden on students is recognised at The University of Sydney and so significant mental health support is offered. All students are able to access free counselling and psychological support sessions, there is a 24/7 mental health support telephone line, and additional self-help resources (like mindfulness and relaxation) are provided through the university’s website. Mental health first health training is also included in the curricula for all pharmacy degree programs at the university.

Successful completion of a pharmacy degree requires not only academic ability, but a certain level of pre-knowledge, in particular, biology and chemistry, to decrease failure rates in these subjects, avoid delays in degree completion, and possible attrition. Institutions should aim to address these barriers by introducing pre-requisite subjects or mandate compulsory bridging courses if a prior level of knowledge attainment in these subject areas is not provided. Alternatively, pre-tests for certain UoS can be conducted prior to the course commencement to identify at-risk students, and additional academic support services can be offered.

With student poor mental health found as the most common self-reported reason for poor performance in this study, often exacerbated by academic performance pressures, institutions should implement policies for early detection and support for students going through challenging times. Such policies could include more frequent reminders for students to self-assess their mental health, and information on where to seek support services. This could take form in programs being introduced prior to lectures, access to support portals made more prominent on online learning platforms, or self-check surveys to be taken at a frequency deemed appropriate.

Limitations

The present study had a number of limitation. Not all student’s ATAR scores (or equivalent) were available. The method of collecting whether a student was registered as a pharmacist was based on them not having changed their last name which may be the case for some students who changed their name after graduation (e.g. upon marriage). Students who may be registered as a pharmacist in countries other than Australia could not be determined. Not all student show cause reasons were available because of the change from physical to electronic filing over the period studied. The limited number of students who received five or more show causes also meant the study was not powered to establish a cut-off whereby after receiving a certain number of show causes, the chance of graduating is highly unlikely.

Conclusions

This study investigated the key determinants for poor academic performance in a cohort of pharmacy students enrolled in a BPharm, BPharmMgmt, and MPharm degree. The key factors that influenced whether a show cause student completed their studies included whether they transferred from another institution, and failed more than three UoS. The UoS with the highest fail rates were chemistry based, and the most frequent student self-reported reason for poor performance was personal stress and anxiety. The results indicate that pharmacy schools should aim to address student foundation knowledge in chemistry, identify at-risk students early using pre-subject testing, and provide better access and knowledge of available services to address student mental burden. Future studies should investigate whether students who have completed chemistry and biology pre-requisites perform better in their pharmacy degree.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, N.J.W.

Aljohani O. A comprehensive review of the major studies and theoretical models of student retention in higher education. High Educ Stud. 2016;6:1–18.

Article   Google Scholar  

Spady WG. Dropouts from higher education: an interdisciplinary review and synthesis. Interchange 1984. 1970;1(1):64–85.

Spady WG. Dropouts from higher education: toward an empirical model. Interchange. 1971;2(3):38–62.

Tinto V. Dropout from higher education: a theoretical synthesis of recent research. Rev Educ Res. 1975;45(1):89–125.

Tinto V. Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1993.

Google Scholar  

Bean JP. Dropouts and turnover: the synthesis and test of a causal model of student attrition. Res High Educ. 1980;12(2):155–87.

Tight M. Student retention and engagement in higher education. J Furth High Educ. 2020;44(5):689–704.

Carini RM, Kuh GD, Klein SP. Student engagement and student learning: testing the linkages. Res High Educ. 2006;47(1):1–32.

Thomas L, Kift S, Shah M. Student retention and success in higher education. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021. pp. 1–16.

Book   Google Scholar  

Coates H. The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance. Qual High Educ. 2005;11(1):25–36.

Al-Tameemi RAN, Johnson C, Gitay R, Abdel-Salam A-SG, Hazaa KA, BenSaid A, et al. Determinants of poor academic performance among undergraduate students—A systematic literature review. Int J Educ Res. 2023;4:100232.

Lorenzo-Quiles O, Galdón-López S, Lendínez-Turón A. Factors contributing to university dropout: a review. Front Educ Res. 2023;8.

Wilkinson TJ, McKenzie JM, Ali AN, Rudland J, Carter FA, Bell CJ. Identifying medical students at risk of underperformance from significant stressors. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:43.

Le HTTN, La HTT, Le TP, Nguyen TTT, Nguyen NT, Tran TP. Factors affecting academic performance of first-year university students: a case of a Vietnamese university. Int J Educ Prac. 2020;8(2):221–32.

Sharma P, Singh P, Kalhan S, Garg S. Analysis of factors affecting academic performance of MBBS students in pathology. Ann Int Med Dent Res. 2017;2.

Mascolo M, Castillo J. The origins of underperformance in higher education in America: proximal systems of influence. Pedgog Hum Sci. 2015;5(1):1–40.

Norton AC, I. and, Mackey W. Dropping out: the benefits and costs of trying university. The Grattan Institute, 2018. p. 1–65.

van Rooij E, Jansen EPWA, Van de Grift W. First-year university students’ academic success: the importance of academic adjustment. Eu J Psychol Educ. 2017;33:1–19.

Arshad M, Zaidi SM, Mahmood D. Self-esteem and academic performance among university students. J Educ Pract. 2015;6:2015.

Walck-Shannon EM, Rowell SF, Frey RF. To what extent do study habits relate to performance? CBE - Life Sci Educ. 2021;20(1):ar6.

Roick J, Ringeisen T. Students’ math performance in higher education: examining the role of self-regulated learning and self-efficacy. Learn Individ Differ. 2018;65:148–58.

Nonis SA, Hudson GI. Performance of college students: impact of study time and study habits. J Educ Bus. 2010;85(4):229–38.

Jevons C, Lindsay S. The middle years slump: addressing student-reported barriers to academic progress. High Educ Res Dev. 2018;37(6):1156–70.

Pascoe MC, Hetrick SE, Parker AG. The impact of stress on students in secondary school and higher education. Int J Adolesc Youth. 2020;25(1):104–12.

May RW, Bauer KN, Seibert GS, Jaurequi ME, Fincham FD. School burnout is related to sleep quality and perseverative cognition regulation at bedtime in young adults. Learn Individ Differ. 2020;78:101821.

Hadi MA, Ali M, Haseeb A, Mohamed MMA, Elrggal ME, Cheema E. Impact of test anxiety on pharmacy students’ performance in Objective Structured Clinical examination: a cross-sectional survey. Int J Pharm Pract. 2018;26(2):191–4.

Ajjawi R, Dracup M, Zacharias N, Bennett S, Boud D. Persisting students’ explanations of and emotional responses to academic failure. High Educ Res Dev. 2020;39(2):185–99.

Rodríguez-Hernández CF, Cascallar E, Kyndt E. Socio-economic status and academic performance in higher education: a systematic review. Educ Res Rev. 2019;29:100305.

Tomul E, Polat G. The effects of socioeconomic characteristics of ctudents on their academic achievement in higher education. Am J Educ Res. 2013;1:449–55.

Peled Y. Cyberbullying and its influence on academic, social, and emotional development of undergraduate students. Heliyon. 2019;5(3):e01393.

Sun J, Hagedorn L, Zhang Y. Homesickness at college: its impact on academic performance and retention. J Coll Stud Dev. 2016;57:943–57.

Triventi M. Does working during higher education affect students’ academic progression? Econ Educ Rev. 2014;41:1–13.

Voyer D, Voyer SD. Gender differences in scholastic achievement: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2014;140(4):1174–204.

Dafouz E, Camacho-Miñano MM. Exploring the impact of English-medium instruction on university student academic achievement: the case of accounting. Engl Specif Purp. 2016;44:57–67.

Civan A, Coskun A. The effect of the medium of instruction language on the academic success of university students. Educ Sci: Theory Prac. 2016;16:1981–2004.

Sawir E. Language difficulties of international students in Australia: the effects of prior learning experience. Int Educ J. 2005;6:567–80.

Mishra S. Social networks, social capital, social support and academic success in higher education: a systematic review with a special focus on ‘underrepresented’ students. Educ Res Rev. 2020;29:100307.

López MJ, Santelices MV, Carmen Maura T. Academic performance and adjustment of first-generation students to higher education: a systematic review. Cogent Educ. 2023;10(1).

Zheng RX, Everett B, Glew P, Salamonson Y. Unravelling the differences in attrition and academic performance of international and domestic nursing students with English as an additional language. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(12):1455–9.

Rienties B, Beausaert S, Grohnert T, Niemantsverdriet S, Kommers P. Understanding academic performance of international students: the role of ethnicity, academic and social integration. High Educ. 2012;63(6):685–700.

Final Report -. Improving retention, completion and success in higher education. Higher Education Standards Panel; Australian Government Department of Education; 2017.

Qualifications. and Work, 2018-19. Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2020.

Academic Progression. The University of Sydney [updated 31 March 2023; cited 2023 September ]. Available from: https://www.sydney.edu.au/students/academic-progression.html .

Failed. withheld and invalid units: Monash University; [updated 2023; cited 2023 September]. Available from: https://www.monash.edu/students/admin/enrolments/change/failed-withheld-invalid-units .

OCED. Education at a Glance 2023. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Publishing 2023 [Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/publication/e13bef63-en .

Yorke M, Longden B. Retention and student success in higher education. McGraw-Hill Education (UK); 2004.

Faisal R, Shinwari L, Hussain S. Academic performance of male in comparison with female undergraduate medical students in pharmacology examinations. J Pak Med Assoc. 2017;67:204–8.

van Moppes NM, Willems S, Nasori M, Bont J, Akkermans R, van Dijk N et al. Ethnic minority GP trainees at risk for underperformance assessments: a quantitative cohort study. Br J Gen Pract Open. 2023;7(1).

Liu XL, Wang T, Bressington D, Nic Giolla Easpaig B, Wikander L, Tan JB. Factors influencing retention among regional, rural and remote undergraduate nursing students in Australia: a systematic review of current research evidence. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(5).

Caponnetto V, Dante A, Masotta V, La Cerra C, Petrucci C, Alfes CM, et al. Examining nursing student academic outcomes: a forty-year systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;100:104823.

Australian Tertiary Admission Rank. Universities Admission Centre; [cited 2023 November ]. Available from: https://www.uac.edu.au/future-applicants/atar .

Weighted Average Mark (WAM). The University of Sydney; 2023 [cited 2023 November]. Available from: https://www.sydney.edu.au/students/weighted-average-mark.html .

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

Community College. Education USA; [cited 2023 November ]. Available from: https://educationusa.state.gov/ .

Ivins T, Copenhaver K, Koclanes A. Adult transitional theory and transfer shock in higher education: practices from the literature. Ref Serv Rev. 2017;45(2):244–57.

Smith NL, Grohs JR, Van Aken EM. Comparison of transfer shock and graduation rates across engineering transfer student populations. J Eng Educ. 2022;111(1):65–81.

Aulck L, West J. Attrition and performance of community college transfers. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0174683.

Diaz PE. Effects of transfer on academic performance of community college students at the four-year institution community. Coll J Res Prac. 1992;16(3):279–91.

Li I, Carroll D. Factors influencing university student satisfaction, dropout and academic performance: an Australian higher education equity perspective. Perth: National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education, Curtin University;; 2017. p. 56.

Sosu EM, Pheunpha P. Trajectory of university dropout: investigating the cumulative effect of academic vulnerability and proximity to family support. Front Educ. 2019;4.

Cherastidtham I, Norton A, Mackey W. University attrition: what helps and what hinders university completion? Grattan Institute; 2018.

Panczyk M, Rebandel H, Belowska J, Zarzeka A, Gotlib J. Risk of attrition from master of science in pharmacy degree program: 15-year predictive evaluation. Ind J Pharm Educ Res. 2016;50(1):70–9.

Houglum JE, Aparasu RR, Delfinis TM. Predictors of academic success and failure in a pharmacy professional program. Am J Pharm Educ. 2005;69(1–5):283–9.

McCall KL, Allen DD, Fike DS. Predictors of academic success in a doctor of pharmacy program. Am J Pharm Educ. 2006;70(5):106.

Meagher DG, Pan T, Perez CD. Predicting performance in the first-year of pharmacy school. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011;75(5):81.

Pharmacy College Admission Test American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. [updated 2023; cited 2023 October]. Available from: https://www.aacp.org/resource/pharmacy-college-admission-test .

Vinall R, Khansari P, McDowell J, Ried LD, Kreys E. Impact of completion of a pre-pharmacy biochemistry course and competency levels in pre-pharmacy courses on pharmacy student performance. Pharm 2019;7(3).

Aronson BD, Eddy E, Long B, Welch OK, Grundey J, Hinson JL. Identifying low pharmaceutical calculation performers using an algebra-based pretest. Am J Pharm Educ. 2022;86(1):8473.

Chisholm MA, Cobb HH, DiPiro JT, Lauthenschlager GJ. Development and validation of a model that predicts the academic ranking of first-year pharmacy students. Am J Pharm Educ. 1999;63(4):388–93.

Chisholm MA, Cobb HH, Kotzan JA. Significant factors for predicting academic success of first-year pharmacy students. Am J Pharm Educ. 1995;59(4):364–70.

Bush J. Entry characteristics and academic performance of students in a master of pharmacy degree program in the United Kingdom. Am J Pharm Educ. 2012;76(7).

2022 Student Experience Survery. National Report. 2023.

Grøtan K, Sund ER, Bjerkeset O. Mental health, academic self-efficacy and study progress among college students - the SHoT Study, Norway. Front Psychol. 2019;10:45.

Download references

No funding was received for this research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Sydney Pharmacy School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, 2006, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Alice Campbell, Tina Hinton, Narelle C. da Costa, Sian E. O’Brian, Danielle R. Liang & Nial J. Wheate

Charles Perkin Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney NSW, 2006, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Tina Hinton

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

ND, SO, and DL collated and de-identified the data. AC, TH, and NW analysed the data and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nial J. Wheate .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) reviewed and approved this study (Approval number 2022/815). All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. As this study utilised de-identified data collected retrospectively, The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) gave ethics approval for an informed consent waiver so consent did not need to be obtained from the students whose data was used in the analysis.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Campbell, A., Hinton, T., da Costa, N.C. et al. Causes and outcomes of at-risk underperforming pharmacy students: implications for policy and practice. BMC Med Educ 24 , 421 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05327-z

Download citation

Received : 16 January 2024

Accepted : 18 March 2024

Published : 19 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05327-z

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

• Higher education
• Underperformance

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]