Why rethinking PhD trajectories matters now

In the last few years, we have witnessed a growing interplay between the Open Science (OS) movement and the reform of research assessment through global initiatives such as CoARA. In the Netherlands, national efforts like Recognition & Rewards: Room for Everyone’s Talent and institutional initiatives like Academia in Motion at Leiden University have been established, offering a chance to rethink how academics are recognised and rewarded. This evolving context provides a timely opportunity to reimagine PhD trajectories.

In this blog post, we explore ways in which PhD trajectories can be rethought in order to adequately reflect the diverse range of activities that candidates engage with. We believe that by reconsidering what counts towards a PhD track, the professional development of the candidates could be enhanced and broadened. In addition, we are convinced that if transformations in the academic culture are to be successful, it is essential to get the younger generation of scholars involved.

Figure 1. Demographic characteristics of the Leiden University PhD candidates that we chatted to.

PhD trajectories at Leiden University: Aspirations, challenges, and reflections

To gain a better understanding of how Leiden University PhD candidates perceive their trajectories, we spoke with six colleagues (see Figure 1), one from each faculty. Several themes emerged during our conversations, including the pressure to publish, struggles with well-being, and the need to recognise that a PhD is much more than a dissertation.

The importance of well-being

A study conducted at Leiden University in 2016-2017 regarding mental health among PhD candidates found that 38% of respondents were at risk of experiencing severe mental health issues. In our conversations, the PhD candidates were not surprised to see that such a high proportion had experienced challenges regarding mental health. They all admitted to having felt some of the issues listed on the survey at different stages of their PhD trajectories, such as lack of sleep or lack of self-confidence. While they acknowledged that the results were worrying, they also shared the view that experiencing ups and downs is a normal part of the PhD journey. The real issue, they noted, arises when the difficult periods persist over time. All of the candidates view the PhD journey as inherently tough, something that is simply expected and must be endured.

In addition, for international candidates who moved to the Netherlands for their PhD, with no prior experience in the country, several immigration-related factors affected their well-being. Two of them mentioned challenges in finding housing, while one faced difficulty in navigating the healthcare system. They felt that these issues affected their ability to work efficiently, especially during the first few months.

Publication pressure

The PhD candidates that we chatted to believe that there is an expectation to publish in academia. Four of them noted that they see publishing, especially journal articles, as essential for succeeding as a scholar. Moreover, they mentioned that they had included publication targets in their training and supervision plans, even though these targets were not explicitly required. This was largely driven by a combination of self-imposed expectations and pressure to conform to the unwritten rules of academia. In one case, publishing at least three papers is not just encouraged, it is a formal requirement of their PhD trajectory.

More than research

Another theme that emerged during our conversations was the limited space provided for professional development outside of research. For instance, one candidate embarked on the PhD journey hoping to take on teaching duties, but the emphasis on research rarely provided the opportunity to realise this. In addition, all of them regularly engage with numerous responsibilities outside of research, such as participating in committees, collaborating with non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and engaging in podcasts, among others. While these activities are considered highly relevant to developing soft skills and are often praised by their supervisors, they are not formally recognised as part of their dissertation. One candidate highlighted that their dissertation reflects only about 50% of their PhD journey.

Most of the PhD candidates that we chatted to consider collaboration crucial, but find that opportunities for it are scarce. Four of them would like to see more interdisciplinary collaboration among PhD candidates. Given the broad-based character of Leiden University, this is regarded as an opportunity to come together and engage with colleagues who work in different fields, both to advance knowledge and to enhance the sense of community. Two other colleagues highlighted the importance of collaborating with non-academic stakeholders. However, the lack of clarity on how these activities fit into the PhD trajectory often leads PhD candidates to decide against such collaborations.

Culture in transition and OS practices

Regarding a cultural shift in academia - particularly regarding encouragement to practice OS - the PhD candidates we chatted to acknowledged seeing some changes, but nothing substantial. Two mentioned ongoing discussions around Open Access publishing in their institutes, which still largely reflect the emphasis on publishing within academia. One colleague had experience in public engagement activities, and another colleague was familiar with posting preprints, an established practice in their discipline. One candidate remarked that OS often seems “thriving in a bubble”, disconnected from the broader academic culture. At the same time, they all showed an open attitude, and even enthusiasm, towards OS.

Let us shape the future together

Overall, our colleagues perceive that the current structure of PhD trajectories does not sufficiently reflect their needs and expectations. The current structure also puts a lot of pressure on the candidates, contributing to poor mental health. It places publications at the centre of PhD trajectories, while equally essential and time-consuming activities are deemed as secondary, or even peripheral.

While many of these problems do not have immediate solutions, there is consensus that a more supportive and personal relationship with supervisors or coaching throughout the PhD trajectory would significantly improve the PhD journey. Enhancing the sense of community, providing more logistical support for international colleagues, and ensuring financial stability were key points mentioned in the conversations as well.

The candidates we chatted to believe that PhD trajectories should involve greater flexibility and space to develop beyond research, as well as formal recognition of the manifold activities they engage with. Ultimately, as one of our colleagues pointed out, a well-rounded scholar is not solely defined by their research output but also by a diverse set of soft skills, many of which are developed through experiences outside of research. These skills, as one of the PhD candidates mentioned, are not just ‘nice to have’, but can mean the difference between advancing in academia and hitting a wall. This becomes even more important in light of the Promovendi Netwerk Nederland (PNN) findings: only one third of PhD graduates will pursue academic careers, but fewer than two out of ten feel prepared for non-academic jobs. Despite that, there is little attention and a lack of recognition of activities contributing to transferable skills.

Together with the PhD candidates we chatted to, we selected activities that we think should be recognised in a PhD trajectory as they greatly contribute to our development. This is our selection, including examples:

• Contributing to community building and well-being: Chairing a PhD council, participating in committees or councils, organising events in our institutes. 
• Science communication / public engagement: Collaborating with NGOs, participating in a podcast, organising a conference, teaching in non-academic settings (e.g. in primary or secondary schools). 
• Knowledge exchange: Doing internships, providing policy advice, participating in working groups, collaborating with think tanks, and mentoring bachelor’s and master’s students. 
• Diversifying outputs: Communicating our work through blog posts, policy briefs, reports, software, presentations, magazine pieces, video essays, teaching materials, and syllabi. 
• Administrative tasks: Carefully drafting data management plans, publication packages, and ethics review applications.

While there are still open questions (e.g. what kind of expertise would be required from evaluation committees?), there is strong conviction among our peers that broadening what counts toward a PhD is essential. We are convinced that doing so would not only improve the PhD journey, both personally and professionally, but also enhance the employability of graduates, especially outside academic careers.

DOI: 10.59350/st9kn-9xs19 (export/download/cite this blog post)