phd students and work

• Skip to main content
• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Apply Apply
•   Follow Us

How PhD Students Get Paid

The most common questions (and biggest misconceptions) about getting a PhD revolve around money. Maybe you’ve heard that PhD students get paid just to study, or maybe you’ve even heard that PhD students don’t get paid at all.

It makes sense — how you make money as a PhD student is different from most other career routes, and the process can be highly variable depending on your school, discipline and research interests. 

So, let’s address the big question: do PhD students get paid? Most of the time the answer is yes. PhD programs that don’t offer some form of compensation, like stipends, tuition remission or assistantships, are rare but they do exist. On the other hand, some programs, like a PhD in Economics , are so competitive that unpaid programs are virtually unheard of. 

To help you gain a better understanding of PhD funding and decide if getting a PhD is worth it for you, here are some of the most common examples of how PhD students are paid. 

PhD Stipends

Most PhD programs expect students to study full-time. In exchange, they’re usually offered a stipend — a fixed sum of money paid as a salary — to cover the cost of housing and other living expenses. How much you get as a stipend depends on your university, but the range for PhD stipends is usually between $20,000 - $30,000 per year.  

In some cases, your stipend will be contingent upon an assistantship.

Assistantships

A PhD assistantship usually falls into one of two categories: research or teaching. 

For research assistantships , faculty generally determine who and how many assistants they need to complete their research and provide funding for those assistants through their own research grants from outside organizations. 

A teaching assistantship is usually arranged through your university and involves teaching an undergraduate or other class. Assistantships allow graduate students to gain valuable experience leading a classroom, and helps to balance out the university’s stipend costs. 

Fellowships

Fellowships provide financial support for PhD students, usually without the teaching or research requirement of an assistantship. The requirements and conditions vary depending on the discipline, but fellowships are generally merit based and can be highly competitive. Fellowships usually cover at least the cost of tuition, but some may even pay for scholarly extracurricular activities, like trips, projects or presentations. 

Fellowships can be offered through your university or department as well as outside sources. 

Part-time Employment

PhD students don’t commonly have additional employment during their course of study, but it is possible depending on your discipline and the rigor of your program. Flexible, low-demand jobs like freelance writing or tutoring can be a natural fit for many PhD students, and might be flexible enough to balance along with your coursework. 

All in all, it’s fair to say that though the form of payment may be unfamiliar, PhD students do in fact get paid. But keep in mind that while most PhD programs offer some kind of funding for students, it’s not guaranteed. 

Want to know more about how to pay for a PhD ? Explore our Guide to Choosing and Applying for PhD Programs . 

Learn more about

doctoral degrees at SMU, and how you can choose the right program and thrive in it, in our Guide to Getting a PhD.

Request more

Information.

Complete the form to reach out to us for more information

Published On

More articles, recommended articles for you, do phd students pay tuition unpacking the cost of a phd.

Choosing to pursue a PhD is a major milestone, but it comes with a host of concerns and questions....

Funding Options for PhD Students

Pursuing a PhD is a significant commitment of your finances and time. From tuition, living...

Figuring Out How the Physical World Works: An Interview with Ph.D. Fellow, Rujeko Chinomona

From an early age Rujeko was fascinated by how the physical world worked. She began to find answers...

Browse articles by topic

Subscribe to.

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
• CAREER COLUMN
• 13 January 2021

My 11 part-time jobs made me a better PhD student

• Cassie Sims 0

Cassie Sims is a postdoc at the Max Planck Center for Next Generation Insect Chemical Ecology and Lund University in Sweden.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

I have had 11 part-time jobs between my final year of school and completing my PhD programme. These varied in scope, pay, fun and responsibility, but most fell into in hospitality, customer service or tutoring. I have waitressed in restaurants and cafes, supervised a student bar, sold smoked meats and cheeses and tutored younger students.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00089-w

This is an article from the Nature Careers Community, a place for Nature readers to share their professional experiences and advice. Guest posts are encouraged .

Related Articles

Want to make a difference? Try working at an environmental non-profit organization

Career Feature 26 APR 24

Scientists urged to collect royalties from the ‘magic money tree’

Career Feature 25 APR 24

NIH pay rise for postdocs and PhD students could have US ripple effect

News 25 APR 24

Ecologists: don’t lose touch with the joy of fieldwork

World View 24 APR 24

Chemistry lab destroyed by Taiwan earthquake has physical and mental impacts

Correspondence 23 APR 24

Can non-profits beat antibiotic resistance and soaring drug costs?

News Feature 28 FEB 24

Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling

Perspective 14 FEB 24

Scientists question cancer tests that use microscopic nematode worms

News 20 DEC 23

Junior Group Leader

The Imagine Institute is a leading European research centre dedicated to genetic diseases, with the primary objective to better understand and trea...

Paris, Ile-de-France (FR)

Imagine Institute

Director of the Czech Advanced Technology and Research Institute of Palacký University Olomouc

The Rector of Palacký University Olomouc announces a Call for the Position of Director of the Czech Advanced Technology and Research Institute of P...

Czech Republic (CZ)

Palacký University Olomouc

Course lecturer for INFH 5000

The HKUST(GZ) Information Hub is recruiting course lecturer for INFH 5000: Information Science and Technology: Essentials and Trends.

Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)

Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine Seeking High-level Talents

Full Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor

Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine (ISM)

Postdoctoral Fellowships: Early Diagnosis and Precision Oncology of Gastrointestinal Cancers

We currently have multiple postdoctoral fellowship positions within the multidisciplinary research team headed by Dr. Ajay Goel, professor and foun...

Monrovia, California

Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope, Goel Lab

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

Quick links

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

• Harvard Business School →
• Doctoral Programs →

PhD Programs

• Accounting & Management
• Business Economics
• Health Policy (Management)
• Organizational Behavior
• Technology & Operations Management

Students in our PhD programs are encouraged from day one to think of this experience as their first job in business academia—a training ground for a challenging and rewarding career generating rigorous, relevant research that influences practice.

Our doctoral students work with faculty and access resources throughout HBS and Harvard University. The PhD program curriculum requires coursework at HBS and other Harvard discipline departments, and with HBS and Harvard faculty on advisory committees. Faculty throughout Harvard guide the programs through their participation on advisory committees.

How do I know which program is right for me?

There are many paths, but we are one HBS. Our PhD students draw on diverse personal and professional backgrounds to pursue an ever-expanding range of research topics. Explore more here about each program’s requirements & curriculum, read student profiles for each discipline as well as student research , and placement information.

The PhD in Business Administration grounds students in the disciplinary theories and research methods that form the foundation of an academic career. Jointly administered by HBS and GSAS, the program has five areas of study: Accounting and Management , Management , Marketing , Strategy , and Technology and Operations Management . All areas of study involve roughly two years of coursework culminating in a field exam. The remaining years of the program are spent conducting independent research, working on co-authored publications, and writing the dissertation. Students join these programs from a wide range of backgrounds, from consulting to engineering. Many applicants possess liberal arts degrees, as there is not a requirement to possess a business degree before joining the program

The PhD in Business Economics provides students the opportunity to study in both Harvard’s world-class Economics Department and Harvard Business School. Throughout the program, coursework includes exploration of microeconomic theory, macroeconomic theory, probability and statistics, and econometrics. While some students join the Business Economics program directly from undergraduate or masters programs, others have worked in economic consulting firms or as research assistants at universities or intergovernmental organizations.

The PhD program in Health Policy (Management) is rooted in data-driven research on the managerial, operational, and strategic issues facing a wide range of organizations. Coursework includes the study of microeconomic theory, management, research methods, and statistics. The backgrounds of students in this program are quite varied, with some coming from public health or the healthcare industry, while others arrive at the program with a background in disciplinary research

The PhD program in Organizational Behavior offers two tracks: either a micro or macro approach. In the micro track, students focus on the study of interpersonal relationships within organizations and the effects that groups have on individuals. Students in the macro track use sociological methods to examine organizations, groups, and markets as a whole, including topics such as the influence of individuals on organizational change, or the relationship between social missions and financial objectives. Jointly administered by HBS and GSAS, the program includes core disciplinary training in sociology or psychology, as well as additional coursework in organizational behavior.

Accounting & Management  

Business economics  , health policy (management)  , management  , marketing  , organizational behavior  , strategy  , technology & operations management  .

Want to Get your Dissertation Accepted?

Discover how we've helped doctoral students complete their dissertations and advance their academic careers!

Join 200+ Graduated Students

Get Your Dissertation Accepted On Your Next Submission

Get customized coaching for:.

• Crafting your proposal,
• Collecting and analyzing your data, or
• Preparing your defense.

Trapped in dissertation revisions?

What is the life of a phd student really like, published by steve tippins on june 9, 2020 june 9, 2020.

Last Updated on: 2nd February 2024, 05:11 am

Life of a PhD student? Hell. That about sums it up.

Okay, that’s not a very satisfying answer. Nor is it completely true. Life as a PhD student doesn’t always feel like hell. It does sometimes, but it’s also an exhilarating and rewarding time to explore your area of interest and grow into a true scholar. So what does the life of a PhD student really look like?

The life of a PhD student is somewhat varied depending on the field you’re going into. Generally speaking, no matter what program you’re in, it has two phases: coursework and dissertation.

Coursework Phase

Doctoral-level are courses that are a lot harder than undergraduate or even Master’s courses , but they are similar in structure: there’s a syllabus, due dates, other students in the class, etc. There are definitive semesters, quarters, or terms. In between terms, there’s really not much work to do. 

Of course, there are different expectations for PhD students than for undergrads. They are held to a far more rigorous standard in the work that they do. Class sizes are much smaller, and students are expected to participate in nuanced discussions. There is no sliding by unnoticed in a PhD program.

All that said, the coursework phase of the life of a PhD student is not altogether different than their previous educational experience, besides being more rigorous. It’s like school on steroids. 

Depending on the school, there may be a transition from classwork: comprehensive exams. This is basically, “study everything you’ve learned so that you can be ready for any question.” 

Dissertation Phase

The dissertation phase is a world in which there’s no syllabus, no classmates, and no real structure. You have your Chairperson and Committee to keep happy, but they’re not pushing you forward or expecting you to turn things in by a certain date. They’re just waiting for you to do what you have to do. 

Once you get to the dissertation stage, the concept of semesters and quarters goes away, and you’re working on your topic all the time.

Over 50% of doctoral candidates don’t finish their dissertations.

Many students find that not having due dates can make it difficult to work efficiently and make real progress on their dissertation . I speak more about how to effectively navigate this later on in this article.

I f you go into a program that has a large number of doctoral students, you’ll still be alone when you get to the dissertation stage, but you’ll have other people a similar stage. If you’re in a smaller program (for example, I was the only person in my PhD program), you may be all alone during the dissertation phase.

You’ll have to be able to move from the structured format of classes to the dissertation stage, where there’s very little structure and it can be lonely.

How Many Hours do PhD Students Work?

How many hours do PhD students work? Many PhD students have about 40 hours a week of reading and classwork, plus around 20 hours a week of assistantship or lab time. And that’s minimum. You may also be teaching while you’re doing your dissertation. I had two classes a semester, which ended up being 6 hours a week of class time, plus preparation and grading.   It’s easy to have a 60-80 hour week. In the life of a PhD student, the concept of “weekends” does not exist.

When you get to your dissertation, it’s easy to say “Oh, thank god I don’t have to do that anymore” and just stop. But don’t. You’ll need to put in the same hours on your dissertation if you want to finish within a reasonable timeframe (unless you’re deliberately making a choice to finish over a longer period of time).

Life of a PhD Student

Here, I’ll describe some of the common themes of the life of a PhD student, regardless of discipline. If you’re not yet enrolled in a PhD program, I highly recommend reading this to get an idea of the realities of what doctoral-level work looks like. If you’re already living the life of a PhD student, you will find some indispensable hints and advice for getting through with your mental health intact.

Being a Doctoral Student Is Not Like Being an Undergrad

Life as a PhD student is not the same as life as an undergrad. You’re there for the academic experience, not for anything else. Don’t expect to be able to join clubs and have time to socialize or go to football games. You may even find yourself feeling jealous of undergrads. 

But you’re there for a completely different purpose. You are the reason that the library is open twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. You are training to join the ranks of the world’s elite minds. 

You Can’t “Just Get By”

On the same note, the academic standards to which you’ll have to hold yourself change. As an undergraduate, you can get by easily with “what do I need to know,” and as a PhD student you ask, “what more can I learn?”

If you have the mentality of asking “what do I need to get by?” you shouldn’t be in a doctoral program. Because if you’re in a doctoral program, you’re going to end up as an expert. If your specific topic comes up in important policy decisions, you may be asked to be on an advisory panel. At some point, you will probably be asked to be an expert somewhere, and the advice you give will influence people’s lives. Society depends on you doing a good job in order to function well.

Doctoral programs are rigorous for a reason: only those who have a true passion and care for their subject area are afforded the power that a doctorate gives.

Writing a Dissertation Takes Over Your Life

Writing a dissertation is an immersive experience. It’s so much a part of the life of a PhD student that it’s hard to differentiate between when you’re working and not working. 

You also have to do things besides actually writing, and these things sometimes take a frustratingly long time. For example, making calls to institutions you are gathering data from, figuring out how to access or use software programs, or transcribing interviews. 

It doesn’t feel like you’re making progress on your dissertation because you haven’t written anything, so it can be easy to get discouraged. It’s important to account for the time spent doing this kind of thing so that you don’t feel like you’re failing when you have to spend entire days on it rather than writing.

I had a friend who spent an entire weekend trying to de-bug a program, and the problem ended up being a zero that had been replaced by an O. That kind of stuff happens all the time, and it’s often when students quit. Account for this ahead of time so that it’s just part of the deal.

It is hard to communicate to friends and family members about what you’re going through in this process. They may expect you to be the same person you were before you entered the program and have the same flexibility. This can put a lot of pressure on friendships and relationships.  

You see all these other people who seem like they’re doing amazing things. Going on vacation, having children, advancing their careers. It may feel like you’re missing out. The life of a PhD student is also extremely isolating. Your family may not understand what you’re going through. It’s important to take care of your mental and emotional health so that this doesn’t lead you to drop out.

No Time for Anything

Those people who go into a doctoral program and continue a job and have families have to understand that they’re going to have very little time for anything other than those three things during the program. There is often not even enough time for all three of those. Understand that your faculty will have expectations of you and rarely considers outside commitments or desires when evaluating whether you’ve met those expectations.

Much of the life of a PhD student is actually deferring life–or at least all of the facets of life outside of academia. It means following everybody else’s requirements until you graduate. 

Revisions, Revisions, Revisions

Being a PhD student means constant revising. That’s one of the reasons that people quit, because they don’t realize how much revising will be necessary. When students get a draft of their proposal back for revisions a fifth time, many consider that a failure, but that’s simply the nature of writing a dissertation.

People get angry because they think they’re failing or they think that professors are being hard on them. But having to do multiple revisions is the norm. You’re learning a new language (academic writing), and you’re conducting an extremely rigorous project.

In classes, professors may let things slide. But any professor worth their salt won’t let things slide in your dissertation. It’s a good place for a perfectionist.

Here are some common reasons why students struggle with the type of academic writing required in a dissertation:

• You feel like you’re repeating yourself a lot
• You have to make your argument very clear and slow
• You can’t assume any knowledge
• You have to be extraordinarily specific
• You have to be extremely consistent

A Warning for Doctoral Students

There are stories of faculty members who take advantage of doctoral students to pick up laundry, babysit children, or worse. However power can be abused, some people in positions of power will try to do it. While hopefully there has been enough conversation about this that it is declining, it is something to be aware of. Listen to other people and be careful. 

The academic system is set up for an uneven balance of power–even before you account for our societal power dynamics of gender and race.

While there is a worthy tradition of “paying your dues” in academia, this means paying your dues to the profession–through teaching, learning, and research–not paying dues to members of the profession.

All this said, there are times when it isn’t inappropriate for faculty members may ask you to do things outside of the realm of academia (you can feel free to accept or decline as you wish). When I was in my graduate program a faculty member asked if I could help him move one weekend. I helped him for an hour and a half, and he gave me $100. 

He was trying to be nice to me, and he certainly didn’t take advantage of the power dynamic. However, I was working as an assistant on a research project and getting paid $12/hr, and I jokingly chided him for paying me more for my brawn than my brains.

Final Thoughts

The life of a PhD student is not easy, but it is rewarding. Time and time again, I’ve seen the difference between students who complete their doctoral programs and those who don’t is whether they’re able to get enough support.

That’s why I started offering Dissertation Coaching Services . I help PhD students get through the dissertation phase of their doctoral programs, successfully defend them, and graduate with their degrees.

If you are interested in receiving support from a Dissertation Chair through weekly coaching sessions, feedback on your work, and accountability tools, book a free 30-minute consultation . As of this writing, I am nearing capacity, so please do so soon if you would like to participate.

Steve Tippins

Steve Tippins, PhD, has thrived in academia for over thirty years. He continues to love teaching in addition to coaching recent PhD graduates as well as students writing their dissertations. Learn more about his dissertation coaching and career coaching services. Book a Free Consultation with Steve Tippins

Related Posts

Dissertation

What makes a good research question.

Creating a good research question is vital to successfully completing your dissertation. Here are some tips that will help you formulate a good research question.  What Makes a Good Research Question? These are the three Read more…

Dissertation Structure

When it comes to writing a dissertation, one of the most fraught questions asked by graduate students is about dissertation structure. A dissertation is the lengthiest writing project that many graduate students ever undertake, and Read more…

Choosing a Dissertation Chair

Choosing your dissertation chair is one of the most important decisions that you’ll make in graduate school. Your dissertation chair will in many ways shape your experience as you undergo the most rigorous intellectual challenge Read more…

Make This Your Last Round of Dissertation Revision.

Learn How to Get Your Dissertation Accepted .

Discover the 5-Step Process in this Free Webinar .

Almost there!

Please verify your email address by clicking the link in the email message we just sent to your address.

If you don't see the message within the next five minutes, be sure to check your spam folder :).

Hack Your Dissertation

5-Day Mini Course: How to Finish Faster With Less Stress

Interested in more helpful tips about improving your dissertation experience? Join our 5-day mini course by email!

Caught between academic calling and academic pressure? Working time characteristics, time pressure and time sovereignty predict PhD students’ research engagement

• Open access
• Published: 08 September 2023

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Theun Pieter van Tienoven   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1532-254X 1 ,
• Anaïs Glorieux   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8127-792X 1 ,
• Joeri Minnen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7494-2004 1 &
• Bram Spruyt   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0573-724X 1  

2034 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

PhD students come to work in academic environments that are characterized by long working hours and work done on non-standard hours due to increasing job demands and metric evaluation systems. Yet their long working hours and work at non-standard hours are often seen as a logical consequence of their intellectual quest and academic calling and may even serve as a proxy for their research engagement. Against that background, quantitative data from 514 PhD students were used to unravel the complex relationships between different aspects of time use and PhD students’ work engagement. While the results support the academia as a calling thesis to some extent, they also show that the relationships between long and non-standard working hours and research engagement are partly negated by the fact that the same working time characteristics lead to perceived time pressure and lack of time sovereignty, which in turn negatively affects their engagement. Moreover, the mechanism behind this negation varies across scientific disciplines. These subjective working time characteristics are the same alarm signals that are flagged as risk factors in academic staff for occupational stress, burnout, and work-life imbalance and thus cannot be ignored.

Similar content being viewed by others

Work-Life Balance: Exploring the Myths and Realities of Family, Home, Work, and Life Pressures for Early Career Academics

Academic Work, Working Conditions and Job Satisfaction

Maritime education factors and presenteeism: a comparative quantitative study

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Occupational stress in (early career) academics as a result of long working hours, non-standard work, the managerialism of work, and stressors outside the workplace is well documented in the academic literature (Lee et al., 2022 ; Sabagh et al., 2018 ; Watts and Robertson, 2011 ). PhD students, however, are hardly included in the occupational group of academics, presumably due to the lack of clarity about their employment situation (Flora, 2007 ). PhD scholarships are often fiscally exempted. Consequently, PhD students with university, external, or personal funds, or when hired as graduate teaching assistants, sign scholarship agreements which are not fully comparable to an employment contract. As a result, PhD students are much more often evaluated in terms of their motivation to pursue a PhD (Naylor et al., 2016 ; Skakni, 2018 ) and the obstacles, challenges, and hurdles they encounter on their ‘perilous journey’ (Woolston, 2019 , 2022 ). Similar, the assessment of their workload is often made in terms of combining a teaching assignment with doctoral research (Borrego et al., 2021 ; Muzaka, 2009 ) or being used as cheap labour for several research tasks (Zhao et al., 2007 ). The most specific hard numbers regarding PhD students’ time use and occupational stress come from the 2022 Nature Graduate Survey in which 43.1% of PhD students worldwide report working on average 50 h per week or more. Around 40% is not or not at all satisfied with their working hours, and almost half mentions their work/life balance in the top three of the most challenging issues when conducting PhD research (Nature Research, 2022 ). To the best of our knowledge, working hours of PhD students are seldom evaluated beyond these proxies. This is a knowledge gap: time use is a multidimensional phenomenon including more than how long PhD students work (i.e. duration), but also when they work (i.e. timing of work) or how work is embedded in their daily lives (i.e. sequence of work and other activities) (Zerubavel, 1985 ). Moreover, these temporal aspects of working time can give rise to experiences such as time pressure or time sovereignty. Such experiences result from the combination of objective characteristics of time use and the expectations regarding these characteristics. Only by documenting these different aspects of time use and subsequently unravelling their mutual relationships with regard to outcomes can scientists get a deep understanding of the relevance of working time characteristics for PhD students. This contribution aims to address this lacune in scientific knowledge by assessing objective and subjective working time characteristics and associating them with PhD students’ engagement in their PhD research.

This paper focusses on PhD students. However, due to the lack of thorough studies on working hours specific to PhD students, we first describe the characteristics of the working environment (i.e. academia) in which they conduct their research. This gives us a better grasp of the relevant aspects of working time characteristics and their association with work engagement.

Long working hours and weekend work in academia result from high academic job demands (Anderson, 2006 ; Kinman and Jones, 2008 ). Several challenges have been reported to contribute to increasing job demands. The need to balance teaching demands and research workload is a considerable challenge that can lead to role conflict (Sabagh et al., 2018 ) and time conflict (Tham and Holland, 2018 ). This is further aggravated by ‘corporatisation’ (Holmwood, 2014 ) or the ‘managerialism phenomenon’ (Erickson et al., 2021 ; Lee et al., 2022 ) which signifies universities’ high performance-based management focussed on high academic productivity and metric-driven performance markers. Consequently, academics report an increasing workload as well as an increase in the need to work outside contractual hours to meet work requirements (Fetherston et al., 2021 ; Houston et al., 2006 ; Kinman and Jones, 2008 ).

The excess working hours result in a ‘work-life merge’ which, according to a study by Fetherston et al. ( 2021 ), is largely considered necessary by academics to meet increasing job demands in the first place and a major cause of time pressure (Watts and Robertson, 2011 ). This undermines the idea of flexible working hours which has been suggested to be helpful to academic parents (Jakubiec, 2015 ). It also conflicts with the idea of the ‘academic calling’, i.e. academia being a vital part of who one is, where long working days are not experienced as such (Fetherston et al., 2021 ). In fact, high job demands, increasing workload, and work-life merge contribute to occupational stress (Lee et al., 2022 ), burnout (Sabagh et al., 2018 ), and severe disruption of work-life balance (Ashencaen Crabtree et al., 2021 ; Kinman and Jones, 2008 ). On the contrary, a well-balanced teaching load and research time are associated with significantly lower levels of emotional exhaustion (Gonzalez and Bernard, 2006 ). Similarly, a review by Sabagh et al. ( 2018 ) finds that engagement—the energetic and effective connection with one’s work (Schaufeli et al., 2006a )—can serve as buffer for the negative consequences of the increasing academic job demands. The above arguments further underscore that if we study the relevance of time allocation in academia, we should not only focus on its objective characteristics (e.g. number of hours) but also how these are experienced.

• PhD students

PhD students represent a particular and vulnerable academic group, not only because they are the lowest in the academic hierarchy, but also because their status as employee is not always clear (Flora, 2007 ). Their scholarships are often fiscally exempted, and scholarship agreements do not always fully correspond to the rights and benefits of employment contracts. More importantly, their progress and successful completion are highly dependent on the support they receive from their supervisor (Heath, 2002 ; Lee, 2008 ). Research shows that ultimately supervisors’ support is more important than their academic qualities in achieving a PhD (Dericks et al., 2019 ). However, it is precisely these academic qualities that supervisors are (increasingly) judged on in metric output-oriented academia (e.g. citation score, number of publications, amount and type of project funding, number of MA and PhD students under their supervision). There is ample reason to belief that the above-mentioned increasing job demands are reflected upon PhD students as well.

The existing research supports the latter assumption. PhD students across all scientific disciplines sometimes come into contact with exploitative supervisor behaviour (Zhao et al., 2007 ). This seems particularly true for graduate teaching assistants. Their increasing teaching load shifts the balance between teaching duties and research time even further resulting in substantial time pressure and a low expectation of obtaining their PhD at all (Glorieux et al., forthcoming ). In contexts where the teaching load is much more distributed amongst all PhD students, such as in the Netherlands and the UK (Park and Ramos, 2002 ; Sonneveld and Tigchelaar, 2009 ), the pressure is partly relieved for the specific group of teaching assistants. PhD students’ scholarship status, as opposed to employment status, means that completing their PhD trajectory is often studied in terms of motivational characteristics such as an intellectual quest or self-actualization (Naylor et al., 2016 ; Skakni, 2018 ). Such individualistic lens, however, neglects the relevance of the more structural characteristics of their work environment and how PhD students cope with them. As a result, not much knowledge exists on PhD students’ working hour characteristics. This contribution aims to provide an impetus to close this knowledge gap.

Additionally, it seems that working conditions of academics in (bio)medical sciences and sciences disciplines are traditionally more vocalized in scientific journals. This was once more demonstrated when discussing the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic (see discussion in Van Tienoven et al., 2022 ). Although all disciplines face increasing job demands due to metric-driven productivity evaluations, each discipline comes with its particular characteristics of doing PhD research that impact working time.

Human sciences, for example, are characterized by more individual work. PhD students in these disciplines usually have to come up with their own research project. To secure their own funding, they have to write grant proposals (Torka, 2018 ) or—more than PhD students in other disciplines—take on teaching tasks (Groenvynck et al., 2011 ). Doctoral research in the human sciences is often quite isolated, in the sense that the PhD student is the only person that is appointed to the project (Torka, 2018 ), which could increase the pressure to get everything done. In addition, participating in public debates and writing commissioned reports—more common in the human sciences—can reduce the time they can spend on their PhD research. All this makes the development of a research plan with clear milestones and deadlines all the more important, as organic teamwork usually does not occur.

This is different in the natural sciences, where PhD students are usually part of a larger research team (Larivière, 2012 ; Torka, 2018 ) and usually receive more financial support through departmental programmes (Sverdlik et al., 2018 ). These PhD students often do not have their own individual projects but are responsible for part of a collective project. For example, PhD students in the natural sciences are more dependent on external factors (e.g. the progress of other people’s work, the availability of labs and equipment). As a result, the planning of their project depends on mutual agreements, and they often have much less control over the exact timing (Torka, 2018 ).

The above-mentioned differences in experience and needs with regard to the organization of working time lead to assess the potential moderating role of the scientific discipline for the relationships that we study.

Working time indicators

From the above, it becomes clear that working time can be conceptualised based on objective and subjective indicators. Objective then relates to calculable indicators such as the number of working hours, the times worked on non-standard hours, and the composition of the workload. In this study, objective time indicators are the number of working hours, the frequency of evening and weekend work, and the balance between teaching duties and research time. Yet following the ‘academic calling’ hypothesis, long working hours or working on non-standard work as such are not necessarily an issue for academics with high engagement in their work (Sabagh et al., 2018 ). For the latter, working long hours may be a means towards self-actualization. This, again, underscores the importance of including indicators of working time which tap into how working time is experienced such as the extent to which the workload and work-life merge lead to the feeling of constantly being pressed for time (Watts and Robertson, 2011 ) or the feeling of having no control or authority over one’s own time (Ashencaen Crabtree et al., 2021 ; Kinman and Jones, 2008 ).

Time pressure does not arise solely from having too little time but is also related to the aspirations that individuals have and the normative expectations that they experience to use their time (Kleiner, 2014 ). The latter are external to the individual and arise from the normative structures of their work environment. To measure the subjective experience of being pressed for time, we use an item scale that simultaneously gauges the feeling of not having enough time, the feeling of aspiring more than can be done in the current timeframe, and the feeling that normative expectations weigh too heavy on the allocation of time.

Additionally, the use of time is not limited to the work environment. We constantly face demands from different life spheres including our work life but, for example, also our family life and social life. The extent to which we can align these demands in function of our priorities and values depends on the extent to which we experience autonomy over our own time (Southerton, 2020 ). A lack of time sovereignty hampers setting boundaries and prioritizing activities that are meaningful and, thus, might result in an unhealthy integration of different life spheres.

In this study, we not only assess the relevance of these subjective indicators of working time, but also to what extent these indicators mediate the relationship between objective characteristics of time use and the outcome.

In summary, in this contribution, we analyse the objective and subjective working time indicators of PhD students and relate these characteristics to PhD students’ engagement in their doctoral research. The latter is a well-known predictor of the journey or intellectual quest in doctoral research. We assume that the ‘academic calling’ hypothesis holds for PhD students. However, we also acknowledge that once the number of working hours, the work done on non-standard hours, and the composition of the workload take the upper hand, issues such as time pressure and lack of time sovereignty come into play. We will test the hypothesis that the positive direct effect (i.e. the academic calling) is partially offset by a negative indirect effect that runs along indicators of subjective working time. Acknowledging potential differences in scientific disciplines, we also investigate to what extent we conclude differently on the hypothesis for different scientific disciplines.

Data and method

Data come from the 2022 PhD Survey held at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) in Belgium ( n  = 836; response rate = 45.4%). This annual survey is commissioned by the Researcher Training & Development Office (RTDO) at the VUB and conducted by the Research Group TOR (Tempus Omnia Revelat) at the same university. The PhD Survey serves as a monitor instrument to evaluate the support provided to PhD students by RTDO and at the same time monitors aspects of well-being and job satisfaction of PhD students. As a result, the strength of the data lies in the heterogeneity of PhD students surveyed. PhD students across all disciplines, regardless of their teaching duties and funding nature (i.e. external scientific, internal scientific, industry, teaching assistant, personal funds, unfunded) are included.

The 2022 survey is the fifth wave of the annual PhD Survey since it piloted in 2017. All PhD students registered at VUB on the 1st of January preceding the launch of the next wave are invited. Typically, PhD students start in October or November, but it is possible to start at any time of the academic year. Doctoral research typically lasts for 4 years and ends with a successful oral defence of the thesis.

The PhD Survey exists of a single online questionnaire that is hosted on the data collection platform MOTUS and accessible through the MOTUS web application. Footnote 1 The PhD Survey takes place in the last 2 weeks of April and the whole month of May. PhD students across all faculties receive an email with login credentials to participate in the survey. Up to two reminders are sent. PhD students are explicitly asked to give their consent before starting the questionnaire. The design of the study was approved by the ethics committee of the VUB (file number ECHW_318).

Institutional context

The VUB is located in the Brussels Capital Region in Belgium. In the academic year 2020–2021, just over 20,000 students were enrolled in 172 study programmes of which almost one third is taught in English. About 10% of all students are enrolled in PhD programmes. To be admitted to these programmes, PhD students can rely on different funding opportunities, such as general or themed scholarships from (inter)national funding institutions (e.g. the National Research Council), research funding from a research project or multiple research projects in the name of the supervisor, or by combining PhD research with a position as graduate teaching assistant (GTA).

At the start, PhD students enroll in the compulsory Doctoral Training Programme which facilitates PhD students with the possibility to develop their (research) skills through, for example, courses, seminars, workshops, and career coaching. There are three different doctoral schools under which all faculties are divided. The Doctoral School of Natural Sciences and (Bioscience) Engineering (NSE) includes the Faculty of Engineering Sciences and the Faculty of Sciences and Biosciences Engineering. The Doctoral School of Human Sciences (DSh) includes the Faculty of Social Sciences and Solvay Business School, the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Science, and the Faculty of Law and Criminology. The Doctoral School of Life Science and Medicine (LSM) includes the Faculty of Medical Sciences and Pharmacy and the Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy.

All PhD students are expected to engage in teaching for at most 20% of their time, except GTAs, who are expected to engage in teaching for at most 40% of their time. PhD students, including GTAs, are expected to use the remaining time for their research aimed at obtaining their PhD. Their doctoral research typically lasts for 4 years, or 6 years in case of GTAs, and ends with a successful oral defence of the thesis. Within Flanders, the Dutch-speaking community in Belgium and responsible for Dutch-language education, education is fairly equal. This also applies to the doctoral training. Universities apply equal admission conditions, and prestige differences between universities are much smaller than those known from Anglo-Saxon countries. Most doctoral students receive a similar salary. The universities in Flanders work in roughly the same way, which means that our findings can be extended to the Flemish context.

Explanatory variables

For the explanatory variables, we distinguish between objective and subjective indicators of working time. Objective means here that characteristics of the working time are questioned based on commonly shared and recognizable time indicators (e.g. the number of working hours, worked/not worked between 8 pm and 12 am). The answers to these questions remain the respondents’ estimates. Subjective means here that it concerns experienced characteristics of working time (e.g. experienced time pressure). They include a clear level of appreciation and result from the confrontation of the expected aspects of working time and its actual characteristics. The objective time indicators are the following.

Total working time. Estimated total working time in hours per week (scaled).

Share of non-research time . Expressed as a percentage and calculated as one minus the estimated time spent on research over the estimated total working time in hours per week. Outliers for time estimates are set at mean ± 1.5 times the interquartile range.

Non-standard working hours. A summation scale (ranging from 0 to 10) of the items ‘Work in evening (after 6 pm)’, ‘Work at night (after midnight)’, ‘Work on Saturday)’, and ‘Work on Sunday’ that were answered using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = always. A principal component analysis revealed one component with Eigenvalue = 2.494 and 62.3% of variance explained. Cronbach’s alpha equals 0.796, and the correlation between the factor score and summation score equals r  > 0.99.

The subjective time indicators are the following.

Experienced time pressure . Experienced time pressure is measured by a summation scale (ranging from 0 to 10) of the items ‘Too much is expected of me’, ‘I never catch up with my work’, ‘I never have time for myself’, ‘There are not enough hours in the day for me’, ‘I frequently have to cancel arrangements I have made’, ‘I have to do more than I want to do’, ‘I have no time to do the things I have to do’, and ‘More is expected from me than I can handle’ using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = totally agree (Van Tienoven et al., 2017 ). A principal component analysis revealed one component with Eigenvalue = 4.661 and 58.3% of variance explained. Cronbach’s alpha equals 0.895, and the correlation between the factor score and summation score equals r  > 0.99.

Experienced lack of time sovereignty. Experienced lack of time sovereignty is measured by an inverted summation scale (ranging from 0 to 10) of the items ‘I have enough influence on my working hours’, ‘I can adjust my working time to my family life’, ‘I have ample opportunities to take time off whenever that suits me’, and ‘The VUB/my supervisor offers sufficient opportunities for employees to adjust their tasks depending on their private situation’ that were answered using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = totally agree. A principal component analysis revealed one component with Eigenvalue = 2.577 and 64.4% of variance explained. Cronbach’s alpha equals 0.814, and the correlation between the factor score and summation score equals r  > 0.99.

Dependent variable

Most PhD students receive a grant, which means that their employment status is not always clear (Flora, 2007 ). Nevertheless, they end up in a professional work environment with job demands and responsibilities expected of an employee; the most important of which is conducting research. To measure the extent of engagement in PhD research , we therefore use the validated 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9) in combination with three items that measure intrinsic motivation, which is also specific to the scholarship status of PhD students (Skakni, 2018 ). The UWES-9 measures vigour, dedication, and absorption based on three items per aspect of work engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2006b ). The items are the following: ‘At my job, I feel like bursting with energy’, ‘At my job, I feel strong and vigorous’, and ‘When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work’ for vigour; ‘I am immersed in my work’, ‘I get carried away when I’m working’, ‘I am happy when I’m working intensely’ for absorption; and ‘I am enthusiastic about my job’, ‘I am proud of the work that I do’, ‘My job inspires me’ for dedication. The UWES-9 scale has demonstrated high internal consistency and validity (Schaufeli et al., 2006a ). Previous work with this scale revealed that people who score high on the work engagement scale, score lower on aspects of burnout, report lower levels of depression and distress, and score higher on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. High scores on the work engagement scale also correlate positively with job characteristics such as autonomy, performance feedback, and task variety (for a discussion, see Saks and Gruman, 2014 ).

Unlike most paid work, the PhD track has a clear finality that is motivated professionally, intellectually, or by a desire for self-actualization (Skakni, 2018 ). In social cognitive theory, this intrinsic motivation reflects the willingness and interest to pursue efforts and thus engage oneself in PhD research (Gu et al., 2017 ). To measure the specificity of engagement in PhD research in a more meaningful and relevant way, we therefore add three additional items that explicitly measure the intrinsic motivation to pursue a PhD. At the same time, this brings the construct of engagement more in line with the idea of an academic calling. The added items are the following: ‘I can make the world a better place with the work that I do’, ‘I’m helping science move forward with the work that I do’, and ‘I improve things with the work that I do’. All items were answered using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = I never have this feeling to 4 = I always have this feeling. Engagement is then measured based on a summation scale (ranging from 0 to10). A principal component analysis revealed one component with Eigenvalue = 6.076 and 50.6% of variance explained. Cronbach’s alpha equals 0.908, and the correlation between the factor score and summation score equals r  > 0.99.

Control variables

Given that the work-life merge is of much more concern for female academics (Toffoletti and Starr, 2016 ) and female academics are reported to be more vulnerable to the negative consequences of increasing job demands than male academics (Watts and Robertson, 2011 ), we control for sex using a dummy for female. Due to small numbers, PhD students that identify themselves as non-binary are omitted from the data ( n  = 3).

Where in Anglo-Saxon countries, the form of funding (e.g. fellowship, research assistant, teaching assistant) influences the amount of time available for research (Grote et al., 2021 ), the allocation of PhD students’ time over teaching and research is much more formally arranged in northwestern continental Europe. Acknowledging that research skills might be enhanced by teaching experience (Jucks and Hillbrink, 2017 ) and protecting PhD students from becoming means to mitigate increasing teaching demands, contracts in Belgium stipulate that PhD students are not expected to spend more than 20% of their time on teaching (e.g. guest lectures, grading, BA or MA thesis supervision). For GTAs, this is 40%. However, both regular PhD students and GTAs often indicate that when they also include preparation for teaching, they often spend much more time on it than expected (Machette, 2021 ). This applies in particular to younger PhD students. Since PhD students, regardless of their funding type, are expected to teach, we use a dummy variable to control for whether teaching exceeds contractual hours . PhD students estimated their weekly time spent on teaching activities in the PhD Survey. Outliers were set at over 38 h per week (i.e. the equivalent of a fulltime workweek). If the ratio time spent teaching over total working time exceeded 20% (or 40% in case of GTAs), PhD students are considered to teach more than contractually stipulated.

Analysis plan

We apply structural equation modelling in R with the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012 ) to investigate whether and how objective and subjective indicators of working time associate with engagement in PhD research. First, an overall path model is fitted for the entire sample. Next, we aim to explore whether these associations vary by scientific discipline. Therefore, we stratify the models by doctoral schools at the VUB.

Model fit will be determined based on Chi-square, CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR. Cut-off points for fit measures are set following Hu and Bentler ( 1999 ): CFI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.07, and SRMS < 0.05. The model fit statistics assess to what extent the patterns identified in this sample can be generalized to the underlying population. As the PhD survey is an annual survey, an alternative and arguably stricter test regarding the stability and generality of our models entails that we re-estimate our model on different samples. Therefore, in the Supplementary Material Appendix, Table A1, we provide the results for the data from the 2021 and 2020 edition of the PhD survey. These analyses confirmed the substantive conclusions derived from the analysis of the 2022 data. We test the equality of regression coefficients using Wald’s z -test (Paternoster et al., 1998 ). Table 1 shows the characteristics for the total sample and stratified by doctoral schools.

PhD students score 6.3 on 10 for their engagement in their PhD research, and this does not vary across doctoral schools nor does their score for working on non-standard hours (3.6 on 10). PhD students spend on average a third of their time on other tasks than their PhD research. In the doctoral school of NSE, this share is substantially lower. PhD students across all doctoral schools say to work just over 40 h per week. Experienced time pressure tends to be higher, and experienced time sovereignty tends to be lower in the doctoral school of LSM. Albeit the sample exists of equal shares of female and male PhD students, female PhD students are significantly underrepresented in the doctoral school of NSE. Finally, just under one in five PhD students report that their teaching exceeds contractual hours.

Working time experience and engagement in PhD research

Figure 1 shows the overall path model with standardized regression coefficients. The model fit indices show a good fit (chi-square = 11.323, CFI = 0.997, RMSEA = 0.016, SRMR = 0.024). Additionally, the overall path models for earlier waves of the PhD Survey (2021 and 2020) show that results are replicable (see Supplementary Material Appendix A, Table A1).

Path model (wave = 2022, n  = 514), *** p ≤ 0.001, ** p ≤ 0.01, * p ≤ 0.05, (*) p ≤ 0.10

The variables that control the objective time indicators show that the hypothesized associations between sex and working on non-standard hours or total working time are not significant (see Table 2 ). Working on non-standard hours (β = 0.088), the share of total working time not spent on research (β = 0.334), and total working time (β = 0.168) significantly increase when teaching exceeds the number of hours stipulated in the contract. Total working hours (β = 0.162) and the extent of non-standard working hours (β = 0.211) are significantly and positively associated with the engagement in PhD research. All three objective indicators of working time associate significantly positively with subjective indicators of working time and, in turn, these subjective indicators associate significantly negatively with engagement in PhD research. The feeling of being pressed for time significantly increases with a larger share of total working time not spent on research (β = 0.222), with more work being done on non-standard hours (β = 0.190) and with total working time (β = 0.135). Similarly, the feeling of lacking control over one’s working time in function of other responsibilities also increases with more working time not spent on research (β = 0.135) or done on non-standard hours (β = 0.157) and with longer working weeks (β = 0.231). In turn, the more time pressure one experiences (β =  − 0.243) and the more lack of time sovereignty one experiences (β =  − 0.135), the lower one’s engagement in PhD research.

Table 3 shows that the total effect of working on non-standard hours on engagement in PhD research is β = 0.144, because the direct positive effect of working on non-standard hours (β = 0.211) is offset by the indirect negative effect of working on non-standard hours that runs along experienced time pressure (β =  − 0.046) and along experienced lack of time sovereignty (β =  − 0.021). Similarly, the total effect of total working time on engagement in PhD research is β = 0.098 because the direct effect (β = 0.162) is offset by negative indirect effects that run along experienced time pressure (β =  − 0.033) and experienced lack of time sovereignty (β =  − 0.031). The university-wide results confirm our hypothesis. Indeed, the positive direct effect parameter of working long and non-standard hours on engagement in PhD research is partially offset by a negative indirect relationship that runs along indicators of experienced time pressure and lack of time sovereignty.

Differences by doctoral schools

Table 4 shows the standardized regression coefficients of the path model stratified by doctoral schools. When we first look at the control variables, we see that there are no differences between female and male PhD students when it comes to working on non-standard working hours. Only in the DSh do female PhD students report lower total working time than their male peers (β =  − 0.157). In all doctoral schools, PhD students report higher total working hours and a higher share of working time not spent on research when their teaching exceeds the contractual hours. The pairwise comparison of regression coefficients shows that the size of the effects is not significantly different between doctoral schools. Only PhD students in the doctoral school of NSE score significantly higher on the scale of non-standard working hours when their teaching exceeds the contractual hours (β = 0.127).

Direct effects are found in all doctoral schools, except for the association between total working time and engagement in PhD research in the doctoral school of LSM. The pairwise comparison of regression coefficients shows no differences in effect sizes across all doctoral schools.

Before concluding on the indirect effects, we look at the separate effects between objective and subjective indicators on the one hand and subjective indicators and engagement on the other. We start with experienced time pressure. In the doctoral school of DSh, all three objective indicators of working time associate significantly positively with experienced time pressure. In the doctoral school of LSM, feelings of time pressure only significantly increase when the share of non-research time increases. The same holds for the doctoral school of NSE. However, here, the degree of working non-standard hours also leads to more perceived time pressure. Although feelings of time pressure are affected by objective working time indicators differently across the doctoral schools, it remains that time pressure reduces PhD students’ engagement in their research across all doctoral schools. The pairwise comparison of regression coefficients also shows that effect sizes are equal in all doctoral schools.

Next, we look at the lack of time sovereignty. The extent of work done on non-standard hours significantly increases the lack of time sovereignty for PhD students in the doctoral schools of DSh and NSE. The effect parameter for the doctoral school of DSh (β = 0.287) is the largest and significantly larger than for the doctoral school of LSM (Δβ = 0.311). In both the doctoral school of DSh and LSM does an increased share of non-research time significantly increase the lack of time sovereignty. Again, the effect parameter is the largest for the doctoral school of DSh (β = 0.248). Finally, the total working time only associates positively with lack of time sovereignty in the doctoral schools of LSM and NSE. For both doctoral schools, the effect parameters (β = 0.296 and β = 0.322, respectively) are significantly larger than in the doctoral school of DSh (Δβ = 0.260 and Δβ = 0.286, respectively). Albeit the difference between regression coefficients across doctoral schools is not different from zero, we only find that an increase in the experience of lack of time sovereignty reduces PhD students’ engagement in their research in the doctoral school of NSE.

To test our hypothesis, Table 5 decomposes the total effect of working on non-standard hours and total working time into its direct and its indirect effects. The positive, direct effects are as reported in Table 4 . The negative, indirect effect of non-standard work that runs along experienced time pressure is only significant in the doctoral school of DSh and the doctoral school of NSE (β =  − 0.070 and β =  − 0.032). The indirect effect of non-standard work that runs along experienced lack of time sovereignty is only significant in the doctoral school of NSE (β =  − 0.029). No indirect effects of working on non-standard hours are found for the doctoral school of LSM. The result is that the total effect of non-standard hours on engagement in PhD research is significant for the doctoral school of DSh and NSE (β = 0.134 and β = 0.142, respectively) but not for LSM.

The indirect effect of total working time that runs along experienced time pressure is only significant for the doctoral school of DSh (β =  − 0.054) whereas the negative indirect effect that runs along experienced lack of time sovereignty is only significant for the doctoral school of NSE (β =  − 0.064). Again, the doctoral school of LSM reports no significant indirect effects. As a result, the total effect of total working time on engagement in PhD research is not significant for the doctoral school of LSM. The significant direct effect of total working time in the doctoral school of DSh is offset by the indirect negative effect of total working time such that the overall effect is insignificant. Only for the doctoral of NSE we found an overall positive effect on engagement in PhD research (β = 0.131).

The stratification of the analysis by disciplines leads us to partially confirm our hypothesis. The next section will discuss the meaning hereof in more detail.

Large-scale comparative research indicates that a substantial share of PhD students is unsatisfied with their long working hours and has experienced trouble with their work-life balance (Nature Research, 2022 ). Yet, PhD students are seldom evaluated in terms of their working hours. The focus lies much more on the perilous journey they embark on, and the extent to which their intrinsic motivation can overcome barriers during their intellectual quest (Naylor et al., 2016 ; Skakni, 2018 ; Woolston, 2022 ). At the same time, though, PhD students are employed in an environment that is highly susceptible to occupational stress and reduced well-being because of the working hours’ characteristics (Lee et al., 2022 ; Sabagh et al., 2018 ; Watts & Robertson, 2011 ). It is therefore remarkable that PhD students are rarely studied in terms of their working time distribution and, if they are, rarely looked at beyond the number of hours worked. It is reasonable to assume that, as with academic staff, other characteristics of working time, such as non-standard work or subjective experiences such as the work-life merge, also play a role for PhD students.

This contribution aims to shed light on the working time characteristics of PhD students and the extent to which they impact their engagement with their PhD research. It contributes to the existing knowledge on working conditions and the well-being of PhD students in three ways. Firstly, it looks beyond the idea that PhD students embark on a journey with all its (intellectual) challenges (Naylor et al., 2016 ; Skakni, 2018 ) and views PhD students as employees entering an academic work environment that, due to its high job demands and metric-based assessment criteria, may well cause occupational stress and a work-life merge (Fetherston et al., 2021 ). We, thus, assume that working time characteristics of PhD students, both in objective terms such as non-standard hours and long working days as well as in subjective terms such as time pressure and lack of time sovereignty, affect their engagement in their PhD research. Secondly, rather than using a single measure of (the amount of) working time, our study acknowledges the multidimensionality of the allocation of working time. By distinguishing different dimensions and using structural equation modelling to unravel their mutual relationships and predictive power regarding our outcome, we offer a much more nuanced view on PhD students’ time use. Thirdly, we use a university-wide sample of PhD students. This allows us to investigate potential differences in the association between working time characteristics and engagement in PhD research across scientific disciplines under similar institutional conditions.

In this contribution, we showed that, in general, working non-standard hours and working long hours impact engagement in PhD research both directly and indirectly. The direct effects are positive, meaning that working long and non-standard hours are associated with higher engagement in PhD research. This concurs with the idea of PhD research being an academic calling (Sabagh et al., 2018 ). It signifies a certain degree of motivation and commitment which in turn may of course also feed the number of working hours. However, this academic calling (and the possible mutually reinforcing dynamic between academic calling and the number of working hours) has a downside. There are also indirect effects of working non-standard hours and working long hours which run along experienced time pressure and experienced lack of time sovereignty that negatively associate with engagement in PhD research. In other words, and this is a crucial insight, the expected positive direct relationship for engaged PhD students might be offset by the negative indirect effects of long working days and non-standard work. Albeit the total effect remains positive, we, thus, must be aware that when it comes to working time characteristics two opposite mechanisms are at play. Long working hours and atypical work characterize committed PhD students, but at the same time, they can cause negative work experiences such as time pressure and lack of time sovereignty, which actually reduce their commitment. This finding raises some important questions for future exploration. Is there a threshold at which the negative experiences of long and non-standard hours overtake the positive impact of seeing one’s research as an academic calling (Conway et al., 2017 )? Or is the downside of an academic calling that PhD students work long hours and are very engaged in their research, but as a result of which setbacks in their research or personal life have a much greater impact (Sonnentag et al., 2008 )?

There are some outstanding differences, however, when looking at different scientific disciplines. We used the university’s doctoral schools as proxies for scientific disciplines: human sciences, sciences and engineering, and life sciences and medicine. Remarkably, we did not find any significant direct or indirect effect parameter of long working hours on engagement in PhD research for PhD students in life sciences and medicine. We did find a direct effect parameter of non-standard working hours on their engagement in PhD research but that was offset by the indirect effects completely rendering the total effect statistically insignificant. Working hour characteristics, therefore, seem to affect engagement in PhD research the least in the life sciences and medicine. Possible explanations are that PhD students combine their PhD research with already less regular schedules of specialist training in the hospital. Especially in medicine, irregular and long working hours are part of the job and possibly already expected and anticipated by PhD students based on their BA and MA experiences.

The opposite is found for PhD students in sciences and engineering. Although working non-standard hours and long working days positively affect their engagement in PhD research, the effect parameters of both indictors are offset by negative indirect effects that run along experienced lack of time sovereignty. Additionally, the effect parameter of working non-standard hours is offset by the negative indirect effect that runs along experienced time pressure. Compared to the other disciplines, the indirect effect that runs along the experienced lack of time sovereignty is the largest for this discipline. Possible explanations are that PhD students in sciences and technology are often part of larger projects in which they carry out partial research. Moreover, they are much more dependent than other disciplines on fixed time slots for technical machines, devices, and laboratory settings for conducting experiments. The resulting time constraints and the fact that their research results serve a greater research project may diminish their control over their own time to a greater extent and impose a degree of time pressure.

When it comes to time pressure, the largest indirect effects are reported for PhD students in human sciences. The positive direct effect of long working hours on their engagement in their PhD research is offset by the negative indirect effect that runs along experienced time pressure, rendering the total effect of long working hours insignificant. Although the total effect of working non-standard hours remains positively significant, the direct effect is offset by a third by the indirect effect that runs along time pressure. Possible explanations are that the human sciences, more than other scientific disciplines, are in much more direct and much more contact with their stakeholders in society. PhD students in the human sciences are usually more involved in pure activism and social impact initiatives. Moreover, it is a branch of science that receives a lot of resources from research projects commissioned by governments or interest groups (e.g. on education, culture, media, politics). PhD students who are funded through such projects spend a lot of time on stakeholder and science communication. All these extra tasks may lead to more perceived time pressure to get everything done.

This contribution is not without its limitations. This survey uses self-reported estimates of working hour characteristics. It is known that time diary methodology is more reliable. However, it is also known to require longer fieldwork periods and more effort from respondents. As such, it is not in line with the current study design but worth considering in future iterations to get a more reliable grasp of the temporal characteristics of doing PhD research. In its current form, not much is known about attrition of the sample. PhD students that faced a severe impact from working hours characteristics on their work-life or well-being might have dropped out. In that case, we may be underestimating the problem. Linking future research with the university’s administrative data would provide more information about attrition due to drop-out.

PhD students come to work in academic environments that are characterized by long working hours and work done on non-standard hours due to increasing job demands and metric evaluation systems. They are motivated by an intellectual quest and an academic calling that makes them put up with long working days and non-standard work which signifies their engagement in their PhD research. However, there is a downside that needs attention. The same working hour characteristics could indirectly affect their engagement negatively because they result in experiencing time pressure and lack of time sovereignty. These are the same alarm signals that are flagged as risk factors in academic staff for occupational stress, burnout, and work-life imbalance.

Data Availability

Raw data cannot be shared publicly because of the institution’s privacy regulations. Data code necessary to replicate results are available from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel’s Institutional Data Access (contact via [email protected]) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

MOTUS research platform 2016–2022. Available from:  https://www.motusresearch.io/en .

Anderson, G. (2006). Carving out time and space in the managerial university. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19 (5), 578–592.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ashencaen Crabtree, S., Esteves, L., & Hemingway, A. (2021). A ‘new (ab) normal’?: Scrutinising the work-life balance of academics under lockdown. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45 (9), 1177–1191.

Borrego, M., Choe, N. H., Nguyen, K., & Knight, D. B. (2021). STEM doctoral student agency regarding funding. Studies in Higher Education, 46 (4), 737–749.

Conway, S. H., Pompeii, L. A., Ruiz, G., de Porras, D., Follis, J. L., & Roberts, R. E. (2017). The identification of a threshold of long work hours for predicting elevated risks of adverse health outcomes. American Journal of Epidemiology, 186 (2), 173–183.

Dericks, G., Thompson, E., Roberts, M., & Phua, F. (2019). Determinants of PhD student satisfaction: the roles of supervisor, department, and peer qualities. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 44 (7), 1053–1068.

Erickson, M., Hanna, P., & Walker, C. (2021). The UK higher education senior management survey: A statactivist response to managerialist governance. Studies in Higher Education, 46 (11), 2134–2151.

Fetherston, C., Fetherston, A., Batt, S., Sully, M., & Wei, R. (2021). Wellbeing and work-life merge in Australian and UK academics. Studies in Higher Education, 46 (12), 2774–2788.

Flora, B. H. (2007). Graduate assistants: Students or staff, policy or practice? The current legal employment status of graduate assistants. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29 (3), 315–322.

Glorieux, A., Spruyt, B., Te Braak, P., Minnen, J., & van Tienoven, T. P. (forthcoming). When the student becomes the teacher: Determinants of self-estimated successful PhD completion among graduate teaching assistants.

Gonzalez, S., & Bernard, H. (2006). Academic workload typologies and burnout among faculty in seventh-day adventist colleges and universities in North America. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 15 (1), 13–37.

Groenvynck, H., Vandeveld, K., Van Rossem, R., Leyman, A., De Grande, H., Derycke, H., & De Boyser, K. (2011). Doctoraatstrajecten in Vlaanderen. 20 jaar investeren in kennispotentieel. Een analyse op basis van de HRRF-databank (1990–2009). Leuven: Academia Press.

Grote, D., Patrick, A., Lyles, C., Knight, D., Borrego, M., & Alsharif, A. (2021). STEM doctoral students’ skill development: Does funding mechanism matter? International Journal of STEM Education, 8 , 1–19.

Gu, J., He, C., & Liu, H. (2017). Supervisory styles and graduate student creativity: the mediating roles of creative self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation. Studies in Higher Education, 42 (4), 721–742.

Google Scholar  

Heath, T. (2002). A quantitative analysis of PhD students’ views of supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 21 (1), 41–53.

Holmwood, J. (2014). From social rights to the market: Neoliberalism and the knowledge economy. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33 (1), 62–76.

Houston, D., Meyer, L. H., & Paewai, S. (2006). Academic staff workloads and job satisfaction: Expectations and values in academe. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28 (1), 17–30.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6 (1), 1–55.

Jakubiec, B. A. E. (2015). Academic Motherhood:" Silver Linings and Clouds". Antistasis, 5 (2), 42–49.

Jucks, R., & Hillbrink, A. (2017). Perspective on research and teaching in psychology: Enrichment or burden? Psychology Learning & Teaching, 16 (3), 306–322.

Kinman, G., & Jones, F. (2008). A life beyond work? Job demands, work-life balance, and wellbeing in UK academics. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 17 (1–2), 41–60.

Kleiner, S. (2014). Subjective time pressure: General or domain specific? Social Science Research, 47 , 108–120.

Larivière, V. (2012). On the shoulders of students? The contribution of PhD students to the advancement of knowledge. Scientometrics, 90 , 463–481.

Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33 (3), 267–281.

Lee, M., Coutts, R., Fielden, J., Hutchinson, M., Lakeman, R., Mathisen, B., Nasrawi, D., & Phillips, N. (2022). Occupational stress in university academics in Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 44 (1), 57–71.

Machette, A. T. (2021). Dialectical tensions of graduate teaching assistants. Texas Speech Communication Journal, 45 , 13–28.

Muzaka, V. (2009). The niche of graduate teaching assistants (GTAs): Perceptions and reflections. Teaching in Higher Education, 14 (1), 1–12.

Naylor, R., Chakravarti, S., & Baik, C. (2016). Differing motivations and requirements in PhD student cohorts: A case study. Issues Educ Res, 26 (2), 351–367.

Nature Research. (2022). Nature Careers Graduate Survey 2022. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21277575.v3

Park, C., & Ramos, M. (2002). The donkey in the department? Insights into the graduate teaching assistant (GTA) experience in the UK. Journal of Graduate Education, 3 (2), 47–53.

Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36 (4), 859–866.

Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48 , 1–36.

Sabagh, Z., Hall, N. C., & Saroyan, A. (2018). Antecedents, correlates and consequences of faculty burnout. Educational Research, 60 (2), 131–156.

Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25 (2), 155–182.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006a). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66 (4), 701–716.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006b). Utrecht work engagement scale-9 (UWES-9). APA PsycTests . https://doi.org/10.1037/t05561-000

Skakni, I. (2018). Reasons, motives and motivations for completing a PhD: A typology of doctoral studies as a quest. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 9 (2), 197–212.

Sonnentag, S., Mojza, E. J., Binnewies, C., & Scholl, A. (2008). Being engaged at work and detached at home: A week-level study on work engagement, psychological detachment, and affect. Work & Stress, 22 (3), 257–276.

Sonneveld, H., & Tigchelaar, A. (2009). Promovendi en het Onderwijs [PhD Students and Education] . http://www.phdcentre.eu/inhoud/uploads/2018/02/Promovendienhetonderwijs.pdf

Southerton, D. (2020). Time scarcity: Work, home and personal lives. In D. Southerton (Ed.), Time, consumption and the coordination of everyday life (pp. 43–67). Palgrave Macmillan.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Sverdlik, A., Hall, N. C., McAlpine, L., & Hubbard, K. (2018). The PhD experience: A review of the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and well-being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13 , 361–388.

Tham, T. L., & Holland, P. (2018). What do business school academics want? Reflections from the national survey on workplace climate and well-being: Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Management & Organization, 24 (4), 492–499.

Toffoletti, K., & Starr, K. (2016). Women academics and work–life balance: Gendered discourses of work and care. Gender, Work & Organization, 23 (5), 489–504.

Torka, M. (2018). Projectification of doctoral training? How research fields respond to a new funding regime. Minerva, 56 (1), 59–83.

van Tienoven, T. P., Minnen, J., & Glorieux, I. (2017). The statistics of the time pressure scale . Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Research Group TOR.

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 (5), e0268923.

Watts, J., & Robertson, N. (2011). Burnout in university teaching staff: A systematic literature review. Educational Research, 53 (1), 33–50.

Woolston, C. (2019). PhD poll reveals fear and joy, contentment and anguish. Nature, 575 , 403–406.

Woolston, C. (2022). Stress and uncertainty drag down graduate students’ satisfaction. Nature, 610 (7933), 805–808.

Zerubavel, E. (1985). Hidden rhythms: Schedules and calendars in social life . Berkeley: Univ of California Press.

Zhao, C. M., Golde, C. M., & McCormick, A. C. (2007). More than a signature: How advisor choice and advisor behaviour affect doctoral student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31 (3), 263–281.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the members of the project steering committee for their constructive feedback on the ideas that led to this contribution. The responsibility for the content and any remaining errors remain exclusively with the authors.

This research is part of the project VUB PhD Survey funded by the Research Council of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Sociology Department, Research Group TOR, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

Theun Pieter van Tienoven, Anaïs Glorieux, Joeri Minnen & Bram Spruyt

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theun Pieter van Tienoven .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 97.3 KB)

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/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

van Tienoven, T.P., Glorieux, A., Minnen, J. et al. Caught between academic calling and academic pressure? Working time characteristics, time pressure and time sovereignty predict PhD students’ research engagement. High Educ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01096-8

Download citation

Accepted : 13 August 2023

Published : 08 September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01096-8

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

• Working hours
• Time pressure
• Time sovereignty
• Research engagement
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Youth Program
• Wharton Online

How the PhD Program Works

Program Overview

Completing your doctorate at Wharton requires 5 years of full-time study. The first 2 years in the program prepare you for admission to candidacy by taking courses, qualifying exams, and starting research projects. In the last few years, you are primarily conducting research full-time including writing and defending your doctoral dissertation.

Admission to candidacy.

You begin by taking courses required for your program of study. All programs requires a preliminary exam, which may be either oral or written.

Some programs may have further requirements, such as an additional exam or research paper. If you enter with a master’s degree or other transfer credit, you may satisfy the formal course requirements more quickly.

Beginning the Wharton PhD Curriculum How the first two years of the Wharton program helped students discover their interests, learn the tools of the profession, and fuel their passion for teaching.

The Doctoral Dissertation

Upon successful completion of coursework and passing a preliminary examination, you are admitted to candidacy for the dissertation phase of your studies.

Your doctoral dissertation should contain original research that meets standards for published scholarship in your field. You are expected to be an expert in the topic you choose to research.

You are admitted to candidacy for the dissertation phase of your studies upon successful completion of coursework and passing a preliminary examination, but you can start thinking about and working on research of relevance at any time.

The dissertation process culminates with a “defense,” in which you defend the proposal orally before your dissertation committee.

While working on your dissertation, you interact extensively with Wharton faculty. Together with interested faculty, you create your own research community that includes your dissertation advisor and dissertation committee.

Policies and Procedures

Get more detailed explanation of course requirements, academic standards, the Teacher Development Program, time limits, and dissertation procedures and requirements.

Sample Program Sequence

Years 1 & 2.

Coursework Examination Research Papers Research Activities Field-Specific Requirements

Directed Reading & Research Admission to Candidacy Formulation of Research Topic

Years 4 & 5

Continued Research Oral Examination Dissertation

Hear From Our Doctoral Community

Why this phd student chose to study business ethics at wharton, why i chose academic research instead of consulting.

Andrea Contigiani

PhD Student Creates a New Pipeline for Women in Academia

College of Education and Human Development

School of Social Work

PhD in Social Work

Established in 1946, our program is one of the oldest in the United States, and develops a mentoring partnership between nationally prominent faculty and students to promote knowledge and skills in theory development and community-based research. The research productivity of our faculty was ranked 20th out of 76 U.S. social work doctoral programs in a recent study 

Our graduates include internationally recognized scholars in diverse areas of study. Alumni go on to faculty and academic leadership roles in schools of social work around the world, as well as agency and program directors, and high-level servants in federal, state, and local government agencies. 

Learn about the PhD program in social work at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Scholarship, research, and teaching which contribute to the knowledge base of social work and foster a just, nurturing, inclusive society.

Program Highlights

• Highly productive faculty. Collaborate with our faculty and research and training centers to conduct, write, and publish research in child welfare, aging, mental health, violence prevention, health disparities, social welfare policy, international social work, work with immigrants and refugees, and other social work related research areas.
• Generous funding for PhD students. The majority of our students receive a four-year funding package that covers tuition, health insurance, and a stipend. Many students also secure dissertation fellowships, and we help students secure assistantships for funding for their fifth year.
• Teaching and professional development. Gain skills in teaching and curriculum development. We provide doctoral colloquia focusing both on current research and professional and career development.
• Diverse student body. Our graduate students come from Minnesota, across the nation, and from around the world, giving the learning and research experience depth and breadth in lived experiences and perspectives.
• Structured research mentoring experiences. Our PhD program relies heavily on a mentoring model, and PhD students work closely with faculty members throughout the program. Mentoring is seen as a vital part of the teaching and learning process within the doctoral program. 

Fall 2023 Applications

Please note: the application deadline was December 1, 2023

Program Outline

Students take two years of coursework both inside and outside the School of Social Work, including required courses in research methods, statistics, theory, history, policy and teaching, as well as supporting program courses from across the university. Students typically complete their preliminary examinations and defend their dissertation proposal, and then complete their dissertation in their fourth or fifth year.

Careers of Social Work PhD Graduates

This is a selected list of institutions where recent University of Minnesota School of Social Work graduates have found positions:

Research Universities

• State University of New York at Buffalo
• Tulane University
• University of Arkansas
• University of Kansas
• University of Memphis
• University of Texas
• University of Utah
• Virginia Commonwealth University

Teaching Universities

• Augsburg University
• California State University - Chico
• Colorado State University - Pueblo
• Providence College
• Radford University 
• University of Wisconsin - Green Bay

Institutes and Foundations

• Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota
• Health Partners Research Foundation
• Minnesota Minority Education Partnership

Applied/Administrative Positions

• Children’s Defense Fund
• Minnesota Department of Human Services
• NASW-MN  

International Universities

• National University Taiwan
• Tel Aviv University
• Self-Directed Services for the Long-Term Supports of Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis
• Social Work, Intractable Conflict and Professionalism: A Case Study of Jewish-Israeli Social Work Practice
• Omayeletumbulo [wisdom sayings] as a Pathway to School Engagement for Young Mothers in Rural Namibia
• County Exemption from Social Work Licensure in Minnesota: Understanding the Past and Present to Affect the Future
• Animal-Assisted Interactions for College Student Mental Health and a Conceptual Model of Practice
• Environmental Effects on Cognitive Health in Older Adults: Insights for Long-Term Care Services
• “This is how we show up for our relatives”: Understanding How Indigenous Relative Caregivers Embody Traditional Kinship to Resist the Colonial Child Welfare System
• Perceived Discrimination and Depressive Symptom Trajectories of Middle-aged and Older Adults with Chronic Diseases
• Student Stories of Resilience After Campus Sexual Assault
• How do Contextual Factors and Family Support Influence Disclosure of Child Sexual Abuse During Forensic Interviews and Service Outcomes in Child Protection Cases?
• Moral Injury Among Professionals in K-12 Education: A Mixed Methods Inquiry
• Making Sense of Poverty in Child Welfare: A Grounded Theory Informed Study of Public and Tribal Child Welfare Workers' Poverty Constructions, Perceptions of Causes, and Praxis
• Neighborhood Social Capital and the Health and Health Risk Behavior of Adolescent Immigrants and Non-Immigrants

Sampling of PhD Student Publications

Our PhD students routinely co-author with faculty and other researchers at the School of Social Work and across campus. Nearly all PhD students graduate with multiple peer reviewed articles, multiple presentations at national/international research conferences, and teaching experience as the instructor of record of undergraduate or graduate courses. The following is just a sampling of the recent peer-reviewed articles published by our students, either as sole author or in collaboration with others.

Carlson , W. C. (2023). Implementation challenges of T visa eligibility for human trafficking survivors: a role for social work. Social Work , 68(3), 222-229.

Flangan, S. , Sterman, J., & Merighi, J. R., Batty, R. (2023). Bridging the gap – How interprofessional collaboration can support family-centered emergency preparedness: An exploratory qualitative study. BMC Public Health, 23(1):777.

Haight, W. L., Suleiman , J. , Flanagan , S. K. , Park, S. , Soltani, L. J. , Carlson, W. C. , Otis , J. R. , & Turck, K. S. (2023). Reflections on social work education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Experiences of faculty members and lessons moving forward. Qualitative Social Work , 22(5), 938-955.

Samimi, C., Jefferson, N., Flanagan , S. , & Anyon, Y. (2023). Intersections of disproportion: A critical quantitative examination of dis/ability and gender in Black students’ school discipline outcomes. The Urban Review , 1-20.

Soffer-Elnekave , R. , Haight, W., Nashandi , N. J. , Cho, M., Suleiman , J. , & Park , S. (2023). Re-orienting narratives of moral injury towards positive development: The experiences of emerging adults with child welfare histories. Children and Youth Services Review , 149, 106922.

Soria, K. M., Horgos , B. , & Shenouda, J. D. (2023). Disparities in college students’ financial hardships during the Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice , 60(1), 31-48.

Toft, J., Lightfoot, E., Calhoun, M ., Choy-Brown, M., Merighi, J. R., Renner, L. M., Soffer-Elnekave, R. , Mendel, J., & Marsalis, S. (2023). Effects of neoliberalism on social work practice in the United States: A scoping review. Social Work Research , 47(2), 99-110. 

Renner, L. M., Driessen, M. C. , & Lewis-Dmello, A. (2022). An evaluation of a parent group for survivors of intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence , 37(2), 247-259.

Soria K., Horgos B ., Roberts B.J. (2022). The COVID‐19 pandemic and students’ mental health. New Directions for Student Services, 176, 37-45. 

Lee, M. H., Hong, S., & Merighi, J. R. (2021). The effect of fatalism on mammography use in Korean American women. Health Education & Behavior , 49(4), 740−749.

Lightfoot, E., Yun, H. , Moone, R., Otis, J ., Suleiman, K., Turck, K ., & Kutzler, C. (2021). Changes to family caregiving of older adults and adults with disabilities during COVID-19. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine , 7, 1-8.

Mervis, J. E., Fischer, J ., Cooper, S. E., Deckert, A. C., Lysaker, P. H., MacDonald III, A. W., & Meyer-Kalos, P. (2021). Introspective accuracy for substance use across a year of treatment for first episode psychosis. Schizophrenia Research: Cognition , 26, 100200.

Renner, L. M., Hartley, C. C., & Driessen, M. C. (2021). Provider, caretaker, nurturer, hero: Perceptions of parenting changes among women who experienced intimate partner violence. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 30(9), 2191-2203.

Soria, K., & Horgos, B. (2021). Factors associated with college students’ mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of College Student Development, 62(2), 107-113. 

An, S., Lee, H. Y., Choi, Y. J., & Yoon, Y. J. (2020). Literacy of breast cancer and screening guideline in an immigrant group: importance of health accessibility. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health , 22, 563-570.

Lightfoot, E., Zheng, M ., & DeZelar, S . (2021). Substantiation of child maltreatment among parents with disabilities in the United States. Journal of Public Child Welfare , 15(5), 583-596.

Renner, L. M., Driessen, M. C. , & Lewis-Dmello, A. (2020). A pilot study evaluation of a parent group for survivors of intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence , 35, 203-215.

Cho, M. , Haight. W., Choi, W. S., Hong, S. H., & Piescher, K. (2019). A prospective, longitudinal study of risk factors for early onset of delinquency among maltreated youth.Children and Youth Services Review, 102, 222-230.

Choi, Y. J., Lee, H. Y., An, S., Yoon, Y. J. , & Oh, J. (2019). Predictors of cervical cancer screening awareness and literacy among Korean-American women. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 7(1), 1–9.

Driessen, M. C. (2019). Campus sexual assault policies: A feminist policy analysis framework. Affilia, 35(3) 1-16. doi:10.1177/0886109919878273

Driessen, M. C. (2019). Campus sexual assault & student activism, 1970-1990. Qualitative Social Work, 19(3), 1-16. doi:10.1177/1473325019828805

Emery, C. R., Wu, S., Eremina, T., Yoon, Y. J. , Kim, S., & Yang, H. (2019). Does informal social control deter child abuse? A comparative study of Koreans and Russians. International journal on child maltreatment: research, policy and practice, 2(2), 37–54.

Gibson, P., Haight, W., Cho, M., Nashandi, N. J., & Yoon, Y. J. (2019). A mixed methods study of Black Girls' vulnerability to out-of-school suspensions: The intersection of race and gender. Children and Youth Services Review, 102, 169–176.

Haight, W., Waubanascum, C., Glesener, D. , Day, P., Bussey, B., & Nichols, K. (2019). The Center for Regional and Tribal Child Welfare Studies: Reducing disparities through Indigenous social work education. Children and Youth Services Review, 100, 156-166.

Kiesel, L, DeZelar, S. & Lightfoot, E. (2019). Equity in social work employment in the United States: Opportunity and challenges for social workers with disabilities. Disability & Society.

Kivnick, H. Q., Driessen, M. C., Santavasy, C. , Wardwell, C., & Davis, L. D. (2019). “Who’s Been Putting Socks in My Drawer?” Narrative case study of an elder role model. The Gerontologist, 1-10. doi:10.1093/geront/gnz114

Lee, H.Y., Beltran, R.M. , Kwon, M., Kim, G.N., Lee, D.K. (2019). Racial disparities in cervical cancer screening: Implications for relieving cervical cancer burden in Asian American Pacific Islander women. Cancer Nursing: An International Journal for Cancer Care.

Lightfoot, E. & DeZelar, S . (2019). Social work with parents with disabilities: Historical interactions and contemporary innovations. Social Work Review, 2, 1-10.

Lightfoot, E., Franklin, C., & Beltran, R . (2019). Preparing for the academic job market: A guide for social work doctoral students and their mentors. Journal of Social Work Education.

Newman, T., Okamoto, K. , Kimiecik, C., Sohns, E., Burns, M., & Magier, E. (2019). The role of social workers in sport: Shared values and opportunities for interprofessional collaborations. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 10(3), 160-173.

Renner, L. M., & Driessen, M . C. (2019). Siblings who are exposed to child maltreatment: Practices reported by county children's services supervisors. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 13(5), 491-511. doi:10.1080/15548732.2018.1514350

An, S., Choi, Y. J., Lee, H. Y., Yoon, Y. J. , & Platt, M. (2018). Predictors of breast cancer screening among Korean American women: Is having an annual checkup critical? Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 19(5), 1281–1286.

Bayless, S. D., Jenson, J. M., Richmond, M. K., Pampel, F. C., Cook, M., & Calhoun, M. (2018). Effects of an afterschool early literacy intervention on the reading skills of children in public housing communities. Child & Youth Care Forum, 47, 537-561.

DeZelar, S. , & Lightfoot, E. (2018). Use of parental disability as a removal reason for children in foster care in the US. Children and Youth Services Review, 86, 128-134.

Fink, A. (2018). Bigger data, less wisdom: The need for more inclusive collective intelligence in social service provision. AI & Society, 33, 61-70.

Haight, W., Waubanascum, C., Glesener, D. , & Marsalis, S. (2018). A scoping study of Indigenous child welfare: The long emergency and preparations for the next seven generations. Children and Youth Services Review, 93, 397-410.

Jenson, J. M., Veeh, C., Anyon, Y., St. Mary, J., Calhoun, M. , Tejada, J., & Lechuga-Peña, S. (2018). Effects of an afterschool program on the academic outcomes of children and youth residing in public housing neighborhoods: A quasi-experimental study. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 211-217.

Kiesel, L., DeZelar, S. & Lightfoot, E. (2018). Challenges, barriers and opportunities: Social workers with disabilities and experiences in field education. Journal of Social Work Education. 54(4), 696-708.

Lee, H. Y., Choi, Y. J., Yoon, Y. J. , & Oh, J. (2018). HPV literacy: The role of English proficiency in Korean American immigrant women. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 22(3), E64–E70.

Lightfoot, E. & LaLiberte, T. & Cho, M. (2018). Parental supports for parents with disabilities: The role of informal supports.Child Welfare, 96(4), 89-110.

Merighi, J. R., Zheng, M. , & Browne, T. (2018). Nephrology social workers' caseloads and hourly wages in 2014 and 2017: Findings from the National Kidney Foundation Council of Nephrology Social Workers Professional Practice Survey. Journal of Nephrology Social Work, 42(1), 31−59.

St. Mary, J., Calhoun, M. , Tejada, J., & Jenson, J. M. (2018). Perceptions of academic achievement and educational opportunities among Black and African American youth. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 35(5), 499-509.

Haight, W., Sugrue, E., Calhoun, M. , & Black, J. (2017). “Basically, I look at it like combat”: Reflections on moral injury by parents involved with child protection services. Children and Youth Services Review, 82, 477-489.

Haight, W., Sugrue, E., Calhoun, M. , & Black, J. (2017). Everyday coping with moral injury: The perspectives of professionals and parents involved with child protection services. Children and Youth Services Review, 82, 108-121.

Haight, W., Sugrue, E., Calhoun, M. (2017). Moral injury among child protection professionals: Implications for the ethical treatment and retention of workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 82, 27-41.

Hewitt, A., Stancliffe, R., Hall-Lande, J., Nord, D., Pettingell, S., Hamre, K. , Hallas-Muchow L. (2017). Characteristics of adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder who use residential services and supports through adult developmental disability services in the United States. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders.

Horn, T. L. , Piescher, K., Shannon, P. J., Hong, S., & Benton, A. (2017). Experiences of Somali and Oromo youth in the child protection system. Children and Youth Services Review.

Kayama, M., Haight, W., Ku, M. L. M., Cho, M. , & Lee, H. Y. (2017). East Asian and U.S. educators' reflections on how stigmatization affects their relationships with parents whose children have disabilities: Challenges and solutions. Children and Youth Services Review, 73, 128-144.

Khuu, B. P. , Lee, H. Y. (2017). Health literacy and associated factors among Hmong American immigrants. Journal of Community Health, 1-8.

Kim, Y.S., Lee, H.Y., Lee, M.H., Simms, T. , & Park, B.H., (2017). Mental health literacy in Korean older adults: A cross-sectional survey. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12395

Lightfoot, E. & LaLiberte, T. & Cho, M. (2017). A case record review of termination of parental rights cases involving parents with a disability. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 399-407.

Sugrue, E. & Lightfoot, E. (2017). Preschool Policymaking by Stealth: Application of an Alternative Framework for the Policy Process. Journal of Policy Practice. DOI: 10.1080/15588742.2016.1266982

Carlson, J., Nguyen, H. , and Reinardy, J. (2016). Social justice and the capabilities approach: Seeking a global print for EPAS. Journal of Social Work Education, 52, Issue 3.

Haight, W., Bidwell, L., Choi, W. S., & Cho, M. (2016). An evaluation of the Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM): Recidivism outcomes for maltreated youth involved in the juvenile justice system. Children and Youth Services Review, 65, 78-85.

Haight, W., Kayama, M., Ku, M. L., Cho, M. , & Lee, H. Y. (2016). Perspectives of elementary school educators in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the US on disability, stigmatization and children's developing self Part 1: Defining the problem in cultural context. Children and Youth Services Review, 70, 214-228.

Haight, W., Sugrue, E., Calhoun, M. , & Black, J. (2016). A scoping study of moral injury: Identifying directions for social work research. Child and Youth Services Review, 70, 190-200.

Hoffman, S. J., Robertson, C. L., Shannon, P. J., Cook, T.L. , Letts, J., & Mathiason, M. A. (2016). Physical Correlates of Torture Exposure in Karen Refugees. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 1-15.

Kayama, M., Haight, W., Ku, M. L. M., Cho, M. , & Lee, H. Y. (2016). Perspectives of elementary school educators in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the US on disability, stigmatization and children's developing self Part 2: Solutions. Children and Youth Services Review, 70, 403-418.

Khuu, B. P. , Lee, H.Y., Zhou, A.Q., Shin, J. & Lee, R.M., (2016) Healthcare providers’ perspectives on parental health literacy and child health outcomes among Southeast Asian American immigrants and refugees, Children and Youth Services Review, 67 (2016) 220–229. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.06.006

Lightfoot, E., Blevins, J. , Lum, T. & Dube, A. (2016). Cultural health assets of Somali and Oromo immigrants in the United States: Findings from a community-based participatory research project. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 27(1), 252-260.

Lightfoot, E. & DeZelar, S. (2016). The experiences and outcomes of children in foster care who were removed because of a parental disability. Children and Youth Services Review, 62, 22–28.

Lightfoot, E., Nienow, M., Moua, K., Colburn, G. , & Petri, A. (2016). Insights on professional identification and licensure from community practice social workers. Journal of Community Practice, 24 (2), 123-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2016.1165328

McCleary, J., Shannon, P. J., Cook, T. (2016) Connecting refugees to substance use treatment: A qualitative study. Social Work and Public Health, 31(1), 1-. 10.1080/19371918.2015.1087906.

Shannon, P.J., Vinson, G.A., Cook, T.L. , Lennon, E. (2016). Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful mental health referrals of refugees. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 43(4), 555-568. doi:10.1007/s10488-015-0639-8

Simms, T. (2016). Statutory compensation for the wrongly imprisoned. Social Work, 61, 155-162. doi: 10.1093/sw/sww003

Yang, H., Yoon, Y. J. , Jeong, B., & Emery, C. R. (2016). The effects of parental abuse and aggression on mobile phone dependency: Focused on the moderated mediation effect of youth activity. Youth Facilities and Environment, 14(2), 5–15.

The Savvy Scientist

Experiences of a London PhD student and beyond

How Much Work is a PhD?

PhD students are in a fuzzy area; officially students but working full-time with academic staff as colleagues. I get a lot of questions about how my day is structured as a PhD student because it can be very different to undergraduate. The most obvious questions are how much work is a PhD and how many hours does a PhD student work per week?

PhD Structure

The structure of PhDs vary considerably but it’s fair to say that often working hours are similar or higher than a regular job. During my induction at Imperial it was stated that the expectation was basically to work hard enough carry out world leading research: no pressure!

I figure the easiest illustration of the workload is to show a month of my calendar, giving a glimpse of how my time is divided. 

One of the best things about a PhD is the variety, which meant that showing just a single day, or week wouldn’t be particularly representative: hence I kept a rough diary for the month of January. I am currently in my second year, and this diary represents the 15th month of my PhD. In case you just want a summary, feel free to skip down the page.

Clicking on each week’s calendar will open up a high-res image which may be easier to read. I included my commute to give a sense of how much non-work time I had. At the time I was commuting an hour each way, which has now been halved. I covered housing in this post:  How Much it Costs to Live in London as a Student.

My January 2018 Calendar (Month 15 of PhD)

For higher-resolution copies, you can click on each week!

Putting this together I realise that I do lots of office work!

Over half my time is sitting at my desk, twice as much as in the lab. This very much varies depending on your project.

Mine has a decent mix of lab work and computing time and it takes longer to process my experimental data than to collect it, hence the split in my time. Some of my peers work on projects that don’t require nearly as much time analysing data and so almost all of their time is in the lab, whereas the opposite is true of others running complex computer simulations.

Despite spending so long in the office, every day is quite different. Many days may look similar from how I categorised the calendar, but I didn’t break down the categories in to the actual tasks which for the most part are varied.

The great thing with a PhD is having freedom to manage your own time. Usually there aren’t extremely urgent tasks so you can mix and match and keep your days varied.

I work similar, or longer, hours to most office jobs. There are certainly times when I work longer hours than shown in this example month, but for the most part it’s representative. I believe I work similar hours to my peers but I don’t know how it compares to other research groups or universities: feel free to let me know!

I didn’t include time for any lunches. I’m often pretty bad and eat at my desk, usually while continuing to work. I do take frequent breaks to go and grab a drink, or more recently to go and tend to a garden nearby which I manage.

As much as possible I try and avoid working at the weekends. There can be a big difference between working long hours and working efficiently. It is sometimes problematic to switch off because there is constantly the opportunity to do more and more work.

Finding that balance can certainly be a challenge and perhaps something I should make a separate post about. I’d rather not spend seven days a week at work!

A Quick Summary of How Much Work is Involved in a Phd

A PhD is a marathon and not a sprint: it’s important to work smart.

By that I mean, if you’re struggling to focus on a particular day, go and take a break. Add in some easy or fun tasks to make yourself content with your productivity. Or if you’re having a particularly bad day, take the rest of the day off.

You’re in control of your own time and it’s not always smart to force work if you’re not feeling it. A PhD isn’t a piece of coursework in undergrad where you can pull an all-nighter and get it completed. I don’t know how my working hours compare to other PhD students but I know that it’s important to work at a sustainable pace.

There are some great opportunities to seize when you’re a PhD student which I think are worth making time for . Not only can having a good work-life balance help your sanity and wellbeing, you never know where the opportunities could lead!

If you’d like personalised help with your PhD application I am now starting to offer a small number of one-to-one sessions. Please contact me to find out more or click here to book a call.

I hope this has been useful in dispelling the myth that PhD students must spend every waking hour at work. The main thing I find important is being smart with your time. Let me know your thoughts too in the comments! You can subscribe for more content here:

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Related Posts

PhD Salary UK: How Much Do PhD Students Get Paid Compared to Graduates?

5th February 2024 5th February 2024

The Benefits of Having a PhD

7th September 2022 30th January 2024

My top PhD regrets: 10 lessons learned by a PhD grad

21st April 2022 25th September 2023

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Privacy Overview

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.

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.

Do you get paid to do a PhD?

Study tips Published 17 Jun, 2022  ·  4-minute read

A PhD is a time-consuming gig. Planning, research and writing can easily fill the hours of your typical 9-5 job. But do PhD students get paid?

Yes and no.

Yes, you can secure a scholarship that provides a living stipend, which means you’ll receive a fortnightly allowance. No, it isn’t typically as much as you could expect from an entry-level, full-time salary straight out of your undergrad studies – but for many people, it is tax free. You can also supplement the living stipend with a top-up scholarship if you’re eligible.

There are a variety of ways to make a PhD work for you financially. Scholarships are the key component to this and can cover both tuition and living costs.

Let’s explore how you can secure a scholarship to help with day-to-day living expenses such as food, accommodation and bills while you complete your PhD.

How can you get paid to do a PhD?

There are 2 key types of scholarships you need to consider when undertaking your PhD:

• living stipend
• tuition scholarship

At UQ, the main scholarship program is called Graduate School Scholarships (UQGSS) – it covers the cost of your PhD tuition fees and provides a living stipend to cover the cost of living expenses while you carry out your PhD.

Another major program of scholarships at UQ are earmarked scholarships, which include both a living stipend and a tuition scholarship. Whether you’re eligible for this type of scholarship depends on the type of PhD you undertake – find out more about earmarked scholarships .

Living stipend

The UQGSS living stipend and tuition scholarship will help you cover cost-of-living expenses while you carry out your PhD. This scholarship:

• is open to both domestic and international postgraduate research students
• is inclusive of all study areas
• covers a 3.5-year period , with the possibility of an extension
• is only available to full-time students (with the exception of part-time students with special circumstances )
• provides  $33,641 a year (tax free) living stipend, paid in fortnightly instalments
• covers tuition fees.

However, while the UQGSS is the most widely used scholarship at UQ for PhD students, there are many types of living stipend scholarships – each with its own terms and conditions.

Search all living stipend scholarships for PhD students

At UQ, you will be asked if you would like to be considered for a living stipend scholarship when you apply for your PhD. UQ scholarships are awarded based on:

• academic performance
• evidence of research capability
• the quality of your research project
• the quality of your proposed research environment and advisory team.

Top-up scholarship

At UQ, a ‘top-up scholarship’ can provide you with additional funds during your PhD, on top of your living stipend scholarship. There are a variety of top-up scholarships you can apply for through UQ, many of which are focused on specific study areas (and even specific PhD topics ) or targeted at particular groups of people (e.g. international students or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students). Some of these offer travel and/or accommodation allowances on top of the funds provided for general living expenses during studies – a particularly useful addition for PhD students who wish to attend industry conferences or workshops to further their professional development.

Top-up scholarships can:

• only be used in conjunction with a living stipend (as long as they don’t exceed 75% of the stipend amount)
• offer an additional $5,000 – approximately $21,000 a year on top of your living stipend.

Browse postgraduate research top-up scholarships  

Top-up scholarships can be very competitive to secure, so it's essential to have a backup financial plan should you apply and not be accepted.

How much funding do you receive for a PhD?

Let’s look at a few of UQ’s top-up scholarships in conjunction with the standard Research Training Program living stipend amount, to see just how much you could be getting paid to do your PhD.

*All values are approximate and based on 2024 scholarships. Information is subject to change. See the scholarships website for the most accurate and up-to-date figures. 

Is it enough?

When approaching a PhD, it’s important to consider your financial situation realistically. Asking ‘do you get paid for a PhD?’ doesn’t quite cover all the logistics. Here are a few more questions to help you assess the situation:

• Can I live on $33,641 a year, or approximately $1,300 a fortnight? 
• Do I have the time to supplement my living stipend with casual or part-time work ? Will this extra commitment impact my studies?
• Will undertaking casual or part-time work breach the conditions of my scholarship?
• Am I eligible for any scholarships (top-up or other bursaries) beyond the living stipend?
• Is it worth applying to existing research projects, undertaking research in particular study areas or with certain supporting organisations, so that I may have a better chance of securing an available scholarship? Do these PhD projects/topics align with my interests enough to study for 3-4 years?
• Am I eligible for a tuition scholarship to cover tuition costs ?
• What’s more important to me – completing my PhD in 3-4 years full time and budgeting, or completing my PhD in 6-8 years part time while living comfortably?

Don’t forget that you don’t have to make this decision on your own. If you need help finding the right postgraduate research scholarship for you, or would like some advice, you can contact the friendly team at UQ’s Graduate School .

Want to know more about the ins and outs of your journey towards a PhD? Explore our complete guide on how to get a PhD .

Share this Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

Related stories

How to get a PhD scholarship or funding

3-minute read

How long does a PhD take?

Is a PhD worth it?

9-minute read

How to write a good PhD proposal

5-minute read

PhD student office [Everything you need to know]

Throughout my 15 years in academia, I have seen several PhD student office configurations. There have been dedicated PhD rooms, private shared offices, and full open-plan offices to accommodate PhD students. Typically, the PhD students are located near their primary supervisor and head of the research group. However, this is not always the case.

A PhD student of this is typically a shared office space or open plan office that contains anywhere between two and 20 PhD students. PhD students do not get a private office and their typical office hours vary dramatically depending on the culture of the research group.

This article will go through everything you need to know about a typical PhD student office and the typical experiences of PhD students in a university and research setting.

Do PhD students get an office?

When you first get admitted to a PhD program you will likely be assigned a desk in a shared office space. Along with this desk you will also receive a laptop or desktop, and whatever other items you need to conduct your research.

For example, in the science space you are likely to receive all of your personal protective equipment (lab coat, safety glasses, et cetera).

PhD students often share an office space with other PhD students and, commonly have dedicated spaces for them to perform their written work in quiet.

Shared office

The most common configuration of PhD student offices is where PhD students share a small office space with up to 5 other students.

Ultimately, it depends on how big the office space is and how many desks they can fit into the room comfortably.

For older buildings, this is the most common way of housing PhD students.

The office space is often located near the main office of the primary research group leader so that they can have quick access to their researchers and it also helps improve incidental interactions between supervisor and student.

Open plan office

In newer buildings, architects have been pushing the idea of open-plan offices.

Pretty much every PhD student and researcher that I have known that worked in an open-plan office hate the design.

Open-plan offices are noisy, impersonal, and full of distractions.

Despite these setbacks, open-plan offices are becoming as popular as ever with new building builds and upgrades.

Interestingly, I noticed that while the researchers (Masters students, PhD students, postdocs) had to work in the open plan area, the academics all had their own private offices (with lockable doors) around the perimeter of the open plan area. Clearly, they understand the benefit of having a private space to perform their work but it has not yet filtered down to their subordinates.

I hope we will less and fewer open plan offices for PhD students and researchers. They are not conducive to deep work and optimal concentration.

Dedicated spaces

Universities often also have postgraduate study areas in libraries and other parts of the department.

I wrote all of my Masters thesis and my PhD thesis in the postgraduate areas of the University I was studying in.

I found them a welcome change to my PhD office.

Having a dedicated space means that I was able to train my mind into working deeper and longer by changing my environment. I found the best places to work in the University postgraduate areas and would sit for hours writing my theses and dissertations.

I highly recommend that you explore the different areas available to you as a postgraduate student and find an area that allows you to work at your best.

Even though my PhD office was adequate for writing – the dedicated postgraduate space was even better.

Some PhD students work across multiple departments or institutions. In this instance PhD student offices often include hot desks that can be shared by the graduate researchers.

Hot desks can also be used by visiting researchers and scholars at an institution.

Hot desks include an empty desk, power points, office chairs and little more. It is a place for you to set up quickly and get to work. Sometimes the hot desks also include a monitor and other peripherals such as a keyboard and a mouse.

Hot desks are perfect for those who need space across multiple areas of the University.

Typical desks in a PhD students office

Do PhD students get a private office?

It is very rare that a PhD student gets a private office. It is more likely that they will reside in a shared office space or in an open-plan office.

In my experience, the people who get a private office include:

• senior postdocs
• lecturers/professors
• University admin staff
• senior research assistants

Everyone else is placed in a communal working area.

Do you need to be in your office to do your PhD?

How much time someone spends in their PhD office varies depending on their research field and the department in which they are performing their research.

In general, it is expected that a PhD student attends their office in person for departmental meetings, group meetings, supervisor meetings, presentations, and other important administrative tasks.

If your PhD research requires you to attend your university in person, it is likely that you will be expected to maintain “normal working hours” at a minimum. That is between 9 AM to 5 PM.

In reality, the hours that a PhD student will be in the office are much longer.

Some of my friends who were pursuing mathematical, physics, and applied physics PhDs were able to do the majority of their research via distance. One of my friends who did a medical physics PhD did all of his research at home.

He only went into the office for meetings.

In consultation with him, I found that this was a recipe for isolation and loneliness.

Therefore, I would encourage PhD students to attend their office as often as possible. Interacting with your fellow PhD students and academics is a large part of a successful and fulfilling PhD.

So, no you do not need to be in your office to do a PhD but it certainly enriches the experience.

Typical PhD office hours

Typical PhD office hours vary wildly from field to field.

I would say that the majority of PhD students are expected to be in the lab five days a week from 9 AM until 5 PM at an absolute minimum.

However, there are supervisors that require PhD students to be in the lab 12 hours a day and up to 6 days a week. One supervisor in my department required students to be in the lab on Saturdays and would schedule group meetings on Saturday mornings to ensure that everyone was in the office on the weekend.

The culture of the group and the expectations of your supervisor will dictate how long you need to be present. In worst-case scenarios supervisors can be very demanding of your time.

10 PhD student office essentials

Maintaining a fantastic PhD student office means making the office comfortable and productive for work.

Throughout my 15 years in academia, I have seen a wide variety of different PhD student offices. Some are adorned with many plants and wallcoverings of mementos picked up during a PhD. Others are very minimalist and sparsely populated with only the essential research items.

Here are all of the PhD student office essentials and some things that take a standard office from good to great.

Having a reliable laptop that can handle the tests that you need to do is essential.

For most PhD students having a laptop that can handle word processing is all they need. For others, it is important that they buy a laptop that is strong enough to run the computational processes that will keep that PhD moving forward quickly.

When I was doing my Master’s thesis I was running very simple theoretical chemistry calculations on my entry-level laptop. It took a few hours but the results were kicked out overnight.

Ensure that your laptop is future proof for the next three years and that you buy a laptop is a little bit more powerful than you need – I’ve found that I always want that extra bit of power regardless of the amount I think I’m going to need.

2. Multiple (screens)

Once you go to 2 or more monitors or screens you’ll never go back.

Consider looking for an extra monitor for your desk so that you can handle multiple applications and windows open at once.

For example, I have code/documents open on one screen whilst having web browsers open on the other. Pressing the Windows key and an arrow will move a window to half of the screen – a fantastic quick trick for making the most of your monitors.

You will be set down for many hours during your PhD studies.

It is important that your chair is comfortable and support you in all the right areas. Your university will have an ergonomic assessment tool available for you to use to make sure that your chair is the right one for you.

Consider purchasing your own chair if the one supplied by the University are not able to provide you with a comfortable work environment.

In my experience, there are plenty of chairs floating around the department for you to take your pick of your favourite.

4. Notebook

A notebook will be invaluable throughout your PhD, and it should be carried with you everywhere you go.

One lecturer that I worked under always carried a small notebook in his pocket. Whenever you have an idea, question, brain wave – write it down in this notebook. Do not use your brain to store information – it needs to be kept free of information to be as creative as possible.

Make sure that you lock up your PhD notebook in a safe place at night. I have heard of some horrible stories of sabotage and stealing of ideas.

5. Waterproof pens

Ensure that you have some waterproof pens.

Desks are full of liquids such as coffee and water that can easily destroy and wash away ink upon spillage.

Therefore, it is important that your ink and ideas are kept safe from any little water accidents.

Plants are a fantastic thing to have in your PhD student office.

Having plants in the office help increase concentration levels and improves the perceived air quality of your space – as demonstrated by a 2014 study in Australia, the UK, and the Netherlands.

Some of the nicest PhD offices that I have ever seen had a good number of indoor plants.

Get a plant that is interesting to you and is robust enough to survive the indoor environment in which it will live.

7. Desk lamp

Having a good amount of light on whatever you are reading will help reduce your eyestrain and keep you focused.

Unless you have a massive window nearby, I would recommend purchasing a dimmable desk lamp so that you can be in control of the amount of light that your desk gets.

With a solar simulator bulb it can help with seasonal affective disorder and help brighten up the dingiest and darkest of PhD cubicles.

8. Headphones

A good set of headphones will help keep you focused.

I like to have a pair of active noise cancellation headphones to cut down the chatter and other distracting aspects of working in a shared office space for an open plan office.

I like to listen to white noise while I am working because it helps take away the annoying background noise even better than music, in my opinion.

9. Mini lounge, couch or armchairs

If your office allows, it is always fantastic to have an area to relax.

Consider purchasing a small couch, comfy armchairs, or a mini lounge for sitting back with a paper or two. I find that having a little place to sit that isn’t a formal and upright office desk can help improve my concentration and get me away from the distractions of my computer screen.

I love looking for bargains on secondhand marketplaces – you may be defined the perfect mini lounge for your office!

A sneaky pillow for a great nap is also a great addition.

10. Coffeemaker

Lastly, you can consider purchasing a coffeemaker for your PhD student office.

Academic departments quite often have a tearoom but, in my experience, the coffee quality has always been relatively poor.

Having your own favourite coffee available at all times will help you get over that afternoon lull that kicks in on Wednesday and Friday afternoons in particular.

PhD student office in Universities

University sometimes have a dedicated PhD student office in which they provide support, offer training, mediation for issues and also perform research on PhD students.

Check to see if your university has a PhD student office or a research office. They can be a fantastic resource for you especially in the early days of your PhD.

Provide support

A graduate or research office often provide support to PhD students when they are struggling. The PhD student office can provide you with tailored advice for whatever issues you face during your PhD.

They often have resources that can help you and will also speak to the right people on your behalf at the University should they need to.

Offer training

I’ve delivered a number of workshops for the research office at Flinders University. I have been approached by their research office to deliver workshops on communicating PhD research.

Keep in contact with the research office will provide you with the opportunity to undergo different workshops and training that isn’t officially offered by the University.

If you have issues throughout your PhD, particularly with your research supervisors, the PhD student office may be able to help you mediate that relationship.

It can be very hard to speak openly with your PhD supervisor and having someone in your corner will help you feel more empowered and able to say what you need to say.

Do research on PhD students

Lastly, the PhD student office also does research on PhD students.

By understanding the experience of PhD students in their university they are able to change the course and offer recommendations to different departments to make it a better experience for graduates.

It’s a great way to have your say about your experience at your university.

Wrapping up

This article has been through everything you need to know about PhD student offices and office times.

A PhD student office is where you will spend a lot of your time and you must try your best to make it comfortable by ensuring you have all of the essentials.

PhD students do not often get a dedicated student office and will often have a shared office with multiple other PhD students or share a large open-plan office in more modern buildings.

Check out other areas of your university where you can do focused work such as the library and other graduate student study areas. It is where I got the majority of my PhD thesis written and I loved having the ability to go to an area dedicated to PhD graduate students.

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

Skip to Content

PhD students earn top National Science Foundation fellowships

The national awards recognize and support outstanding grad students from across the country in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields who are pursuing research-based master’s and doctoral degrees.

PhD students Caleb Song and Jennifer Wu are each receiving the honor for 2024. Find out more about their research below.

Awardees receive a $37,000 annual stipend and cost of education allowance for the next three years as well as professional development opportunities.

Two mechanical engineering PhD students, Alex Hedrick and Carly Rowe, also received honorable mentions from the National Science Foundation program.

2024 GRFP Honorees

2nd Year PhD Student

Advisor: John Pellegrino Lab:  Membrane Science & Technology

I did my undergrad in Electrical Engineering at Georgia Tech before coming to Boulder for my PhD in Mechanical Engineering. For the past two years, I've been working on the characterization, tuning, and scale-up of graphene-based membrane electrodes (grMEs). The funding from the GRFP will allow me to pursue low technology readiness level (TRL) electrochemical device development using these grMEs. In particular, I plan on exploring hybrid electrophoretic/size exclusion-based separations for biopharmaceutical development and processing.

Jennifer Wu

Fall 2024 Incoming PhD Student

Advisor: Daven Henze Lab: Henze Group

My research will involve using computer simulations and environmental observations to investigate the impact of atmospheric constituents on air quality and climate change. By coupling satellite observations with state-of-the-art air pollution models, I aim to provide more accurate estimates of emissions to better inform climate and public health policy. Previously at Caltech, I worked closely with scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in analyzing methane and carbon monoxide measurements in the Los Angeles Basin.

• Graduate Students
• Graduate Student Research
• Thermo Fluid Sciences
• Air Quality
• Share via Facebook
• Share via Twitter
• Share via LinkedIn

Apply   Visit   Give

Departments

• Ann and H.J. Smead Aerospace Engineering Sciences
• Chemical & Biological Engineering
• Civil, Environmental & Architectural Engineering
• Computer Science
• Electrical, Computer & Energy Engineering
• Paul M. Rady Mechanical Engineering
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomedical Engineering
• Creative Technology & Design
• Engineering Education
• Engineering Management
• Engineering Physics
• Integrated Design Engineering
• Environmental Engineering
• Materials Science & Engineering

Affiliates & Partners

• ATLAS Institute
• BOLD Center
• Colorado Mesa University
• Colorado Space Grant Consortium
• Discovery Learning
• Engineering Honors
• Engineering Leadership
• Entrepreneurship
• Herbst Program for Engineering, Ethics & Society
• Integrated Teaching and Learning
• Global Engineering
• National Center for Women & Information Technology
• Mortenson Center for Global Engineering
• Western Colorado University

Graduate Student Educators Showcase of Work on Disabilities

Graduate students and educators enrolled in the School of Education course, Significant Disabilities: Shifts in Paradigms and Practices, will provide a showcase of their work on May 8 from 4:30 to 6 p.m. in the Special Collections Research Center (SCRC), located on the 6 th floor of Bird Library. The course was taught by Dr. Julia M. White , a 2023-2024 SCRC Faculty Fellow .

Graduate students and educators enrolled in the School of Education course, Significant Disabilities: Shifts in Paradigms and Practices, will provide a showcase of their work on May 8.

Co-organized by the SCRC and the School of Education, this event will debut a digital exhibition, “From Institutionalization to Inclusion: Disability Activism in the Syracuse University Special Collections.” It was created by members of the course who have been critically engaging with primary source documents and artifacts in SCRC’s collections to explore disability as a cultural construction by examining historical developments in special and inclusive education, along with the rise (and fall) of institutions and asylums for individuals with intellectual disabilities.

The showcase and reception are free and open to the public. If you require accommodations, please email Max Wagh at [email protected] by May 1.

Cristina Hatem

• Libraries’ End of Semester Services for Spring 2024 Friday, April 26, 2024, By Cristina Hatem
• Physicist Marina Artuso Named Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Friday, April 26, 2024, By News Staff
• Whitman Shows Its Commitment to Entrepreneurship by Hiring Student-Run POV Digital Marketing Agency Friday, April 26, 2024, By News Staff
• Student Veteran Organization Hosts Gatsby-Themed Gala for Annual Awards Banquet Thursday, April 25, 2024, By Charlie Poag
• Whitman School Welcomes New Director and Associate Director to Defense Programs Thursday, April 25, 2024, By Dawn McWilliams

More In Campus & Community

Carnegie hall chief marketing officer sara villagio ’04 named vpa convocation speaker.

Sara Villagio ’04, Carnegie Hall’s chief marketing officer, will deliver the convocation address to bachelor’s and master’s degree candidates of Syracuse University’s College of Visual and Performing Arts (VPA) during the college’s Convocation ceremony on Saturday, May 11, at 7:30…

Libraries’ End of Semester Services for Spring 2024

The following services will be provided by Syracuse University Libraries for the end of the Spring 2024 semester: Extended Hours: From Tuesday, April 30 through Monday, May 6, Bird Library’s lower level up to the second floor will stay open…

Physicist Marina Artuso Named Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science

College of Arts and Sciences Professor Marina Artuso (Department of Physics) has been named a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). She was elected by the AAAS Council for extraordinary achievements in her field and…

Faculty, Staff Invited to Participate in This Year’s ‘On My Own Time’ Celebration

The University is pleased to announce its participation in “On My Own Time”—a celebration of local visual arts that highlights the often-unsung artists who create art on their own time. This year is the 51st anniversary of this program, organized…

Architecture Student Named to Future100 List in Metropolis Magazine

Linxi (Jenny) Zhang ’24—a fifth-year bachelor of architecture degree student in the School of Architecture—has been selected for Metropolis magazine’s Future100, an elite group of architecture and interior architecture students from the United States and Canada. Launched in 2021, the…

Subscribe to SU Today

If you need help with your subscription, contact [email protected] .

Connect With Us

For the media.

New general studies requirements to better prepare ASU students for a changing world

General studies gold, which includes new sustainability credits, to start for newly admitted students in fall 2024.

Sustainability students Jarod Kline (left) and Jade Lantz (bottom) work on a garden project at the St. Vincent de Paul Urban Farm with Associate Professor Rimjhim Aggarwal in 2019. ASU's new General Studies Gold requirement will include three credits in sustainability. Photo by Deanna Dent/ASU

Arizona State University has revamped its general studies requirements — the courses required of all students, regardless of major — to better reflect the interdisciplinary knowledge that students need to be successful in a rapidly evolving world.

The updated curriculum, called General Studies Gold, goes into effect in fall 2024 for newly admitted students. To ensure the change does not impact progress students have already made toward heir degree, the previous requirements, now called General Studies Maroon, remain s unchanged for current students.

Major maps and course catalogs have been updated to reflect the change, and students can check their MyASU to see which version is required for them.

Nancy Gonzales, executive vice president and university provost, said that the General Studies Gold framework is a university-wide undertaking, with the ASU Charter guiding its design.

“Over 500 faculty members participated in the process of designing the new general studies requirements,” said Gonzales. “This group of experts from across academic disciplines came together to identify the most significant questions of the 21st century and the methods that scholars are using to address questions and explore possibilities. What resulted is an interdisciplinary and flexible set of courses designed to teach students the foundational knowledge and skills they need to succeed now and in the future. The new requirements reflect ASU’s particular commitment to sustainability and ASU’s strength as an interdisciplinary, mission-guided institution.”

The updated requirements are also designed to be more straightforward.

“Another reason for the revision is that students were put off by the complexity of the previous system,” said Anne Jones, vice provost for undergraduate education. “True to our design aspiration of 'enable student success,' a goal of this change is to make requirements clear and subjects relevant to our students.”

General Studies Gold has 35 credits that are organized into nine categories: Humanities, Arts and Design (6 credits); Social and Behavioral Sciences (3 credits); Scientific Thinking in the Natural Sciences (8 credits); Quantitative Reasoning (3 credits); Mathematics (3 credits); American Institutions (3 credits); Governance and Civic Engagement (3 credits); Global Communities, Societies and Individuals (3 credits); and Sustainability (3 credits).

Additionally, all students — current and future — must complete first-year composition.

“We’re quite excited about the new governance and civic engagement requirement because it’s emphasizing the importance of how informed citizens can engage in society and solve problems; how to be part of a group and participate in collective decision-making; and how to develop the skills to engage in civic society constructively,” said Jones.

ASU is one of the first major research universities to require all students to take a course in sustainability, said Jones, who led the three-year revision project.

“We’re excited to have that requirement, which aligns with ASU’s strengths,” she said. “We were the first to have a School of Sustainability, and now tens of thousands of students will take sustainability courses.”

READ MORE:  With new general studies curriculum, 'sustainability thinking' to become part of of every undergraduate student's education

While ASU is continuously updating and adding courses, this is the first overhaul of the entire set of general studies requirements since the 1980s. The process took more than three years, starting with a faculty group in 2020, in charge of reviewing the requirements of other institutions and multiple rounds of feedback from more than 10% of the ASU faculty, and ending with final approval by the faculty senate.

“We had a pilot project in 2020–21 to see what was working and what was not working,” she said.

“What we learned is that ASU needs things to be scalable and accessible to a diverse group of students — first-year students, transfer students, students who are returning to college — ASU has a far more diverse population of students than it did when our previous general studies requirements were introduced.

“We wanted to facilitate success and have people be able to navigate the system without barriers.”

The General Studies Gold curriculum is interdisciplinary and flexible, allowing students to select from a variety of courses to fulfill a requirement. For example, courses that fulfill the sustainability requirement include The Sustainable Plate, in the College of Global Futures; Wilderness and Parks in America, in the Watts College of Public Service and Community; and Society, Supply Chains and You, in the W. P. Carey School of Business.

José Lobo, a clinical associate professor in the School of Sustainability who was involved in the revision process, said that the sustainability requirement is monumental and timely as society grapples with the effects of climate change.

“It’s not just abstract: ‘Sustainability is good for the planet, therefore take a course on it.’

“ASU is saying, in effect, ‘An undergraduate education in the 21st century in the United States must include an appreciation of the challenges and opportunities of sustainable development.’ It’s pretty substantial.”

Each General Studies Gold category has several goals for what students should learn, and faculty spent a lot of time on those, Lobo said.

One outcome for mathematics is that students should be able to apply mathematical skills in the solution of real-life problems.

Governance and Civic Engagement has this outcome: Demonstrate the ability to collaborate effectively in the presence of dissenting opinions and experiences.

Students who complete a General Studies Gold sustainability course should be able to:

• Demonstrate an understanding of the earth and its ecosphere, including the measures that indicate their capacities and limits.
• Trace historical impacts of a range of socio-economic, political or cultural choices on integrated human-environmental well-being.
• Envision pathways toward futures characterized by integrated human-environmental well-being.
• Articulate an approach to addressing contemporary questions or challenges that employs concepts or practices of sustainability.

“It’s an emphasis on preparing the student to articulate, explain and describe what they have learned. ‘What do you agree with?’ ‘What do you disagree with?’” he said.

“It’s the ability to articulate possible solutions and opportunities, so sustainability is not just a burden that’s imposed on society.”

More University news

College of Health Solutions grad and veteran doing it all for his family

By Aidan Hansen Editor’s note: This story is part of a series of profiles of notable spring 2024 graduates. His wife and kids are his “why.” Arizona native and former Marine Sgt. Clayton Alexander…

ASU partners on first-of-its-kind $90M NSF research hub for transformational learning, education research

Access to better data leads to better research. When it comes to data about personalized learning, the more researchers know about students' learning behaviors, the more meaningful the research…

ASU Police Department honors outstanding service with annual awards

By Jason Weber, ASU Police Department The Arizona State University Police Department recognized department members for their distinguished service in supporting the campus community during a…

Graduate Division recognizes outstanding students, postdocs, and faculty

On April 5, the UCR Graduate Division presented awards to several students, postdoctoral fellows, and faculty for their outstanding contributions to UCR’s research and teaching mission.

Grad awards

Taryn Dunivant , a doctoral student in plant biology, received the Yvonne Danielsen Endowed Graduate Award. Her thesis investigates the world of parasites, specifically the arms race between a nematode and its plant host. A first-generation college student, Dunivant attended community college after several years of being in the work force. She has successfully mentored students with similar non-traditional backgrounds and received awards for her outreach and engagement. 

Other graduate students who received this award are Shabnam Etemadi and Ann Song .

Three students received Dissertation Year Fellowships that provide support for three quarters to outstanding students to help them focus on their dissertation work and complete their doctoral degrees in a timely manner. Each student receives a research allowance and travel grant. The awardees are Michaela Leung , Joseph Paul Bernardoni , and Ramona Martinez .

Leung is a fourth-year graduate student in Earth and planetary sciences. She is a dedicated teacher and mentor, and has worked to promote women in STEM, including lending support to the Women+ of Color Project. She has worked extensively with NASA, including as executive secretary on a NASA review panel, and is currently a NASA ExoExplorer – one of only 12 in the nation that NASA has selected to receive mentorship from experts in the fields of exoplanet science and engineering. Her research uses the knowledge of gases to look for indications of biological gas production on planets outside our solar system. 

Bernardoni specializes in the philosophy of ethics. His dissertation, “Unwrapping the Present: The Nature, Value and Social Function of Personal Gifts,” explores the concepts of human connection through gift giving. He contrasts the wide-ranging encounters we have with gift opportunities including ritual and ceremonial, charitable, market exchange, and personal gift giving. His thesis is that the personal gift demonstrates care and not just ethical respect. He has mentored students in the summer research program.

Martinez’s research focuses on the positive health benefits of social connection. She points to evidence that social connections are important for our physical health, with lonely or socially isolated people being more susceptible to disease. Besides being an outstanding researcher, Martinez mentors students not normally represented in academia. She received the Jenessa Shapiro Graduate Research Award from the Society of Personality and Social Psychology. She has authored two book chapters.

Thelma Patnett , Aral Greene , and Iliana Cuellar are winners of the UC President’s Pre-Professoriate Fellowship Awards. The awards aim to enhance faculty pathways for historically underrepresented groups. They provide a year of stipend and tuition and a $10 000 professional development grant to be used within the remainder of the student’s doctoral education. 

Patnett is in her sixth year in the Anthropology Program. Her dissertation, “Survival and Subversive Care: Ethnographic Narratives of Nicaraguan Women and Queer Exiles in Costa Rica and the US,” addresses the survival strategies that have evolved because of empire and war on the dispossessed populations of Nicaraguan women and queer refugees in San Jose, Costa Rica, and the U.S. A first-generation student, Patnett has established a mental health support pipeline for student-parents. She also serves as the founding member and organizer of UCR’s first Mesoamerica Working group to bring attention to critical issues affecting the Central American population. 

Greene is in the fourth year of her doctoral studies in environmental sciences. She investigates the loss of nitrogen in arid environments. She is determining how and where nitrogen loss takes place and measuring nitrogen compounds in the watershed and atmosphere. Her preliminary data suggests that nitrogen is lost primarily to the atmosphere in arid zones. She received an honorable mention from the National Science Foundation. She is a recipient of the campus-wide Outstanding Teaching Award. She believes her research can bring land managers, urban scientists, and social scientists together to work on problems that disproportionally impact marginalized communities.

Cuellar is a first-generation Salvadoran Latinx student in her sixth year of the Comparative Literature Program. Her thesis is titled “Palimsexts and Body Doubles: Autotheory in the films of Agnes Varda, Albertina Carri, Laeitita Masson and Lina Rodriguez.” Her work points out the lack of recognition of female filmmakers in popular culture and asks about the filmmakers’ perception of self. Her work analyzes multiple feminist performances that look inward and counter the classical male perception of women in literature and film. Her research has received support from the UCR Center for Ideas and Society and a National Humanities Center grant. 

Postdoc awards

The Graduate Division also gave out 2024 Excellence in Postdoctoral Research awards. The recipients are Inaiara de Souza Pacheco , Giulia Scarparo , and Feng Tang .

de Souza Pacheco grew up in an area of Brazil where most children do not finish high school. She is now a postdoctoral scholar in entomology. Her research focus is to generate mutants of the glassy-winged sharpshooter — a major invasive and agricultural pest that transmits bacterial pathogens. Her broader long term research goals are to help develop more sustainable agriculture. She has successfully generated two mutated sharpshooter gene lines. She plans to modify the sharpshooter so that it cannot transmit bacterial pathogens responsible for crop damage. She is the recipient of several scholarships and has been invited to present her work at national and international meetings.

Scarparo is also a postdoctoral scholar in entomology. Her research examines the genes responsible for host parasite interactions in Formica ants. Her hypothesis is that supergenes involved in parasitism drove the socialization of insects we see today. She has presented her work at multiple venues and has helped organize several conferences and symposia. She teaches and mentors students under the U.S. Department of Agriculture grant “Six Legs, Endless Possibilities: Training the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists.”

Tang is a fourth-year postdoctoral researcher in chemistry. His general area of research is investigating mechanisms of DNA damage induced by environmental exposure and cancer. He has developed methods to map oxidation-induced lesions in DNA on a genome-wide scale and at a single-nucleotide resolution. He is the recipient of a highly prestigious National Institutes of Health K99 award , putting him on the path to an independent career. 

Faculty awards

Raquel Rall , an associate professor and associate dean of strategic initiatives in the School of Education, and Quinn McFrederick , a professor of entomology, each received the 2023/2024 Commitment to Graduate Diversity Award.

Rall’s research focuses on leadership, access, and equity in higher education. She is the recipient of multiple awards including the 2021-22 School of Education’s Faculty Mentoring Award. The UCR African Student Program awarded her “Faculty Member of the year” in 2020. She serves on the Systemwide UC Black Administrator’s Council and is a member of the Black Community Council at Stanford University. 

McFrederick’s research focuses on symbiotic relationships that involve insects. He investigates the microbiome of bees, parasites of bees, microbes that help protect bees, and how all of these vary with the type of bee. McFrederick joined UCR in 2014 and has mentored two postdoctoral scholars, eight graduate students and 18 undergraduates. He has also served on the Department of Entomology’s outreach committee, which visits more than 30 schools a year and helps organize the Riverside Insect Fair.  

Jimmy Calanchini is the Academic Senate 2023/24 awardee of the Doctoral Dissertation Advisor/Mentor award.

A professor of psychology, Calanchini joined UCR in 2018. He studies attitudes to behavior, including on a regional scale, the influence of bias in memory and the processes that underlie implicit bias. He uses mathematical modeling, which, he proposes, can link the fields of cognitive and social psychology. He has a deep commitment to mentorship and passion for encouraging and supporting diversity within his own lab and the Department of Psychology. In 2021 he was awarded the Graduate Division “Commitment to Graduate Diversity Award.” 

Related Awards

Graduate students recognized for academic excellence and research achievements, ucr chef wins gold medal in cooking challenge, student photographer wins r’card contest for sunset campus overview, ucr winner of 2024 cio 100 award for it excellence.

More than 130 Graduate Students Present Their Research

Physical Therapy students Frederick Fulper, left, and Blaise Lawson stand with their research at the spring Graduate Research Symposium in the Campus Center Event Room on April 22. More than 130 graduate students from 10 different graduate school programs presented their research at the event.

Galloway, N.J. — The research of 131 Stockton University students from 10 different graduate school programs was celebrated on April 22 at the annual spring Graduate Research Symposium in the Campus Center Event Room.

The symposium featured 47 presentations from various degree programs ranging from more science-based such as Doctor of Physical Therapy to the arts and humanities such as the master’s programs in American Studies and Holocaust and Genocide Studies.

“Designing and conducting research can be a challenging and rewarding part of this academic journey and tonight signifies the culmination of each person’s thesis or other capstone experience,” said Robert Gregg, the dean of the William T. Daly School of General Studies and Graduate Education. “We celebrate the diversity and innovativeness of the research presented this evening and promote interdisciplinary research conversations among the campus community.”

Master of Social Work candidates Stephanie Ward and Isabelle Sanger-Johnson were a little nervous to be presenting their research on “The Effects of Social Media on 13-17 Year Olds’ Drug and Alcohol Use.”

“I hate talking in front of people,” said Ward, who’s from Moorestown.

But those nerves faded as soon as she started talking about their research.

“We found that social media does have a big effect on a teen’s drug and alcohol use with peer pressure. And we all want that perfect body, right?” she said. “When we see our friends having fun on social media, that’s what you want to do.”

They found studies showing that having students journal about their lives and also attending cognitive behavioral therapy sessions can help teens cope with the negative effects of social media.

“It’s amazing that there’s so much research being done on different topics and different disciplines too, not just social work,” Ward said.

That’s one of the main goals of the symposium, said Mary Lou Galantino, distinguished professor of Physical Therapy, who had several students present their work.

Kelly Glenn, of Linwood, studied bottlenose dolphins as part of her project in the Professional Science Master's in Environmental Science program.

“It feels electric here because we are in an open space where people have the opportunity to not just be in their own little groups but also truly be interprofessional,” she said. “Not only do we have health students, but we have psychology and data science. The students work so hard in the classroom, and here they get to see the fruits of their labor.”

Kelly Glenn represented one of the newer and smaller graduate programs at the symposium. Her research titled “Ecological Influences on the Abundance of Bottlenose Dolphins off Cape May, New Jersey” came together as part of the Professional Science Master’s in Environmental Science program.

The program is structured to provide flexibility for students who are also working — meaning the classes are at night or on weekends. That was perfect for Glenn who works as an insurance agent.

“The PSM program was really cool because they really did try to focus on skills that you would need in the workplace. Some of our classes were project management and writing — just basic classes to make you a better professional,” said the Linwood resident.

Glenn interned last summer with the Cape May Whale Watch and Research Center in Cape May and worked with adjunct faculty members William Baldwin and Melissa Laurino, who’s also the research director at the center. Her project looked at dolphin distribution and how they moved around Cape May in the summer. Her research found that both the depth of the water and the temperature had a significant relationship with the distribution of dolphin sightings.

“This project, in particular, is the first time I thought of my own thing that I wanted to test, and I collected my own data and I analyzed it,” Glenn said. “This is the first time I’ve done something like this from start to finish.”

For now, Glenn plans to continue working as an insurance agent, but she is open to a job with an environmental nonprofit.

“I definitely want to continue doing research,” she said. “I grew up here. My family grew up here. I just like to learn more about the local ecosystem around me.”

— Story by Mark Melhorn, photos by Lizzie Nealis

View more images on Flickr

Tagged: 2024 News Graduate Programs Graduate Research Symposium

• Office of the President
• Read Stockton Now
• Media Resources
• Do Business With Stockton
• University Alerts
• Health & Safety
• Statements & Policies

Stockton University 101 Vera King Farris Drive Galloway, NJ 08205-9441 (609) 652-1776 Maps, Directions & Parking Accessibility Statement

Additional Locations

• Atlantic City

Stockton University is an Equal Opportunity Institution © 2024 Stockton University

$1.5 million gift launches Kenan Galapagos program this fall

The William R. Kenan, Jr. Charitable Trust-funded fellowships will support graduate students and post-docs.

“Conducting science in the Galapagos is, of course, the dream for any biologist,” said Esteban Agudo, who will graduate with a doctorate in marine ecology from Carolina in 2024. Agudo spent six months on San Cristobal Island working on his dissertation at the Galapagos Science Center, a research facility co-founded and co-operated by UNC-Chapel Hill and Universidad San Francisco de Quito in Ecuador.  

Agudo described his stay at the center, the only university-affiliated research institution of its kind in the Galapagos archipelago, as an opportunity “to work in one of the most amazing natural laboratories in the world.”   

Now more students like Agudo will have the opportunity to study and conduct research in the Galapagos, a place that serves as a model for understanding similarly challenged environments around the world. The William R. Kenan, Jr. Charitable Trust awarded $1.5 million to the UNC Center for Galapagos Studies to create the Kenan Galapagos Fellows Program, which will support three graduate students per year for three years and one post-doctoral fellow per year for two years. The first graduate fellowships will begin in fall 2024.  

“This funding provides amazing opportunities for current and incoming graduate students and post-docs to conduct cutting-edge research, apply what they are learning in the classroom and lab to real-world problems, and impact communities locally, in the state and globally,” said Amanda Thompson, director of UNC Center for Galapagos Studies and co-director of GSC.  

The grant also supports expanding research capacity in areas such as clean oceans, biodiversity, ecosystem and human health. This means more funding for Galapagos research expeditions, research equipment and infrastructure, and staff assistance to collect and disseminate critical climate data to researchers around the globe.  

“For over a decade, the Galapagos Science Center has been a hub for exceptional scientists, conducting research that deepens our understanding of fragile ecosystems and communities and solutions needed to ensure their sustainability,” said Penny Gordon-Larsen, vice chancellor for research and the William R. Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor in nutrition at UNC-Chapel Hill. “This work in the Galapagos is directly translatable to the fragile ecosystems on the North Carolina coast and its barrier islands, and the support from the Kenan Charitable Trust will enable us to generate even more innovative solutions and amplify the positive impact for people and places, here and across the globe.”  

Since the Galapagos Science Center was founded in 2011, faculty and students have conducted over 140 research projects and have been cited in over 300 research publications. More than 600 students have engaged with the region through study abroad, research and education programs, developing 150-plus undergraduate, master’s and doctoral theses from their studies. More than 8,000 Galapagos community members have participated in outreach programs.  

“The grant from Kenan Charitable Trust will support the center’s equipment and infrastructure, which will allow us to host more researchers, develop better research and improve local livelihoods and ecosystem conservation,” said Carlos Mena, co-director of the Galapagos Science Center and geography professor at USFQ.  

Currently, researchers at the GSC are conducting joint studies around food and water insecurity in the Galapagos; creating a biobank of samples from across the islands to help with preservation and provide new opportunities for studies; running marine expeditions to protect marine biodiversity and understand climate variables; and engaging in work to understand these islands and challenged ecosystems around the world.  

The UNC Center for Galapagos Studies is accepting applications for fellowships starting in fall of 2024 through May 3. For more information about the Kenan Galapagos Fellows Program and current research underway at the GSC, visit galapagos.unc.edu .  

Read more about the Kenan Galapagos Fellows Program .

The recipients include two housekeepers, two administrators, two academic staff members and one executive assistant.

Nursing alumnus trains with NASA

Over eight days at sea, Joey Biddix worked with astronauts and Navy specialists to prepare for a water recovery mission.

Nature is good for kids

A new study from FPG researchers suggests preschoolers living near green space have better mental health.

Washington Week introduces students to alumni diplomats

Tar Heels networked about foreign affairs careers through this UNC Global Affairs program.

Men’s golf claims first ACC title since 2006

The Tar Heels defeated Florida State in Charlotte to earn their 12th conference championship.

Library MakerSpace and Music Library to move in summer

The popular services will relocate to the Undergraduate and Davis libraries, respectively, for greater access.

CHASE Solar Hub pioneers liquid fuel conversion

At the center's Chapel Hill headquarters, more than 100 researchers work to turn sunlight into methanol.

Trash Force picks up after campus

What started as an extra credit opportunity grew into a club who has fun keeping Carolina clean.

Share on Mastodon

Search Icon

Events See all →

Earth week 2024.

This is a campuswide week of events, lectures, and volunteer opportunities designed to educate and inspire action related to environmental justice, climate, and nature-based solutions. This year’s theme is Restore & Regenerate.

Various locations

Excellence in Graduate Teaching Reception

5:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.

Penn Graduate Student Center, 3615 Locust Walk

1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.

College Green

Maggie Nelson

6:30 p.m. - 10:00 a.m.

Kelly Writers House, 3805 Locust Walk

Campus & Community

Penn students, staff work the polls on primary day

Penn’s campus played host to eight polling places where students and community members cast their ballots, with a team of trained poll workers keeping the action running smoothly..

Tuesday was primary day in Pennsylvania, and, although the nominees for the U.S. presidential election are already locked in, voters got a chance to weigh in on a competitive attorney general race as well as congressional and state races. 

Penn’s campus hosts polling places for eight voting divisions in Ward 27, serving voter-registered students and community residents. Houston Hall, Civic House, and the ARCH serve as the designated polling locations. And keeping the action running smoothly were the trained poll workers, mostly Penn students, staff, alumni, and neighbors. This year, in addition to the usual bagels in the morning and pizza in the evening, Penn’s Office of Government and Community Affairs (OGCA) provided snack bags to poll workers to thank them for their long day of service.

Election Day can be a long one for poll workers, often arriving around 6 a.m. and staying sometimes as late as 9 p.m., but it also can be rewarding, says Meredith Wooten . Wooten is director of the Graduate Student Center and has been working the polls at Penn since 2020. 

“During the pandemic, there was a real concern about the integrity of voting and also the ability to get people to work the polls because there was a lot of concern about health and safety, so I volunteered,” she says. It was such a positive experience; she’s kept it up.  

“Civic engagement is so important, and working at the polls is a great way to support the democratic process on campus,” she says.  

Three undergraduates working the polls on Tuesday spoke with Penn Today to share what inspires them to give up a day of their time to democracy.

Lucy Rupertus is a first-year political science major from Philadelphia who spent her inaugural primary day as a poll worker on Tuesday. Her voter-registration efforts with the OGCA inspired her to come out to work at the polls.

“You spend all year getting people registered to vote and helping to put up signage on campus to encourage people to come out, and this is an opportunity to see the fruits of our labor,” she says.  

She cites her sister’s work for an organization called Poll Hero throughout high school as the inspiration for civic work.

“She helped get people registered across the nation, and she was so passionate about it that it definitely has influenced me a lot,” Rupertus says.

Daisy Arizmendi, a nursing fourth-year from Chicago, had worked the polls in her hometown when she was a high school student, but this was also a first experience as a poll worker in Philadelphia. With the pandemic hitting as she arrived at Penn and then time spent studying abroad at The University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, Arizmendi hadn’t had the chance to work the polls again until this year. 

It was important to be a poll worker her last semester, she says, because she loves feeling a part of the election cycle.

Her nursing studies at Penn have impacted her interest in politics and policy, Arizemendi says. “I learned throughout nursing school how politics really does play into health care, and that’s very important to me as a future nurse,” she says.

Jane Kinney, a second-year from Haddonfield, New Jersey, volunteered with Penn Leads the Vote her first year at Penn. This was her second experience as a poll worker. 

Kinney says she sees working at the polls as the culmination of the work she did in her role as an intern with the OGCA, from putting together materials to working on a get-out-the-vote effort. 

“It’s nice to be here on the actual day; it’s a chance to be a part of the civic process and see all that work play out in the real world,” she says.

As a political science and environmental studies double major, Kinney says policy has a lot of implications for solving issues that she’s passionate about, such as the climate crisis.

“I appreciate the impact that government can have,” she says.

Picturing artistic pursuits

Penn celebrates operation and benefits of largest solar power project in Pennsylvania

Solar production has begun at the Great Cove I and II facilities in central Pennsylvania, the equivalent of powering 70% of the electricity demand from Penn’s academic campus and health system in the Philadelphia area.

Education, Business, & Law

Investing in future teachers and educational leaders

The Empowerment Through Education Scholarship Program at Penn’s Graduate School of Education is helping to prepare and retain teachers and educational leaders.

Arts, Humanities, & Social Sciences

‘The Illuminated Body’ fuses color, light, and sound

A new Arthur Ross Gallery exhibition of work by artist Barbara Earl Thomas features cut-paper portraits reminiscent of stained glass and an immersive installation constructed with intricately cut material lit from behind.

25 years of ‘LOVE’

The iconic sculpture by pop artist Robert Indiana arrived on campus in 1999 and soon became a natural place to come together.