phd thesis experience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what no one else will tell you!

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

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

• academic responsibilities,
• and professional development.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6:00 PM – Dinner break

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

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

11:00 PM – Bedtime routine, sleep

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

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

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

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

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

How stressful is being a PhD student?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PhD student workloads and holidays

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

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

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

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

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

Later Stage PhD ( Doctorate Candidates )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrapping up – PhD and Doctoral Student experience

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

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

2024 © Academia Insider

Tips for writing a PhD dissertation: FAQs answered

From how to choose a topic to writing the abstract and managing work-life balance through the years it takes to complete a doctorate, here we collect expert advice to get you through the PhD writing process

Campus team

Additional links.

• More on this topic

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} Analytical testing is the key to industry collaborations

Is it time to turn off turnitin, use ai to get your students thinking critically, taming anxiety around public speaking, emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn.

Embarking on a PhD is “probably the most challenging task that a young scholar attempts to do”, write Mark Stephan Felix and Ian Smith in their practical guide to dissertation and thesis writing. After years of reading and research to answer a specific question or proposition, the candidate will submit about 80,000 words that explain their methods and results and demonstrate their unique contribution to knowledge. Here are the answers to frequently asked questions about writing a doctoral thesis or dissertation.

What’s the difference between a dissertation and a thesis?

Whatever the genre of the doctorate, a PhD must offer an original contribution to knowledge. The terms “dissertation” and “thesis” both refer to the long-form piece of work produced at the end of a research project and are often used interchangeably. Which one is used might depend on the country, discipline or university. In the UK, “thesis” is generally used for the work done for a PhD, while a “dissertation” is written for a master’s degree. The US did the same until the 1960s, says Oxbridge Essays, when the convention switched, and references appeared to a “master’s thesis” and “doctoral dissertation”. To complicate matters further, undergraduate long essays are also sometimes referred to as a thesis or dissertation.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “thesis” as “a dissertation, especially by a candidate for a degree” and “dissertation” as “a detailed discourse on a subject, especially one submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of a degree or diploma”.

• Ten platinum rules for PhD supervisors
• Fostering freedom in PhD students: how supervisors can shape accessible paths for doctoral research
• Lessons from students on effective research supervision

The title “doctor of philosophy”, incidentally, comes from the degree’s origins, write Dr Felix, an associate professor at Mahidol University in Thailand, and Dr Smith, retired associate professor of education at the University of Sydney , whose co-authored guide focuses on the social sciences. The PhD was first awarded in the 19th century by the philosophy departments of German universities, which at that time taught science, social science and liberal arts.

How long should a PhD thesis be?

A PhD thesis (or dissertation) is typically 60,000 to 120,000 words ( 100 to 300 pages in length ) organised into chapters, divisions and subdivisions (with roughly 10,000 words per chapter) – from introduction (with clear aims and objectives) to conclusion.

The structure of a dissertation will vary depending on discipline (humanities, social sciences and STEM all have their own conventions), location and institution. Examples and guides to structure proliferate online. The University of Salford , for example, lists: title page, declaration, acknowledgements, abstract, table of contents, lists of figures, tables and abbreviations (where needed), chapters, appendices and references.

A scientific-style thesis will likely need: introduction, literature review, materials and methods, results, discussion, bibliography and references.

As well as checking the overall criteria and expectations of your institution for your research, consult your school handbook for the required length and format (font, layout conventions and so on) for your dissertation.

A PhD takes three to four years to complete; this might extend to six to eight years for a part-time doctorate.

What are the steps for completing a PhD?

Before you get started in earnest , you’ll likely have found a potential supervisor, who will guide your PhD journey, and done a research proposal (which outlines what you plan to research and how) as part of your application, as well as a literature review of existing scholarship in the field, which may form part of your final submission.

In the UK, PhD candidates undertake original research and write the results in a thesis or dissertation, says author and vlogger Simon Clark , who posted videos to YouTube throughout his own PhD journey . Then they submit the thesis in hard copy and attend the viva voce (which is Latin for “living voice” and is also called an oral defence or doctoral defence) to convince the examiners that their work is original, understood and all their own. Afterwards, if necessary, they make changes and resubmit. If the changes are approved, the degree is awarded.

The steps are similar in Australia , although candidates are mostly assessed on their thesis only; some universities may include taught courses, and some use a viva voce. A PhD in Australia usually takes three years full time.

In the US, the PhD process begins with taught classes (similar to a taught master’s) and a comprehensive exam (called a “field exam” or “dissertation qualifying exam”) before the candidate embarks on their original research. The whole journey takes four to six years.

A PhD candidate will need three skills and attitudes to get through their doctoral studies, says Tara Brabazon , professor of cultural studies at Flinders University in Australia who has written extensively about the PhD journey :

• master the academic foundational skills (research, writing, ability to navigate different modalities)
• time-management skills and the ability to focus on reading and writing
• determined motivation to do a PhD.

How do I choose the topic for my PhD dissertation or thesis?

It’s important to find a topic that will sustain your interest for the years it will take to complete a PhD. “Finding a sustainable topic is the most important thing you [as a PhD student] would do,” says Dr Brabazon in a video for Times Higher Education . “Write down on a big piece of paper all the topics, all the ideas, all the questions that really interest you, and start to cross out all the ones that might just be a passing interest.” Also, she says, impose the “Who cares? Who gives a damn?” question to decide if the topic will be useful in a future academic career.

The availability of funding and scholarships is also often an important factor in this decision, says veteran PhD supervisor Richard Godwin, from Harper Adams University .

Define a gap in knowledge – and one that can be questioned, explored, researched and written about in the time available to you, says Gina Wisker, head of the Centre for Learning and Teaching at the University of Brighton. “Set some boundaries,” she advises. “Don’t try to ask everything related to your topic in every way.”

James Hartley, research professor in psychology at Keele University, says it can also be useful to think about topics that spark general interest. If you do pick something that taps into the zeitgeist, your findings are more likely to be noticed.

You also need to find someone else who is interested in it, too. For STEM candidates , this will probably be a case of joining a team of people working in a similar area where, ideally, scholarship funding is available. A centre for doctoral training (CDT) or doctoral training partnership (DTP) will advertise research projects. For those in the liberal arts and social sciences, it will be a matter of identifying a suitable supervisor .

Avoid topics that are too broad (hunger across a whole country, for example) or too narrow (hunger in a single street) to yield useful solutions of academic significance, write Mark Stephan Felix and Ian Smith. And ensure that you’re not repeating previous research or trying to solve a problem that has already been answered. A PhD thesis must be original.

What is a thesis proposal?

After you have read widely to refine your topic and ensure that it and your research methods are original, and discussed your project with a (potential) supervisor, you’re ready to write a thesis proposal , a document of 1,500 to 3,000 words that sets out the proposed direction of your research. In the UK, a research proposal is usually part of the application process for admission to a research degree. As with the final dissertation itself, format varies among disciplines, institutions and countries but will usually contain title page, aims, literature review, methodology, timetable and bibliography. Examples of research proposals are available online.

How to write an abstract for a dissertation or thesis

The abstract presents your thesis to the wider world – and as such may be its most important element , says the NUI Galway writing guide. It outlines the why, how, what and so what of the thesis . Unlike the introduction, which provides background but not research findings, the abstract summarises all sections of the dissertation in a concise, thorough, focused way and demonstrates how well the writer understands their material. Check word-length limits with your university – and stick to them. About 300 to 500 words is a rough guide ­– but it can be up to 1,000 words.

The abstract is also important for selection and indexing of your thesis, according to the University of Melbourne guide , so be sure to include searchable keywords.

It is the first thing to be read but the last element you should write. However, Pat Thomson , professor of education at the University of Nottingham , advises that it is not something to be tackled at the last minute.

How to write a stellar conclusion

As well as chapter conclusions, a thesis often has an overall conclusion to draw together the key points covered and to reflect on the unique contribution to knowledge. It can comment on future implications of the research and open up new ideas emanating from the work. It is shorter and more general than the discussion chapter , says online editing site Scribbr, and reiterates how the work answers the main question posed at the beginning of the thesis. The conclusion chapter also often discusses the limitations of the research (time, scope, word limit, access) in a constructive manner.

It can be useful to keep a collection of ideas as you go – in the online forum DoctoralWriting SIG , academic developer Claire Aitchison, of the University of South Australia , suggests using a “conclusions bank” for themes and inspirations, and using free-writing to keep this final section fresh. (Just when you feel you’ve run out of steam.) Avoid aggrandising or exaggerating the impact of your work. It should remind the reader what has been done, and why it matters.

How to format a bibliography (or where to find a reliable model)

Most universities use a preferred style of references , writes THE associate editor Ingrid Curl. Make sure you know what this is and follow it. “One of the most common errors in academic writing is to cite papers in the text that do not then appear in the bibliography. All references in your thesis need to be cross-checked with the bibliography before submission. Using a database during your research can save a great deal of time in the writing-up process.”

A bibliography contains not only works cited explicitly but also those that have informed or contributed to the research – and as such illustrates its scope; works are not limited to written publications but include sources such as film or visual art.

Examiners can start marking from the back of the script, writes Dr Brabazon. “Just as cooks are judged by their ingredients and implements, we judge doctoral students by the calibre of their sources,” she advises. She also says that candidates should be prepared to speak in an oral examination of the PhD about any texts included in their bibliography, especially if there is a disconnect between the thesis and the texts listed.

Can I use informal language in my PhD?

Don’t write like a stereotypical academic , say Kevin Haggerty, professor of sociology at the University of Alberta , and Aaron Doyle, associate professor in sociology at Carleton University , in their tongue-in-cheek guide to the PhD journey. “If you cannot write clearly and persuasively, everything about PhD study becomes harder.” Avoid jargon, exotic words, passive voice and long, convoluted sentences – and work on it consistently. “Writing is like playing guitar; it can improve only through consistent, concerted effort.”

Be deliberate and take care with your writing . “Write your first draft, leave it and then come back to it with a critical eye. Look objectively at the writing and read it closely for style and sense,” advises THE ’s Ms Curl. “Look out for common errors such as dangling modifiers, subject-verb disagreement and inconsistency. If you are too involved with the text to be able to take a step back and do this, then ask a friend or colleague to read it with a critical eye. Remember Hemingway’s advice: ‘Prose is architecture, not interior decoration.’ Clarity is key.”

How often should a PhD candidate meet with their supervisor?

Since the PhD supervisor provides a range of support and advice – including on research techniques, planning and submission – regular formal supervisions are essential, as is establishing a line of contact such as email if the candidate needs help or advice outside arranged times. The frequency varies according to university, discipline and individual scholars.

Once a week is ideal, says Dr Brabazon. She also advocates a two-hour initial meeting to establish the foundations of the candidate-supervisor relationship .

The University of Edinburgh guide to writing a thesis suggests that creating a timetable of supervisor meetings right at the beginning of the research process will allow candidates to ensure that their work stays on track throughout. The meetings are also the place to get regular feedback on draft chapters.

“A clear structure and a solid framework are vital for research,” writes Dr Godwin on THE Campus . Use your supervisor to establish this and provide a realistic view of what can be achieved. “It is vital to help students identify the true scientific merit, the practical significance of their work and its value to society.”

How to proofread your dissertation (what to look for)

Proofreading is the final step before printing and submission. Give yourself time to ensure that your work is the best it can be . Don’t leave proofreading to the last minute; ideally, break it up into a few close-reading sessions. Find a quiet place without distractions. A checklist can help ensure that all aspects are covered.

Proofing is often helped by a change of format – so it can be easier to read a printout rather than working off the screen – or by reading sections out of order. Fresh eyes are better at spotting typographical errors and inconsistencies, so leave time between writing and proofreading. Check with your university’s policies before asking another person to proofread your thesis for you.

As well as close details such as spelling and grammar, check that all sections are complete, all required elements are included , and nothing is repeated or redundant. Don’t forget to check headings and subheadings. Does the text flow from one section to another? Is the structure clear? Is the work a coherent whole with a clear line throughout?

Ensure consistency in, for example, UK v US spellings, capitalisation, format, numbers (digits or words, commas, units of measurement), contractions, italics and hyphenation. Spellchecks and online plagiarism checkers are also your friend.

How do you manage your time to complete a PhD dissertation?

Treat your PhD like a full-time job, that is, with an eight-hour working day. Within that, you’ll need to plan your time in a way that gives a sense of progress . Setbacks and periods where it feels as if you are treading water are all but inevitable, so keeping track of small wins is important, writes A Happy PhD blogger Luis P. Prieto.

Be specific with your goals – use the SMART acronym (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and timely).

And it’s never too soon to start writing – even if early drafts are overwritten and discarded.

“ Write little and write often . Many of us make the mistake of taking to writing as one would take to a sprint, in other words, with relatively short bursts of intense activity. Whilst this can prove productive, generally speaking it is not sustainable…In addition to sustaining your activity, writing little bits on a frequent basis ensures that you progress with your thinking. The comfort of remaining in abstract thought is common; writing forces us to concretise our thinking,” says Christian Gilliam, AHSS researcher developer at the University of Cambridge ’s Centre for Teaching and Learning.

Make time to write. “If you are more alert early in the day, find times that suit you in the morning; if you are a ‘night person’, block out some writing sessions in the evenings,” advises NUI Galway’s Dermot Burns, a lecturer in English and creative arts. Set targets, keep daily notes of experiment details that you will need in your thesis, don’t confuse writing with editing or revising – and always back up your work.

What work-life balance tips should I follow to complete my dissertation?

During your PhD programme, you may have opportunities to take part in professional development activities, such as teaching, attending academic conferences and publishing your work. Your research may include residencies, field trips or archive visits. This will require time-management skills as well as prioritising where you devote your energy and factoring in rest and relaxation. Organise your routine to suit your needs , and plan for steady and regular progress.

How to deal with setbacks while writing a thesis or dissertation

Have a contingency plan for delays or roadblocks such as unexpected results.

Accept that writing is messy, first drafts are imperfect, and writer’s block is inevitable, says Dr Burns. His tips for breaking it include relaxation to free your mind from clutter, writing a plan and drawing a mind map of key points for clarity. He also advises feedback, reflection and revision: “Progressing from a rough version of your thoughts to a superior and workable text takes time, effort, different perspectives and some expertise.”

“Academia can be a relentlessly brutal merry-go-round of rejection, rebuttal and failure,” writes Lorraine Hope , professor of applied cognitive psychology at the University of Portsmouth, on THE Campus. Resilience is important. Ensure that you and your supervisor have a relationship that supports open, frank, judgement-free communication.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter .

Authoring a PhD Thesis: How to Plan, Draft, Write and Finish a Doctoral Dissertation (2003), by Patrick Dunleavy

Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day: A Guide to Starting, Revising, and Finishing Your Doctoral Thesis (1998), by Joan Balker

Challenges in Writing Your Dissertation: Coping with the Emotional, Interpersonal, and Spiritual Struggles (2015), by Noelle Sterne

Analytical testing is the key to industry collaborations

A framework to teach library research skills, contextual learning: linking learning to the real world, how hard can it be testing ai detection tools, chatgpt’s impact on nursing education and assessments, how to tackle the phd dissertation.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

Think of yourself as a member of a jury, listening to a lawyer who is presenting an opening argument. You'll want to know very soon whether the lawyer believes the accused to be guilty or not guilty, and how the lawyer plans to convince you. Readers of academic essays are like jury members: before they have read too far, they want to know what the essay argues as well as how the writer plans to make the argument. After reading your thesis statement, the reader should think, "This essay is going to try to convince me of something. I'm not convinced yet, but I'm interested to see how I might be."

An effective thesis cannot be answered with a simple "yes" or "no." A thesis is not a topic; nor is it a fact; nor is it an opinion. "Reasons for the fall of communism" is a topic. "Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe" is a fact known by educated people. "The fall of communism is the best thing that ever happened in Europe" is an opinion. (Superlatives like "the best" almost always lead to trouble. It's impossible to weigh every "thing" that ever happened in Europe. And what about the fall of Hitler? Couldn't that be "the best thing"?)

A good thesis has two parts. It should tell what you plan to argue, and it should "telegraph" how you plan to argue—that is, what particular support for your claim is going where in your essay.

Steps in Constructing a Thesis

First, analyze your primary sources.  Look for tension, interest, ambiguity, controversy, and/or complication. Does the author contradict himself or herself? Is a point made and later reversed? What are the deeper implications of the author's argument? Figuring out the why to one or more of these questions, or to related questions, will put you on the path to developing a working thesis. (Without the why, you probably have only come up with an observation—that there are, for instance, many different metaphors in such-and-such a poem—which is not a thesis.)

Once you have a working thesis, write it down.  There is nothing as frustrating as hitting on a great idea for a thesis, then forgetting it when you lose concentration. And by writing down your thesis you will be forced to think of it clearly, logically, and concisely. You probably will not be able to write out a final-draft version of your thesis the first time you try, but you'll get yourself on the right track by writing down what you have.

Keep your thesis prominent in your introduction.  A good, standard place for your thesis statement is at the end of an introductory paragraph, especially in shorter (5-15 page) essays. Readers are used to finding theses there, so they automatically pay more attention when they read the last sentence of your introduction. Although this is not required in all academic essays, it is a good rule of thumb.

Anticipate the counterarguments.  Once you have a working thesis, you should think about what might be said against it. This will help you to refine your thesis, and it will also make you think of the arguments that you'll need to refute later on in your essay. (Every argument has a counterargument. If yours doesn't, then it's not an argument—it may be a fact, or an opinion, but it is not an argument.)

This statement is on its way to being a thesis. However, it is too easy to imagine possible counterarguments. For example, a political observer might believe that Dukakis lost because he suffered from a "soft-on-crime" image. If you complicate your thesis by anticipating the counterargument, you'll strengthen your argument, as shown in the sentence below.

Some Caveats and Some Examples

A thesis is never a question.  Readers of academic essays expect to have questions discussed, explored, or even answered. A question ("Why did communism collapse in Eastern Europe?") is not an argument, and without an argument, a thesis is dead in the water.

A thesis is never a list.  "For political, economic, social and cultural reasons, communism collapsed in Eastern Europe" does a good job of "telegraphing" the reader what to expect in the essay—a section about political reasons, a section about economic reasons, a section about social reasons, and a section about cultural reasons. However, political, economic, social and cultural reasons are pretty much the only possible reasons why communism could collapse. This sentence lacks tension and doesn't advance an argument. Everyone knows that politics, economics, and culture are important.

A thesis should never be vague, combative or confrontational.  An ineffective thesis would be, "Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe because communism is evil." This is hard to argue (evil from whose perspective? what does evil mean?) and it is likely to mark you as moralistic and judgmental rather than rational and thorough. It also may spark a defensive reaction from readers sympathetic to communism. If readers strongly disagree with you right off the bat, they may stop reading.

An effective thesis has a definable, arguable claim.  "While cultural forces contributed to the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the disintegration of economies played the key role in driving its decline" is an effective thesis sentence that "telegraphs," so that the reader expects the essay to have a section about cultural forces and another about the disintegration of economies. This thesis makes a definite, arguable claim: that the disintegration of economies played a more important role than cultural forces in defeating communism in Eastern Europe. The reader would react to this statement by thinking, "Perhaps what the author says is true, but I am not convinced. I want to read further to see how the author argues this claim."

A thesis should be as clear and specific as possible.  Avoid overused, general terms and abstractions. For example, "Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe because of the ruling elite's inability to address the economic concerns of the people" is more powerful than "Communism collapsed due to societal discontent."

Copyright 1999, Maxine Rodburg and The Tutors of the Writing Center at Harvard University

Developing the PhD thesis project in relation to individual contexts: a multiple case study of five doctoral researchers

• Open access
• Published: 17 June 2022
• Volume 85 , pages 1143–1160, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Kelsey Inouye   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3961-3811 1  

5484 Accesses

2 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The early phase of doctoral education is a critical yet under-researched period in PhD programs, when doctoral researchers must solidify their thesis projects prior to embarking on data collection. What makes this time particularly challenging is that new doctoral researchers synthesize their research thinking while they are still learning the expectations and nature of PhD research. This study draws on Emirbayer and Mische’s ( 1998 ) chordal triad of agency to explore how PhD researchers’ goals and experiences (individual contexts) influence how they approach doctoral research and develop their thesis projects during the first year of the PhD. The results of this small-scale longitudinal multiple case study of five first-year UK PhD social science researchers suggest that there are at least three approaches PhD researchers may adopt in developing their research projects, influenced by personal histories and post-PhD goals—pragmatic/strategic, idealistic, and realistic. In turn, these approaches may change over time as PhD researchers acquire experience and encounter critical events. Implications include the need for attention to a diversity of PhD researchers’ needs and goals, which may necessitate additional support or training in tailored areas, and a call for questioning the capacity of PhD researchers to contribute to/stretch the structures surrounding thesis writing.

Similar content being viewed by others

A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis

Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations

How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

This study focuses on the individual experiences of five first-year social science PhD researchers at a UK university. In the UK as elsewhere, doctoral education has been recognized as central to the growing knowledge economy (Department for Education, 2017 ). The structure of UK doctoral programs has moved on from the apprenticeship model predominant in the 1980s to address concerns about attrition and career preparedness. It now includes integrated research training courses, graduate schools, research training courses, graduate schools, doctoral colleges, and doctoral training centers or partnerships (UK Council for Graduate Education, 2015 ). Alongside changes in training, the doctoral degree has diversified to include professional doctorates and thesis formats other than the traditional monograph—for instance, thesis by publication or integration. Current UK policy outlined in the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) Characteristics Statement declares that “All UK doctorates, regardless of their form, continue to require the main focus of the candidate's work to demonstrate an original contribution to knowledge” (QAA, 2020 , p. 3) and that doctoral graduates should be able to “think critically about problems to produce innovative solutions” as well as synthesize large bodies of information and communicate with diverse audiences (QAA, 2020 , p. 3). This policy statement sets the backdrop against which all UK doctorates should be assessed.

Transitioning into a doctoral program can be challenging, as PhD researchers must make the shift from consuming and analyzing knowledge to producing it (Lovitts, 2005 ; McPherson, et al., 2018 ). For those in the humanities and social sciences, engaging in a substantial piece of research also means a level of self-direction and isolation for which many PhD researchers do not feel prepared (Gardner, 2008 ). As such, doctoral education is often described as a transition from dependence to independence, associated with developing and taking on a new identity as a researcher (e.g., Green, 2005 ) and becoming part of the academic and disciplinary discourse community.

Existing research on the early stages of doctoral programs, meaning the phases prior to thesis data collection and writing, suggest that challenges of transitioning into the PhD include establishing a sense of belonging, learning the expectations of the disciplinary field, developing research and writing skills, gaining ownership over the work, and understanding the nature of the doctorate (Chatterjee-Padmanabhan & Nielson, 2018 ; Creely & Laletas, 2019 ; Fisher et al., 2020 ). At the same time, PhD researchers do not have identical experiences; variations in PhD researcher transitions can be attributed to diversity in prior educational and cultural experiences and ways of thinking (see analytical vs. practical intelligence, Lovitts, 2008 ), highlighting the importance of individual/personal factors in understanding how new doctoral researchers adapt to the PhD.

Given the often challenging and individual nature of PhD researcher transitions, this study aimed to explore how personal contexts and goals influence the experiences of five first-year PhD researchers in the UK, as they designed their social science thesis projects over the course of 1 year. At the institution in which this study took place, plans for the PhD research project are synthesized in a document (hereafter “Upgrade document”) that is submitted alongside institutional documents (e.g., ethics forms) and orally examined by two internal assessors in a process referred to as Upgrade, which typically takes place at the end of the first year. The content of the Upgrade document varies slightly by department but generally includes the questions, theoretical framework, literature, and methods guiding the thesis research.

It is important to note that in the UK, doctoral programs vary in structure across institutions and departments. The goal of this study is therefore to provide insight into the individual experiences of the participants at a single university and disciplinary cluster as they conceived of and composed their Upgrade documents in the first year of the doctorate. The research question guiding this study was:

How do first-year PhD researchers in the social sciences (at a single UK institution) shape and negotiate their Upgrade documents over time and in relation to their prior experiences and goals?

Doctoral writing and supervisor feedback

Research suggests that writing is a challenge for many doctoral researchers (Aitchison & Lee, 2007 ; Cameron, et al., 2009 ; Cotterall, 2011 ; Lee & Aitchison, 2009 ), particularly in the early stages of the PhD (Caffarella & Barnett, 2000 ). What makes PhD writing difficult is that it not only requires an understanding of the expectations and nuances of the thesis and other academic genres, but also necessitates the synthesis of disciplinary and methodological knowledge; writing is both an expression of and tool for thinking (Bazerman & Prior, 2004 ; Klein, 1999 ; Yore, et al., 2004 , 2006 ).

Although variation in writing practices and writing structures exist across disciplines (Carter, 2007 ), in general, research writing requires the writer to draw from and analyze multiple sources and concepts to create new knowledge in a process of meaning-making (Ivanic, 1998 ) that extends from the literature review through the writing up of results (Kamler & Thomson, 2014 ). In many ways, the writing process and the research process are intimately related, suggesting that researchers use writing to construct and present knowledge, vacillating between data collection, writing, analysis, and inquiry (Yore, et al., 2006 , p. 116). At the same time, many doctoral writers struggle to articulate—or legitimize—their personal voices within the web of academic writing structures (Naomi, 2021 ).

Supervisors support the doctoral researcher’s thesis research and writing, ideally guiding them towards becoming independent researchers and experts in their relevant fields (Pearson & Brew, 2002 ). Although PhD researcher experience is influenced by a network of personal and professional relationships (Hopwood, 2010 ), the supervisory relationship is perhaps the most critical in the PhD context, often influencing the overall experience of the program (Cotterall, 2015 ; Pyhalto et al., 2015 ).

The primary pedagogical approach utilized in supervision is that of feedback, a dialogic process providing information about disciplinary and institutional expectations and facilitating critical discussion (Anderson, et al., 2008 ; McAlpine & McKinnon, 2012 ). Argument, logic, language, and genre are common foci of supervisor comments (Basturkmen, et al., 2014 ; Can & Walker, 2014 ; Xu, 2017 ). Several studies focused primarily on international graduate students have examined how doctoral students interpret and respond to supervisor feedback (e.g., Wang & Li, 2011 ; Xu, 2017 ; Xu & Hu, 2020 ), finding that PhD researchers’ prior experience is linked to supervision needs and feedback responses. For instance, PhD researchers in the early stages of their research tend to require more support, preferring “directive, specific and consistent feedback” and are more likely to respond negatively to criticism (Wang & Li, 2011 ). In contrast, PhD researchers with greater confidence and stronger ownership of their work exhibit more positive attitudes towards challenging or critical feedback (Wang & Li, 2011 ). Graduate students may also resist feedback out of a desire to promote their “own agendas” (Vehviläinen, 2009 , p. 197) or a belief that changes are unnecessary (Xu, 2017 ), suggesting that responses to feedback may be linked to individual goals and provide evidence of agency.

PhD contexts and goals

Doctoral researchers bring their individual histories and goals for the future to their PhD study. Understanding how prior experience and goals influence perspectives of and approaches to doctoral research is important, and existing studies suggests that biographical factors may affect the extent to which PhD researchers can access disciplinary and research training cultures (Deem & Brehony, 2000 ), as well as how they cope with challenges (Hockey, 1994 ) and respond to supervisor feedback (Inouye & McAlpine, 2017 ). International PhD researchers, in particular, may have more difficulty accessing academic research cultures due to differences in language, cultural norms, higher education systems, and expectations for doctoral study (Deem & Brehony, 2000 ). For instance, case studies and self-studies on international PhD researchers suggest that doctoral researchers from non-Anglophone contexts (e.g., China/East Asia) may experience disparities between their earlier education experiences and the expectations of their PhD programs in English-speaking countries (Li, 2018 ; Soong, et al., 2015 ). Challenges may include taking ownership over the thesis and displaying typically Eurocentric “critical thinking” (Wu & Hu, 2020 ; Xu & Grant, 2017 ). Further, PhD researchers from Confucian-influenced cultures may be more reluctant to disagree with or “push” their supervisors for additional feedback due to differing expectations of supervisory relationships (Nguyen & Robertson, 2020 ). Likewise, they may focus on gaining deep understanding of expert texts rather than critiquing them (Chang & Strauss, 2010 ; Xu & Grant, 2017 ), reflecting differences in academic practices and varying forms of critical thought (see Chang & Strauss, 2010 ; Paton, 2005 ).

Motivations for undertaking PhD work and career goals may also influence how PhD researchers experience doctoral research. Interview-based research on motivations for undertaking PhD work (Brailsford, 2010 ; Gill & Hoppe, 2009 ; Guerin, et al., 2015 ; Leonard, et al., 2005 ; Skakni, 2018 ; Taylor, 2007 ) indicate that preconceived notions of the PhD and goals/motivations may fall into several categories, including career considerations, professional development, and personal and intellectual fulfillment. Evidence suggests that motivation influences the strategies used to approach the PhD as well as supervision preferences (Skakni, 2018 ; Taylor, 2007 ). For example, PhD researchers motivated by career aspirations were strategic and pragmatic about the PhD, concerned with quick progress and desiring supervisors who could guide them through the institutional requirements and facilitate work opportunities (Skakni, 2018 ).

PhD researcher agency: individual goals and contexts

This study draws on Emirbayer and Mische’s chordal triad of agency (1988) to examine how PhD researchers make decisions about how to develop their Upgrade documents in relation to the personal, institutional, and disciplinary contexts that influence their experiences of early-stage doctoral research and, more specifically, the Upgrade document. In social science, agency is typically understood as the capacity of individuals to act independently and has been theorized in different ways depending on the extent to which social structure is believed to facilitate or constrain that capacity. Aldrich ( 1999 ) succinctly described the problem of agency as “how much scope…people have for independence and creativity in the face of social structural constraints on their understanding and behavior” (p. 23). Research on PhD researchers’ agency has explored how PhD researchers exercise agency to develop their scholarly identity-trajectories (McAlpine, et al., 2014 ) and address academic and cultural hurdles through establishing and drawing on relationships (Cotterall, 2015 ; Hopwood, 2010 ), sharing their research (Nguyen & Robertson, 2020 ), and negotiating supervisory relationships and supervisor feedback (Inouye & McAlpine, 2017 ). Such studies provide a counter-narrative to traditional framings of PhD education that position doctoral researchers as undergoing a one-way socialization process into the institution and relevant discipline (see Hopwood, 2010 ).

The chordal triad of agency developed by Emirbayer and Mische ( 1998 ) builds upon the work of Mead ( 1932 ), defining agency as:

...the temporally constructed engagement by actors of different structural environments—the temporal-relational contexts of action—which, through the interplay of habit, imagination, and judgment, both reproduces and transforms those structures in interactive response to the problems posed by changing historical situations. (1998, p. 970)

Agency is thus expressed through human action in response to a given temporal-relational context. In each act of agency, three elements are at play: iteration, projectivity, and practical-evaluation. Iteration represents the past and is characterized by habitual acts in response to similar situations—schemas for action developed over time. Projectivity represents the future: the person’s plans and desires. As people encounter new situations, they adapt existing schemas in relation to their goals and imagine possible outcomes. Practical-evaluation represents the present, acknowledging the ways in which actions are embedded in the current evolving situation, representing “the capacity of actors to make practical and normative judgments among alternative possible trajectories of action” (p. 971). Most importantly, practical-evaluation provides for reflection, insight into one’s particular circumstances in relation to past and future, which may lead to changes in behavior.

Applied to PhD researchers, the chordal triad lends two key things. First, the iteration and projectivity elements draw attention to how prior experience and imagined futures/goals influence individual PhD researchers’ actions as they shape their plans for their thesis projects. Second, the practical-evaluation element allows for consideration of how PhD researchers’ temporal-relational contexts (e.g., new knowledge, additional feedback, and upcoming deadlines) change over time and influence how they evaluate and gain insight into their particular circumstances, which may potentially lead to changes in behavior: exercising agency to alter one’s contexts. In other words, as PhD researchers learn over time the expectations for the thesis project through supervisor feedback and other relevant interactions and experiences (the temporal-relational context), they adjust their actions in response to the new knowledge and in relation to prior experiences and goals.

This paper draws from a longitudinal (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010 ) multiple-case study in which each participant constituted a case. The study involved five participants from three social science departments at a large research-intensive university in the UK. At this institution, social science departments require first-year PhD researchers to submit a written document (“Upgrade document”) for oral assessment by two examiners, usually from the same department. Successful completion of this milestone—hereafter referred to as “Upgrade”—marks the PhD researcher’s transition into the data collection phase of research and confers full doctoral status. Although all academic departments require an Upgrade examination, the specific timings and requirements vary across disciplinary areas—for instance, the Upgrade document in natural science departments tends to be much shorter. In the three social science departments in which this study took place—Education, Geography, and Sociology—Upgrade typically occurs between 8 and 12 months after commencement of the PhD program. The submitted Upgrade document is a lengthy document of roughly 10,000 words, containing a literature review, conceptual framework, research questions, and methodology/research design. Upgrade can result in three possible outcomes, pass, minor corrections, and resubmit, and a PhD researcher has two opportunities to successfully complete Upgrade.

Data collection took place from October 2018 through December 2019. The participants were first-year PhD researchers. Four participants were recruited through email solicitation and one via snowball sampling. This study received ethical approval from the institution. Demographic characteristics of the participants are displayed in Table 1 .

Data included (1) a five-item demographic questionnaire, (2) semi-structured interviews, (3) drafts of the Upgrade document and other related writings, (4) written feedback from supervisors and, if relevant, peers, and (5) recordings of supervision meetings. However, for the purpose of this paper, the results will focus primarily on findings from the participant interviews.

Three types of interviews were conducted: (1) background interviews, (2) Upgrade document process interviews, and (3) concluding interviews. Background interviews, which took place shortly after each participant joined the study, focused on the participant’s prior experiences with writing, feedback, and social science research, as well as their reasons for doing a PhD, perceived challenges, and post-PhD career goals. The purpose of these interviews was to establish each participant’s individual historical context.

Upgrade document process interviews comprised most interview data in this study. These interviews were scheduled every 2 months at a mutually convenient time and place and focused on the participant’s ongoing work in relation to the Upgrade document, using written drafts of the Upgrade document and if relevant, other notes and documents, to provide examples of specific feedback and revisions. Finally, concluding interviews took place following each participant’s successful completion of the Upgrade examination. These interviews focused on the participants’ experience of Upgrade and reflections on the first year of the PhD.

Drafts and supervision recordings

In addition to the interviews, I collected drafts of the participants’ Upgrade documents and recorded supervision meetings with supervisor consent. Each participant was given the option to self-record their supervisions or to have me attend and record the supervisions. All interviews and supervision recordings were manually transcribed. Using MaxQDA 12 software, I created five separate folders, one for each participant. Each folder served to store the collected data, which were chronologically organized. The data were analyzed via a combination of a priori and emergent coding, situated within an overall narrative analysis. Data were analyzed first within-cases to capture variation in individual experience and then across cases to detect emerging patterns.

A priori coding

A priori codes (Saldana, 2013 ) were based on relevant department guidelines for a successful Upgrade and Emirbayer and Mische’s ( 1998 ) chordal triad conceptualization of agency: iteration, projectivity, and practical-evaluation to identify evidence of past, future, and present factors in participants’ decision-making. These codes were applied throughout the dataset for each individual participant.

Emergent coding

Following a priori coding, I analyzed the interview and supervision transcripts via emergent (open) coding. Using the “spiral” approach (Creswell, 2013 ), I began by reading through the entire dataset for each participant, taking notes. I wrote case summaries for each participant 3, 5, and 8 months into the data collection process. To develop codes, I reviewed case summaries and notes to identify possible codes and analyzed the dataset of the individual participant using initial codes and definitions. These codes were refined over several iterations. I repeated this process for each participant, resulting in five sets of emergent codes, one for each participant. Example codes included explanation/justification (for responses to feedback), supervisor feedback (with subcodes including direction, confirmation, suggestion/guidance), and strategies (feedback-seeking, questioning, networking), and Upgrade experience. Throughout the analysis process, the definitions of each code and examples were discussed and verified with colleagues familiar with both qualitative analysis and the topics of writing and doctoral education.

Narrative analysis

The patterns that emerged through coding alongside relevant excerpts from the documents were situated within a narrative analysis that allowed each case to be presented as a linear whole, rich with “thick description” (Riessman, 2008 ). The narrative was supported by the results of the coding and specific examples from the transcripts and documents. Because this study is concerned with what participants say rather than how they say it, in constructing the narratives, I formatted participant quotes by excluding stutters and pauses for clarity.

Cross-case analysis

Having completed within-cases analyses of each participant’s experience, I conducted a cross-case analysis to identify any patterns. I began by re-reading my notes and all five case summaries, taking note of similarities and differences (Eisenhardt, 2002 ). From this process, I identified three key themes: approach to the PhD, compliance with and resistance to supervisor feedback, and the Upgrade exam as significant event. These themes reflected larger patterns in agency characterized by the individual’s considerations of past, present, and future action in relation to their changing contexts.

Participant feedback

Participant feedback, also known as member checking, was used to provide participants with an opportunity to express concerns about anonymity (see Thomas, 2017 ) and identify factual errors. Following their participation in this study, each participant was sent a copy of their draft case summary for feedback on (1) factual accuracy, (2) concerns about identifiability, and (3) opinions on how their experiences were interpreted. Participants were also the given the option of changing their assigned pseudonyms.

The analysis gave rise to two key findings. First, the participants adopted three approaches to navigating the construction of the Upgrade document—pragmatic/strategic, idealistic, and realistic/compromising, each reflecting agentive decision-making influenced by prior educational experiences and perceptions of doctoral education, as well as post-PhD career goals. These approaches were primarily conveyed in how the participants drew upon feedback to create research proposals for Upgrade. Second, the oral Upgrade exam was a critical structuring event that led participants to reassess their practices and, in some cases, alter their approaches to their thesis research. This section begins with brief descriptions of the participants’ relevant individual contexts followed by a discussion of the approaches adopted by each, ending with an exploration of whose approaches shifted over time.

Ben was a first-year doctoral researcher in Education. Prior to the PhD, he completed a Master’s in the USA and worked at a think tank. Although English was his second language—he was born in a non-Anglophone European country—Ben was comfortable writing in English given his experience studying in the USA. In his previous work at the think tank, Ben developed the practice of reaching out to his colleagues for substantive feedback, though he always critically assessed received comments, based in part on the expertise of the person providing the feedback. Following the PhD, Ben planned to pursue a career in policy at an international organization. Ben had three supervisors.

Charlie was a first-year doctoral researcher in Sociology. Prior to the PhD, he did a Master’s in the UK. Charlie was originally from China but had been in the UK since high school and thus felt comfortable writing in English, though he sometimes struggled with reading complex texts. Charlie viewed feedback as generally helpful but viewed “abstract” comments such as “the research question is too broad” as less helpful when not accompanied by details on how to improve. He did not have concrete career plans when he began the PhD but hoped the degree would broaden his employment opportunities and allow him to explore academia. Charlie had two supervisors.

Natalie was a first-year doctoral researcher in Geography from the UK. Prior to the PhD, Natalie completed Master’s degrees in related fields and had worked in several sectors. One of her careers involved writing, and thus Natalie had experience in certain genres of writing but viewed herself as a novice in academic writing. She valued feedback, including criticism, from a range of sources and was concerned that her work involved public outreach. Following the PhD, Natalie hoped to teach at a university and write a book based on her doctoral research. Natalie had one supervisor (an anomaly, as most social science PhD researchers at the institution had two or more supervisors).

Shankar was a first-year doctoral researcher in Education from India. The PhD was Shankar’s first educational experience outside of India, having completed his undergraduate study and a Master’s there. He also spent several years teaching in rural areas of India prior to the doctorate. Shankar considered English his first language as his parents spoke it at home. He had little experience receiving feedback on his work, because his previous Master’s research was largely independent. Following the PhD, Shankar planned to return to India and teach at a university. Shankar had two supervisors.

Ethan was a first-year doctoral researcher in Education from the UK. Prior to the PhD, Ethan taught in primary schools and completed a Master’s degree. He enjoyed writing and viewed himself as a “perfectionist” when he wrote. Ethan embraced critical feedback so long as it was constructive and believed that his positive response to criticism was related to the nature of his supervisory relationships. For instance, he had a good relationship with his Master’s supervisor who “valued the good bits” but would also “happily tear a piece of work to shreds” (November 2018, Interview). Following the PhD, Ethan hoped to work in academia or at a think tank. Ethan had two supervisors.

Pragmatic/strategic

The pragmatic/strategic approach to the PhD, adopted by Ben and Charlie, was characterized by an orientation towards the feasibility or practicality of the research in terms of time to completion, financial constraints, or whatever would most facilitate quick and effective success: the PhD as a means to an end. Both Ben and Charlie expressed their pragmatic/strategic approach through (1) pursuing learning opportunities during the PhD in relation to career objectives and (2) and their assessment and use of feedback.

Ben and Charlie pursued PhDs to further career goals. Ben, who had a clear objective—work at an international organization—believed that doctorate would assist him in developing research skills that would increase his employability. Ben thus framed the PhD as a vehicle for advancing his career. While he wanted to produce a quality thesis, he was not emotionally attached to the work and noted, unlike some of his op-eds and reports, the thesis would not be read by a wide audience. As such, Ben made sure to attend conferences, find research assistant work, and expand his networks: “I think I need to be part of a broader policy debate because that's my aim overall…so I need to go [to conferences]. Everything is part of [an] overall design of me getting better [as a researcher]” (February 2019, Interview). Further, because he was only partially funded, Ben was determined to finish within 3 years and designed his research timeline accordingly.

Like Ben, Charlie viewed the PhD as improving his career opportunities. However, Charlie was uncertain about his future and hoped the PhD would allow him to explore possibilities. Charlie was also self-funding and therefore applied for various scholarships and internships alongside his PhD work. New to sociology, Charlie spent the first few months of the PhD program gathering information towards the goal of understanding what was expected of him:

[W]hen I [am] doing my PhD how do I structure my research, how do I progress...how do I develop my ideas? And...in general, how [do] we develop theory, [and] use the theory to explain things in data?...I try to find out the answer by auditing lectures…[and reading] books. (December 2018, Interview)

Charlie thus focused on understanding his discipline and the nature of PhD research while figuring out what “can be asked and answered in a PhD thesis” (October 2018, Email to supervisor). At the same time, he consulted peers for emotional support and enrolled in additional research training courses to further his learning and improve his employment prospects.

Ben and Charlie also expressed their pragmatic/strategic approach to the PhD in how they assessed and used feedback on their Upgrade documents. Ben, who had a clear vision for his project and prior knowledge of the topic, maintained the critical stance towards feedback developed before the PhD:

You need to be really convincing for me to change what I’ve written because in the end it’s going to be my name. But I will say that I’m quite open to accept feedback from people who know [more] than me about a topic. (November 2018, Interview)

Because Ben viewed his supervisors as knowledgeable in their fields but lacking expertise in his specific topic, he relied on them for literature recommendations and to discuss his overall research design and the Upgrade process, using only suggestions that he believed furthered his goal of successful Upgrade and timely thesis completion. However, for substantive feedback on his methods and subject matter, he approached others, including post-docs in relevant departments, and often went long stretches without seeing his supervisors, preferring to work on his own and receive feedback on complete drafts of his work.

In contrast, because of his lack of experience in sociology, Charlie positioned his supervisors as experts who were best placed to guide him through the thesis and, specifically, the Upgrade phase of the PhD. Charlie thus tended to adopt all feedback his supervisors offered. Upon reflection, Charlie noted that he always agreed with his supervisors’ suggestions (“we think similarly”—July 2019, Interview), explaining the intent behind his choices to implement feedback; he believed adopting feedback benefitted the project or Upgrade document. Thus, both Ben and Charlie assessed and used feedback in ways they believed furthered their Upgrade documents—and ultimately their PhDs—in most efficient ways.

This approach was characterized by a romanticized, optimistic framing of the research process, including a preoccupation with “big” ideas and the desire to create a deeply impactful or meaningful project, closely tied to personal passions or philosophies. Shankar and Natalie, who adopted an idealistic approach, expressed this orientation through (1) their perceptions of research/the PhD and (2) tendencies to resist traditional genre conventions of the Upgrade document.

Both Shankar’s and Natalie’s research projects grew from personal experience, and it was apparent in supervisions and interviews that they were passionate and intellectually engaged with their topics to the extent that narrowing the scope of their interests to a feasible doctorate was a significant challenge—both participants had a tendency to think and talk about their projects in broad ways, exploring avenues of inquiry that connected elements of history, philosophy, language, and politics. Natalie also insisted that her project take an ethnographic approach in which research questions emerge from the fieldwork and thus was hesitant to narrow her topic too early—a desire supported by her supervisor (but cautioned against by her course instructors). As a compromise, Natalie constructed three broad research questions that indicated her areas of interest. For example, “Are cities the agrarian worlds of the future?” (Upgrade document draft).

Shankar and Natalie were creative in how they structured their Upgrade documents; Natalie’s Upgrade document was organized by themes rather than discrete sections for literature review, method, etc., and Shankar used “metaphorical signposting,” adding subtitles to each of his sections that corresponded to parts of a tree—for instance, the literature review was called “the seeds” (Upgrade document draft). Although he appreciated critical comments, Shankar struggled to implement supervisor feedback on defining terms in relation to existing literature and following citation practices. He tried to negotiate comments on his Upgrade document and incorporate aspects of feedback towards the goal of finding his own writing style. Shankar acknowledged that his writing was a “little bit of this, little bit of that,” an “amalgam of the kind of quality of writing which would be appreciated in India” that included anecdotal evidence (April 2019, Interview). These writing and research choices stretched the boundaries of the expected Upgrade document genre and reflected Natalie and Shankar’s personal preferences for writing and self-expression, indicative of an idealistic view of doctoral writing. However, both needed to re-evaluate their practices when they were asked to resubmit their Upgrade document after the initial Upgrade exam. This is elaborated upon later.

Realistic/compromising

The realistic approach lay between the pragmatic/strategic and idealistic approaches, characterized by compromise and accommodation: passion for the topic and desire for it to be impactful on a larger scale, while also being cognizant of institutional expectations and willing to shape the project accordingly. Ethan adopted the realistic approach, which was evident in his assessment and use of feedback.

Ethan worked to strike a balance between creating a project he was passionate about and crafting a document that satisfied his supervisors:

There’s been varying points this year where I thought, am I doing the right thing? Would I be better off doing other research?...I think it’s the first time where, I’m very cognizant of this is all mine [so] that’s been quite a big defining feature of it. The independence. (November 2019, Interview)

Ethan’s understanding of the need to manage his goals with supervisor approval may be linked to his previous Master’s experience, specifically his familiarity with the research process and supervisor feedback. Indeed, though Shankar and Natalie had completed Master’s in their fields, both described the experience as involving little supervisory contact.

What Ethan most appreciated about his supervisors was their shared interest in school policy and their shared experiences as teachers, which allowed him to speak openly about his concerns about education and engage in critical discussion. In such supervisory discussions—and in early drafts of his Upgrade document—Ethan expressed political views that were tied to his teaching experience and the inception of his thesis, revealing Ethan’s desire for impact and change. At the same time, he acknowledged the “authority” of his supervisors and gladly incorporated their feedback, which helped him to define a feasible research topic and demonstrated an understanding of the PhD as requiring negotiation between the desire to shape a large and important study and the need to meet institutional standards. Further, both of Ethan’s supervisors were careful to explain the reasoning behind their feedback while also being explicit about examiner expectations, which may have contributed to his willingness to compromise.

Ethan’s greatest struggle was his self-described “flowery” writing style. His supervisors referred to his writing as “journalistic” and “rhetorically beautiful” but not appropriate for the Upgrade document genre. Beautiful writing was of personal value to Ethan, and he initially hoped to reach a compromise and find “the line” defining the extent to which he could write descriptively—though, he acknowledged, “[my supervisors and I] may or may not agree where that line is” (June 2019, Interview). For Ethan, writing became a matter of “trial and error” (June 2019, Interview) in which he continually refined his style over several drafts, a process facilitated by the pruning down of his document prior to Upgrade. Later, Ethan noted that the improvement in his writing was the most concrete change from the first year of his PhD. The realistic/compromising approach therefore reflects an understanding of genre, disciplinary, and institutional requirements and the need to negotiate and adapt for the purposes of the Upgrade document.

Changes in approach over time

The approaches discussed above were not clear-cut categories; rather, each given approach reflected the general overarching way in which the participants structured their actions and communicated their thinking about their research, writing, and the PhD. These approaches were driven primarily by the iterative element of agency—patterns of behavior acquired over time from prior education and work experience, particularly in regard to responses to feedback. At the same time, participant approaches were not static; success or lack thereof at the Upgrade milestone either reinforced successful participants’ approaches or significantly changed the approaches of those who were unsuccessful.

For Natalie and Shankar, who were asked to revise and resubmit their Upgrade documents, Upgrade prompted reflection on PhD expectations and the research process, which led them to move from an idealistic to a pragmatic/strategic approach. Natalie, for instance, remarked that she had been “naïve” about doctoral work and following the Upgrade exam began to view the PhD as a “box-ticking exercise” she needed to work through in order to pass (pragmatic approach). Similarly, Shankar noted that the Upgrade exam highlighted gaps between his former schooling and the expectations of his PhD university, leading him to alter his Upgrade document in accordance with examiner feedback and conform to institutional expectations, which he described as putting on “clothes in a wardrobe”:

...it seems to me that the, what this whole program is about, or at least my experience of it [is] a particular way of...relating to knowledge. It’s a particular way of...looking at it and interpreting it and presenting it. (June 2019, Interview)

For Shankar, the way the examiners expected his literature review to be presented and the depth of detail required in the methods section conflicted with his prior experiences of writing and structuring arguments. Despite prior conversations with his supervisors about the purpose of the Upgrade document, the high-stakes nature of the Upgrade exam was a significant experience that catalyzed a shift in his approach to the Upgrade document—and his thesis research generally.

In contrast, for Charlie and Ethan, passing the Upgrade exam reinforced their preexisting pragmatic/strategic and realistic approaches, as success indicated that their previous strategies were effective. Ben, the outlier, did not alter his view of the PhD or approach to research and writing despite a revise and resubmit result; rather, he attributed this outcome to ineffective or late supervisor feedback, consistent with his belief that his supervisors were not experts in his particular field and methodology. Further, Ben was not emotionally affected by the result, viewing it as an inconvenience and choosing to comply with examiner feedback and resubmit quickly; he did not want to alter his timeline for data collection, in keeping with his pragmatic outlook.

Thus, the Upgrade exam was a critical structuring event capable of transforming or reinforcing how the participants understood PhD research and writing expectations, demonstrating how evolving temporal-relational contexts (Upgrade results) may affect agentive decision-making. Importantly, successful Upgrade required participants to negotiate their prior expectations and experiences and future goals with institutional and disciplinary conventions, showing the need for clarity around genre-based expectations for doctoral education and the extent to which PhD researchers can work within those boundaries.

This longitudinal multiple case study employed Emirbayer and Mische’s ( 1998 ) chordal triad of agency to examine how five first-year social science PhD researchers created their Upgrade documents towards the goal of successful Upgrade. According to the chordal triad, the individual, as agent, (re)acts in a temporal-relational context, with three elements at play: the past (acting in response to similar situations developed over time), the future (adapting existing schemas in relation to goals and imagined outcomes), and the present (making judgments among alternative possible actions in light of the current evolving situation). The approaches the participants used to create their Upgrade documents—pragmatic/strategic, idealistic, and realistic—represent three possible ways in which PhD researchers may navigate the doctoral thesis in relation to individual contexts. What this research contributes is (1) new insight into the role of agency in PhD researchers’ behaviors, (2) the importance of significant milestones (like Upgrade) in influencing/altering thinking and behaviors, and (3) the value of a longitudinal perspective in examining PhD researcher development.

Results suggest that a projective (future) orientation motivated participants to think about larger PhD and post-PhD goals, contributing to how they initially conceptualized the PhD and approached their research (and Upgrade documents), consistent with prior interview-based studies (Brailsford, 2010 ; Gill & Hoppe, 2009 ; Guerin et al., 2015 ; Leonard, et al., 2005 ; Skakni, 2018 ). What this study adds is an empirical account of how both goals (projectivity), prior contexts and experience (iteration), and the present situation (practical-evaluation) influence how doctoral researchers view the PhD and subsequently tackle the Upgrade documents, respond to feedback, and employ strategies in relation to their overarching purposes and perceptions of the doctorate.

Concurrently, the iterative (past) element provided the underlying writing, feedback, and disciplinary knowledge drawn upon to do the work. For instance, Shankar’s educational history influenced his writing choices, echoing studies finding disparities between international PhD researchers’ prior educational contexts and PhD expectations (Li, 2018 ; Soong, et al., 2015 ; Wu & Hu, 2020 ; Xu & Grant, 2017 ). Further, in preparing their Upgrade documents, all five participants used previously developed strategies to respond to feedback. Ben, for example, continued to seek feedback from a range of sources and critically assessed the usefulness of comments, while Charlie and Natalie accepted all supervisor feedback in line with their self-positioning as novices in the field and previous practices.

As in other work on supervision and supervisor feedback, the results suggested that PhD researchers with greater ownership over their work (e.g., Ben) were more likely to resist critical comments that conflicted with their goals (see Vehviläinen, 2009 ). Yet, the participants did not express negative emotional reactions to criticism—they accepted, evaluated, and at times rejected suggestions (see Wang & Li, 2011 ). Where the results diverge from Wang and Li ( 2011 ) is that the participants in this study were in the earliest stages of the PhD, conflicting with Wang and Li’s suggestion that new, less experienced PhD researchers are more likely to respond negatively to critical feedback. This discrepancy reinforces the finding that responses to feedback and ownership over the thesis may be linked not only to research and writing experience, but perhaps more powerfully to individual contexts/goals (see also Inouye & McAlpine, 2017 ).

Practical-evaluation, the element of agency representing the present, was perhaps the most complex but important aspect of agency captured in the participants’ decision-making. Given the nature of the PhD as an ongoing process fraught with information, particularly during the first year, participants were continually assessing their research goals and practices in relation to the new knowledge and feedback they received from texts, instructors, and supervisors—“the demands and contingencies of the present” (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998 , p. 994). For example, assessment of supervisor and other feedback often invoked a combination of practical-evaluation and projectivity as students evaluated comments within the evolving supervisory relationship and stage of their Upgrade documents, choosing to accept or reject changes in relation to what they believed would lead to the best outcome. At the same time, practical-evaluation and iteration co-occurred as students assessed feedback and their own writing and chose to continue accepting supervisor comments or write in a certain way. Importantly, the Upgrade exam, a new context, was the only event that led to substantial changes in the participants’ actions and approaches. These results suggest that experience contributes to a pattern of action that is less likely to change significantly unless the actor encounters a critical incident.

Finally, to revisit Emirbayer and Mische’s definition of agency, agency “both reproduces and transforms those structures in interactive response to the problems posed by changing historical situations” (1998, p. 970). As reflected in the results, Natalie’s and Shankar’s desire to create Upgrade documents that did not strictly conform to typical conventions was unsuccessful in transforming the structure of Upgrade; the examiners failed to recognize their initial documents as fulfilling Upgrade requirements (cf., Naomi, 2021 ). Thus, while the participants developed their Upgrade documents in creative ways, ultimately, the documents they produced—the documents that were eventually approved—reproduced the existing Upgrade document genre. Their experiences raise questions about the extent to which PhD researchers are able to bring creative approaches to their research and research writing and what counts as acceptable doctoral writing.

Limitations

First, this was a small-scale study of five first-year doctoral researchers at one UK university. Therefore, the results are specific to the particular institutional and disciplinary circumstances surrounding their experiences. Given the variation in milestone procedures and expectations across departments and institutions, the findings cannot be generalized to the wider UK PhD population, nor to the social sciences as a whole, or even to the population of PhD researchers within the participants’ specific departments. Rather, the study provides detailed insight into the individual experiences of the participants, providing examples of how agency may manifest in relation to personal contexts. Second, I was unable to capture the full range of data involved in the participants’ creation of the Upgrade document and focused primarily on supervisor feedback, meaning that additional sources of influence—e.g., readings, peer feedback, blogs, and social media—were not explored. Finally, the choice of the chordal triad of agency, while useful in exploring temporal changes in behavior, offered a limited discussion of how agency is developed within one’s larger personal trajectories, which may preclude exploration of how approaches to the doctoral Upgrade document are situated within the participants’ broader lives.

Implications

This study has shown the value of micro-level longitudinal research that encourages us to think biographically through time in relation to the individual’s specific context. Future longitudinal studies on doctoral writing and education, perhaps across disciplines, may be useful in enhancing our knowledge of the relationships between personal factors, disciplinary cultures, supervision, and examination processes and expectations. Studies covering the entire doctoral program would also be helpful in better understanding how PhD researchers’ conceptions of the doctoral research and writing change over time.

Further, academic research cultures are not accessed equally by all doctoral students (Deem & Brehony, 2000 ), and doctoral training does not always address research culture as an additional challenge for PhD researchers entering programs from different contexts. More studies on international and intercultural PhD education are required to better understand the needs and contributions of PhD researchers with diverse experiences.

Doctoral experience varies across individuals. Recognizing the role of personal contexts and goals in shaping doctoral researchers’ perspectives and practices is important, particularly during the early stages of the PhD when they are still developing their understanding of the PhD and their capacity for agency in shaping the research.

References  

Aitchison, C., & Lee, A. (2007). Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11 (3), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680574

Article   Google Scholar  

Aldrich, H.E. (1999). Organizations evolving . SAGE.

Anderson, C., Day, K., & McLaughlin, P. (2008). Student perspectives on the dissertation process in a Masters degree concerned with professional practice. Studies in Continuing Education, 30 (1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370701841531

Basturkmen, H., East, M., & Bitchener, J. (2014). Supervisors’ on-script feedback comments on drafts of dissertations: Socialising students into the academic discourse community. Teaching in Higher Education, 19 (4), 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.752728

Bazerman, C. & Prior, P. (2004). What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual Practices. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Brailsford, I. (2010). Motives and aspirations for doctoral study: Career, personal, and inter- personal factors in the decision to embark on a history PhD . International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 5 , 015–027. https://doi.org/10.28945/710

Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25 (1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/030750700116000

Cameron, J., Naim, K., & Higgins, J. (2009). Demystifying academic writing: Reflections on emotions, know-how and academic identity. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33 (2), 269–284.

Can, G., & Walker, A. (2014). Social science doctoral students’ needs and preferences for written feedback. Higher Education, 68 , 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9713-5

Carter, M. (2007). Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the disciplines. College Composition and Communication, 58 (3), 385–418. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20456952

Chang, C. E., & Strauss, P. (2010). ‘Active agents of change?’ Mandarin-speaking students in New Zealand and the thesis writing process. Language and Education, 24 (5), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500781003789873

Chatterjee-Padmanabhan, M., & Nielsen, W. (2018). Preparing to cross the research proposal threshold: A case study of two international doctoral students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55 (4), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1251331

Cotterall, S. (2011). Doctoral students writing: Where’s the pedagogy? Teaching in Higher Education, 16 (4), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.560381

Cotterall, S. (2015). The rich get richer: International doctoral candidates and scholarly identity. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52 (4), 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.839124

Creely, E. & Laletas, S. (2019). Transitions, transformations and finding success. A phenomenological analysis of the experiences of a doctoral student in early candidature. Higher Education Research & Development, 39 (3), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1680957

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Deem, R., & Brehony, K. (2000). Doctoral students’ access to research cultures-are some more unequal than others? Studies in Higher Education, 25 (2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696138

Department for Education. (2017). Postgraduate doctoral loans: Government consultation response. Retrieved 1 May 2020. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/597333/Doctoral_response_to_consultation.pdf

Eisenhardt, K. (2002). Building theories from case study research. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher's companion (pp. 4–35). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986274

Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103 (4), 962–1023.

Fisher, R., Brock, C. H., Frahm, T., Van Wig, A., & Gillis, V. R. (2020). Reflections on writing and identity: Exploring the role of qualifying exams in the sociocultural development of doctoral students. Studies in Continuing Education, 42 (3), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2019.1661237

Gardner, S. K. (2008). “What’s too much and what’s too little?”: The process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79 (3), 326–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772101

Gill, T. G., & Hoppe, U. (2009). The business professional doctorate as an informing channel: A survey and analysis. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 4, 27–57. http://www.ijds.org/Volume4/IJDSv4p027-057Gill267.pdf

Green, B. (2005). Unfinished business: Subjectivity and supervision. Higher Education Research and Development, 24 , 151–163.

Guerin, C., Jayatilaka, A., & Ranasinghe, D. (2015). Why start a higher degree by research? An exploratory factor analysis of motivations to undertake doctoral studies. Higher Education Research & Development, 34 (1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934663

Hockey, J. (1994). Establishing boundaries: Problems and solutions in managing the PhD supervisor’s role. Cambridge Journal of Education, 24 , 293–313.

Hopwood, N. (2010). A sociocultural view of doctoral students’ relationships and agency. Studies in Continuing Education, 32 (2), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2010.487482

Inouye, K. S., & McAlpine, L. (2017). Developing scholarly identity: Variation in agentive responses to supervisor feedback. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 14 , 1–31.

Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Benjamins.

Kamler, B. & Thomson, P. (2014). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision (2nd ed). Taylor and Francis.

Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11 (3), 203–270.

Lee, A., & Aitchison, C. (2009). Writing for the doctorate and beyond. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.), Changing practices of doctoral education (pp. 87–99). Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Leonard, D., Becker, R., & Coate, D. (2005). To prove myself at the highest level: The benefits of doctoral study. Higher Education Research & Development, 24 (2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360500062904

Li, Y. (2018). Rethinking education through self-study: An international doctoral student’s narrative. Reflective Practice, 19 (4), 530–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2018.1538946

Lovitts, B. E. (2005). Being a good course-taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30 (2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500043093

Lovitts, B. E. (2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t, and why. The Journal of Higher Education, 79 (3), 296–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772100

McAlpine, L., & McKinnon, M. (2012). Supervision - the most variable of variables: Student perspectives. Studies in Continuing Education, 35 (3), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2012.746227

McAlpine, A., Amundsen, C., & Turner, G. (2014). Identity-trajectory: Reframing early career academic experience. British Educational Research Journal, 40 (6), 952–969. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3123

McPherson, C., Punch, S., & Graham, S. (2018). Postgraduate transitions from Masters to doctoral study: Managing independence, emotion and support. Stirling International Journal of Postgraduate Research, 4 , 1–24.

Mead, G. H. (1932). The philosophy of the present . University of Chicago Press.

Naomi, S. S. (2021). Writing a doctoral thesis in a non-western voice. In Badenhorst, C., Arnell, B., & Burford, J., (Eds.), Re-imagining Doctoral Writing (pp. 185–199). The WAC Clearinghouse and University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.37514/INT-B.2021.1343.2.09

Nguyen, M. N., & Robertson, M. J. (2020). International students enacting agency in their PhD journey. Teaching in Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1747423

Paton, M. (2005). Is critical analysis foreign to Chinese students? In E. Manalo & G. Wong-Toi (Eds.), Communication skills in university education: The international dimension (pp. 1–11). Pearson Education New Zealand.

Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2002). Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education, 27 (2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070220119986c

Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36 (1), 94–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352110

Pyhalto, K., Vekkaila, J., & Keskinen, J. (2015). Fit matters in the supervisory relationship: Doctoral students’ and supervisors’ perceptions about the supervisory activities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52 (1), 4–16.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). (2020). Characteristics statement: Doctoral degree . Retrieved 1 May 2020. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/qualitycode/supporting-resources

Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences . SAGE.

Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed). SAGE.

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. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-D-18-00004

Soong, H., Tran, L. Y., & Hiep, P. H. (2015). Being and becoming an intercultural doctoral student: Reflective autobiographical narratives. Reflective Practice, 16 (4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2015.1023276

Taylor, A. (2007). Learning to become researching professionals: The case of the doctorate of education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19 (2), 154–166.

Thomas, D. R. (2017). Feedback from research participants: Are member checks useful in qualitative research? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 14 (1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2016.1219435

UK Council for Graduate Education. (2015). Structural changes in doctoral education in the UK: A review of graduate schools and the development of doctoral colleges. Retrieved 1 October 2019. http://www.ukcge.ac.uk/media/download.aspx?MediaId=1436

Vehviläinen, S. (2009). Problems in the research problem: Critical feedback and resistance in academic supervision. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53 (2), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830902757592

Wang, T., & Li, L. Y. (2011). ‘Tell me what to do’ vs ‘guide me through it’: Feedback experiences of international doctoral students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12 (2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787411402438

Wu, M., & Hu, Y. (2020). Transitioning to an independent researcher: Reconciling the conceptual conflicts in cross-cultural doctoral supervision. Studies in Continuing Education, 42 (3), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2019.1615423

Xu, L. (2017). Written feedback in intercultural doctoral supervision: A case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 22 (2), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1237483

Xu, L., & Grant, B. (2017). International doctoral students’ becoming: A dialogic perspective. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54 (6), 570–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1318711

Xu, L., & Hu, J. (2020). Language feedback responses, voices and identity (re)construction: Experiences of Chinese international doctoral students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57 (6), 724–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1593214

Yore, L. D., Florence, M. K., Pearson, T. W., & Weaver, A. J. (2006). Written discourse in scientific communities: A conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (2–3), 109–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336601

Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (4), 338–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20008

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Professor Lynn McAlpine and Dr. Velda Elliott for their support and feedback.

This research was supported by a Clarendon Scholarship from the University of Oxford.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Education, University of Oxford, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford, OX2 6PY, UK

Kelsey Inouye

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelsey Inouye .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

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

Inouye, K. Developing the PhD thesis project in relation to individual contexts: a multiple case study of five doctoral researchers. High Educ 85 , 1143–1160 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00882-0

Download citation

Accepted : 25 May 2022

Published : 17 June 2022

Issue Date : May 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00882-0

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

• Doctoral writing
• PhD education
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Acknowledgements for PhD Thesis and Dissertations – Explained
• Doing a PhD

The Purpose of Acknowledgements

The acknowledgement section of a thesis or dissertation is where you recognise and thank those who supported you during your PhD. This can be but is not limited to individuals, institutions or organisations.

Although your acknowledgements will not be used to evaluate your work, it is still an important section of your thesis. This is because it can have a positive (or negative for that matter) influence the perception of your reader before they even reach the main body of your work.

Who Should I Acknowledge?

Acknowledgements for a PhD thesis will typically fall into one of two categories – professional or personal.

Within these categories, who you thank will ultimately be your decision. However, it’s imperative that you pay special attention to the ‘professional’ group. This is because not thanking someone who has played an important role in your studies, whether it be intentional or accidental, will more often than not be seen as a dismissal of their efforts. Not only would this be unfair if they genuinely helped you, but from a certain political aspect, it could also jeopardise any opportunities for future collaborations .

Professional Acknowledgements

This may include, but is not limited to:

• Funding bodies/sponsorship providers
• Supervisors
• Research group and lab assistants
• Research participants
• Proofreaders

Personal Acknowledgements

• Key family members and friends
• Individuals who inspired you or directly influenced your academic journey
• Anyone else who has provided personal support that you would like to mention

It should be noted that certain universities have policies which state only those who have directly supported your work, such as supervisors and professors, should be included in your acknowledgements. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you read your university guidelines before writing this section of your thesis.

How to Write Acknowledgements for PhD Thesis

When producing this section, your writing style can be more informal compared to the rest of your thesis. This includes writing in first person and using more emotive language. Although in most cases you will have complete freedom in how you write this section of your thesis, it is still highly advisable to keep it professional. As mentioned earlier, this is largely because it will be one of the first things your assessors will read, and so it will help set the tone for the rest of your work.

In terms of its structure, acknowledgements are expected to be ordered in a manner that first recognises the most formal support before moving onto the less formal support. In most cases, this follows the same order that we have outlined in the ‘Who Should I Thank’ section.

When thanking professionals, always write out their full name and provide their title. This is because although you may be on a first-name basis with them, those who read your thesis will not. By providing full names and titles, not only do you help ensure clarity, but it could also indirectly contribute to the credibility of your thesis should the individual you’re thanking be well known within your field.

If you intend to include a list of people from one institution or organisation, it is best to list their names in alphabetical order. The exception to this is when a particular individual has been of significant assistance; here, it would be advisable to list them.

How Long Should My Acknowledgements Be?

Acknowledgements vary considerably in length. Some are a single paragraph whilst some continue for up to three pages. The length of your acknowledgement page will mostly depend on the number of individuals you want to recognise.

As a general rule, try to keep your acknowledgements section to a single page. Although there are no word limits, creating a lengthy acknowledgements section dilutes the gratitude you’re trying to express, especially to those who have supported you the most.

Where Should My Acknowledgements Go?

In the vast majority of cases, your acknowledgements should appear directly after your abstract and before your table of contents.

However, we highly advise you to check your university guidelines as a few universities set out their own specific order which they will expect you to follow.

Phrases to Help You Get Started

We appreciate how difficult it can be to truly show how grateful you are to those who have supported you over the years, especially in words.

To help you get started, we’ve provided you with a few examples of sentences that you can complete or draw ideas from.

• I am deeply grateful to XXX…
• I would like to express my sincere gratitude to XXX…
• I would like to offer my special thanks to XXX…
• I would like to extend my sincere thanks to XXX…
• …for their assistance at every stage of the research project.
• …for their insightful comments and suggestions.
• …for their contribution to XXX.
• …for their unwavering support and belief in me.

Thesis Acknowledgement Examples

Below are three PhD thesis acknowledgment samples from which you can draw inspiration. It should be noted that the following have been extracted from theses which are freely available in the public domain. Irrespective of this, references to any individual, department or university have been removed for the sake of privacy.

First and foremost I am extremely grateful to my supervisors, Prof. XXX and Dr. XXX for their invaluable advice, continuous support, and patience during my PhD study. Their immense knowledge and plentiful experience have encouraged me in all the time of my academic research and daily life. I would also like to thank Dr. XXX and Dr. XXX for their technical support on my study. I would like to thank all the members in the XXX. It is their kind help and support that have made my study and life in the UK a wonderful time. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my parents, my wife and my children. Without their tremendous understanding and encouragement in the past few years, it would be impossible for me to complete my study.

I would like to thank my supervisors Dr. XXX and Dr. XXX for all their help and advice with this PhD. I would also like to thank my sisters, whom without this would have not been possible. I also appreciate all the support I received from the rest of my family. Lastly, I would like to thank the XXX for the studentship that allowed me to conduct this thesis.

I would like to thank my esteemed supervisor – Dr. XXX for his invaluable supervision, support and tutelage during the course of my PhD degree. My gratitude extends to the Faculty of XXX for the funding opportunity to undertake my studies at the Department of XXX, University of XXX. Additionally, I would like to express gratitude to Dr. XXX for her treasured support which was really influential in shaping my experiment methods and critiquing my results. I also thank Dr. XXX, Dr. XXX, Dr. XXX for their mentorship. I would like to thank my friends, lab mates, colleagues and research team – XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX for a cherished time spent together in the lab, and in social settings. My appreciation also goes out to my family and friends for their encouragement and support all through my studies.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

5 inspiring PhD thesis acknowledgement examples

Crafting a PhD thesis acknowledgement can be a challenging task, but it can also be an enjoyable one. There are no strict rules or guidelines to follow, allowing for creative freedom. However, seeking inspiration from sample acknowledgements can greatly assist in initiating your own writing process. Here are five PhD thesis acknowledgement examples!

PhD thesis acknowledgement example 1

Phd thesis acknowledgement example 2, phd thesis acknowledgement example 3, phd thesis acknowledgement example 4, phd thesis acknowledgement example 5.

I started my PhD just before the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, a period that presented numerous challenges and uncertainties. Nonetheless, I made it to the finish line! I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the exceptional individuals who supported and guided me throughout this transformative journey, enabling me to successfully obtain my doctorate despite the many unforeseen obstacles that arose.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my PhD supervisors, Prof. Xiu Ling and Prof. Frederic Semoas. Their constant support, guidance, and encouragement have been invaluable throughout the entire process. From the initial stages of refining my research proposal to the final submission of my thesis, their unwavering presence and wealth of wisdom have been instrumental in shaping my academic growth. I highly valued the biweekly meetings we held, which not only served as crucial checkpoints to keep me on track academically, but also provided me with plenty of encouragement. I am profoundly grateful for the immeasurable contributions they made to my development.

In addition to my supervisors, I am indebted to my exceptional lab mates, whose support has been a constant source of motivation. Our collaborative writing sessions and informal chats, whether conducted via screens during lockdowns or in person whenever circumstances allowed, provided a lifeline during the most challenging times. I am proud to say that we became more than just lab partners, but good friends. Paul, thanks for always providing a steady supply of cookies that brought much-needed sweetness to our intense work sessions. Ina, your late-night phone calls helped me to keep my self-doubt in check. And Valeria, your enthusiasm and upbeat character made spending long hours in the lab an enjoyable experience.

Among the most memorable highlights of my PhD journey was the opportunity to participate in the Applied Chemistry Summer School in Belfast. This enriching experience would not have been possible without the dedication and expertise of Dr. Simone and Dr. Erek. I am deeply grateful for the knowledge, connections, and friendships that were forged during that time.

Lastly, I want to express my deepest gratitude to my family whose belief in my abilities and support. Your encouragement played an integral role in my accomplishments. To my mom, dad, and Maria: Thank you for everything. I dedicate this PhD thesis to you.

It takes a village to raise a child” is a well-known proverb, and I strongly believe that completing a PhD also requires the support of a village. Therefore, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the people who played significant roles in my PhD journey.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Patricia Renault. Your exceptional academic expertise, coupled with your commitment to support early career researchers truly make you a role model in the often competitive realm of academia. Your guidance and encouragement have been invaluable .

I would also like to express my gratitude to my PhD thesis committee members: Prof. Dr. Hels, Prof. Dr. Frontstotten, Dr. Buwo, and Dr. Luis. Thank you for your time and effort, reading the 284 pages of my thesis thesis for providing valuable feedback and thought-provoking questions. Your insights have greatly enriched the quality of my work.

Furthermore, I want to thank all the interviewees who generously shared their thoughts and life stories for my research. Without your willingness to participate, my thesis would not have been possible.

A special appreciation goes to my colleagues and peers at the Department of Anthropology. Engaging in stimulating academic exchanges with all of you while maintaining a personal connection has been truly enriching.

Lastly, I want to express my deepest gratitude to my wife. Thank you for always being my rock, accompanying me through the highs and lows of this academic journey. Your support and belief in me have been a source of strength and motivation.

When I embarked on my PhD journey five years ago, little did I know the profound experiences that lay ahead. Fulfilling my long-held dream of pursuing a PhD, time seemed to pass swiftly as I immersed myself in the world of academia. Transitioning from several years in professional practice back to the university environment was both daunting and exhilarating.

I am incredibly grateful for the opportunity to be a part of an exceptional research institute that provides deep insights into seismology. I extend my heartfelt appreciation to my advisor, Prof. Dr. Daniels Selwas, for generously sharing his extensive academic knowledge and playing a pivotal role in helping me establish myself within the academic community. I am truly thankful for his firm yet compassionate guidance, which not only facilitated significant contributions to publications during my PhD but also opened doors I never thought possible.

Undoubtedly, pursuing a PhD presented its fair share of challenges. Early on, I encountered setbacks when some of my experiments failed, leading me to readjust my research proposal in my second year. However, what initially appeared as hurdles eventually revealed themselves as blessings in disguise. These challenges allowed me to refocus my efforts on seismic tomography, a subject that ignited a genuine passion within me. I apologize to everyone who patiently endured my enthusiastic ramblings about my research!

During my third and fourth years, I had the privilege of working as a teaching assistant for Prof. Susan Meyers. This role introduced me to the immensely fulfilling world of teaching, from which I gained invaluable knowledge and insights. Prof. Meyers provided exceptional guidance and unwavering support throughout my teaching endeavors.

As I diligently worked on documenting my research results, the small breaks organized by my best friend Andy became cherished highlights after long days of writing. These rejuvenating moments kept me motivated and inspired to persevere.

As I bring my five-year-long PhD journey to a close, I can genuinely say that I am immensely proud of my accomplishments. This transformative journey has not only shaped me as a researcher but also as an individual, imparting the invaluable lesson that perseverance yields fruitful rewards in the long run. The unwavering commitment and determination displayed by those around me have profoundly influenced my character.

My greatest aspiration is that my research proves beneficial and contributes to a better understanding of earthquakes. The drive to advance knowledge in this field continues to fuel my motivation and determination. I am deeply grateful to all the individuals mentioned, as none of this would have been possible without their guidance and encouragement. I am excited to see what the future holds.

“The more that you read, the more things you will know, the more that you learn, the more places you’ll go.” —Dr. Seuss

This quote has always resonated with me, but as I approach the end of my PhD, its profound meaning has taken on new significance in my life.

Throughout my PhD journey, I have been fortunate to explore various places and experiences. Moving to Chicago, I had the privilege of joining an exceptional literature department, surrounded by individuals who share a deep passion for reading. Relocating to a new city on my own was challenging, but fate led me to forge a wonderful friendship with my flat mate, Loreen. Loreen, I am grateful for your companionship and support from the very beginning of my PhD.

Furthermore, I cannot envision a better PhD supervisor than Dr. Molly Glours. Her countless feedback and guidance have played a pivotal role in refining my academic writing and sharpening my arguments. Molly, your unwavering passion for literature is truly inspiring, and I aspire to follow in your footsteps one day.

My academic journey has also taken me to conferences in Canada and Belgium, marking my first experiences in Europe. Beyond the intellectually stimulating discussions, these trips have provided unforgettable adventures for a small-town girl from the Midwest.

Participating in a three-minute research pitch competition not only pushed me beyond my comfort zone but also introduced me to an incredible partner, Joshua. It is remarkable how life leads us to unexpected places and introduces us to remarkable people when we least expect it.

My research has also led me to the Chicago Public Library, where I had the opportunity to work with children’s reading clubs as part of my fieldwork. This collaboration has been incredibly rewarding, and I extend my heartfelt thanks to George Newton and Immania Hikale for making this partnership possible.

Finally, I would like to thank my family. Mom, your tireless work and unwavering commitment to provide for Joan and me while always emphasizing the value of education have made a profound impact on my journey. From those early hours spent in the library together, you instilled in me a deep love for reading. Completing a PhD in comparative literature feels like the natural culmination of our shared journey, and I hope you are aware of and proud of the significant role you have played in shaping my path.

Grandma and Grandpa, you made immense sacrifices and worked tirelessly to provide a better life for your children and grandchildren. Look how far we have come! Your dedication and resilience continue to inspire me as I reflect on my achievements.

Completing a PhD is a monumental achievement, and I still find it hard to believe that I have reached this milestone. I want to raise a toast to everyone who has been a part of this incredible journey with me.

First and foremost, I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Professor Dr. Suna Shikrati, who has been instrumental in my success over the past four years. I feel incredibly fortunate to have had the guidance and mentorship of such a highly respected academic.

To Katie, Felicitas, Aron, Xime, and Andy – you are the best PhD crew in the entire department. Together, we have navigated the challenges and celebrated the triumphs, and I am grateful to have had you by my side.

Sonya, words cannot express how much your unwavering belief in me has meant. You have been my biggest cheerleader throughout this journey, and I cannot thank you enough for your love and support.

Lastly, I want to express my heartfelt appreciation to coffee and my dog Ben. Coffee has fueled countless late nights and early mornings, providing the necessary jolt to keep me going. And Ben, my loyal companion, you have been my faithful reminder to take breaks, dragging me away from my computer and insisting on regular outdoor excursions.

Master Academia

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

13 great academic phrases to write your discussion (+ published examples)

How to address data privacy and confidentiality concerns of ai in research, related articles.

PhD thesis types: Monograph and collection of articles

Sample emails to your thesis supervisor

Minimalist writing for a better thesis

Why you cannot write a PhD thesis in 3-6 months

Investigating User Experience and User Engagement for Design

• Jennefer Hart
• Alliance Manchester Business School

Student thesis : Phd

• User Experience
• Interactivity
• Human Computer Interaction

File : application/pdf, -1 bytes

Type : Thesis

RIT graduate pursues Ph.D. across time zones

Nastaran Nagshineh, center, defended her Ph.D. thesis at RIT in April. Faculty from RIT’s Rochester and Dubai campuses served on her thesis committee and include, from left to right, Kathleen Lamkin-Kennard, Steven Weinstein, Nathaniel Barlow, and David Kofke (a professor at the University at Buffalo). Mohamed Samaha participated remotely and appears on the video screen behind the group and alongside Nagshineh’s picture.

Nastaran Nagshineh is one of the first Ph.D. candidates to bridge RIT’s Rochester and Dubai campuses. Her accomplishment creates a path for future students at the university’s international campuses.

Nagshineh completed her Ph.D. in mathematical modeling while working full time as a mathematics lecturer at RIT Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, teaching as many as five classes a semester. She described her Ph.D. journey as “an exercise in perseverance” due to competing demands and long days. Rochester is eight hours behind Dubai, and the time difference meant many late-night classes and meetings.

“I saw this collaboration as an opportunity, rather than as a challenge, because my primary adviser, Dr. Steven Weinstein (RIT professor of chemical engineering), and my co-adviser, Dr. Mohamed Samaha (RIT Dubai associate professor of mechanical engineering), both have the same area of research interest,” she said. “They both worked toward my success.”

Nagshineh is one of 67 RIT Ph.D. students who defended their thesis this academic year and who will earn their doctorate. RIT awarded 63 Ph.D. degrees in 2023.

In 2020-2021, RIT’s Graduate School met and surpassed the university’s goal of conferring 50 Ph.D. degrees during an academic year. That number will continue to grow as students cycle through the seven new Ph.D. programs that RIT has added since 2017, said Diane Slusarski , dean of RIT’s Graduate School.

Meeting these goals puts RIT on a path toward achieving an “R1,” or research-intensive designation, from the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Learning. RIT is currently ranked as an R2 institution . Many factors go into changing a university’s status, including research investment and maintaining a three-year average of 70 Ph.D. degrees awarded per year, according to Slusarski.

“We have met the goals of the strategic plan, and now we look forward to contributing to the research innovation in the future,” Slusarski said. “We want to help the new programs thrive and win national research awards.”

RIT’s emphasis on high-level research is seen in Nagshineh’s Ph.D. work. She applies mathematical modeling to the field of fluid dynamics. Her research has been published in top-tier journals and has gained notice, said Weinstein, her thesis adviser.

Weinstein describes Nagshineh’s accomplishments as “a testament to a fantastic work ethic and commitment” and is inspirational to younger students at Rochester and Dubai.

“The collaboration between RIT Dubai/Rochester has continued,” he said. “Another paper was submitted a few weeks ago with Mohamed Samaha and Nate Barlow (RIT associate professor in the School of Mathematics and Statistics) as co-authors, as well as Cade Reinberger, a younger Ph.D. student in my research group.”

Mathematical modeling is one of RIT’s newer Ph.D. degree programs, and Nagshineh is among its earliest graduates. The program has doubled in size since it began accepting students in 2017, Slusarski said. This past fall, the mathematical modeling program had 35 students, with two graduating this year.

Altogether, RIT has 13 Ph.D. degree programs currently enrolling 438 students, with computing and information sciences accounting for the largest with 117 students. RIT’s other Ph.D. programs include astrophysical sciences and technology , biomedical and chemical engineering , business administration , color science , electrical and computer engineering, imaging science , mechanical and industrial engineering , microsystems engineering , and sustainability .

New programs in cognitive science and physics will launch in the fall.

The growth in RIT graduate education—with more than 3,000 master’s and doctoral students—reflects a demographic change in the student population, Slusarski said. “We have a higher percentage of women in the graduate programs than we have for RIT undergraduate programs.”

RIT’s graduate programs enroll 42 percent women, according to Christie Leone , assistant dean for the Graduate School.

Nagshineh, who also holds an MS in electrical engineering from RIT Dubai, welcomes her role as a mentor to other women students on both campuses.

“As a young woman in an Arabic country, the power of women is often underestimated and undervalued, and I hope to serve as a role model to female students, especially those that question their path,” Nagshineh said.

She plans to continue in her career as a professor and a researcher. “I would like to pursue a research program where I can advise my own students and teach them more deeply.”

Recommended News

May 10, 2024

Design icon Patricia Moore inspires RIT graduates to embrace change and forge paths of impact

While sharing insights from her own transformative journey, Patricia Moore, a distinguished designer and trailblazing alumna of the class of 1974, encouraged this year’s RIT graduates to embrace the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead and answer the call for change.

Bright Spot: Inspiration for young scholars   

WHAM-TV features Katrina Overby, assistant professor in the School of Communication, as its Bright Spot.

May 8, 2024

More than monarchs: Red admirals appear in Rochester with spring   

The Democrat and Chronicle talks to Kaitlin Stack Whitney, assistant professor in the Department of Science, Technology, and Society, about the early arrival and habits of the red admiral butterfly in Monroe County, highlighting its migration patterns, habitat range, and behavior.

May 7, 2024

Comics go to College

The comics collection at RIT is growing by leaps and bounds and the new Kubert Lounge and Gallery makes it a visible presence on campus. The interdisciplinary art form is right at home at RIT.