PhD – Meta Research

A study conducted in the mid 2010’s at Ghent University in Belgium provided some hard evidence (1) for what a fair few of us had suspected for many years. That the wellbeing and mental health of PhD students, and most probably all Early Career Researchers, is in a quite perilous state.

Researchers love to research so a series of subsequent surveys, questionnaires, interviews and reports were funded and actioned (2). The results suggested what we might have expected that the PhD students at Ghent were by no means an outlier but were quite typical. With larger surveys and reviews indicating around one in four research students disclosing issues with their mental health (3). A number that is far greater than other groups of a comparable age. What is probably most worrying within those statistics is the pressure not to disclose any issues due to the potential detrimental influence on a researcher’s career prospects is likely to mean many more researchers are keeping their problems to themselves.

Whilst correlates of mental health difficulties have been identified (4) the overall issue would appear to be a systemic and existential problem in what the doctorate and a subsequent research career looks like. When universities attempt to attract research students to enrol, there is little to no mention of the potential negatives that lie ahead.

Once doctoral students start their programmes the mixed messages will become apparent. The inductions from Graduate Schools, Doctoral Colleges or whatever larger structures will explain that their education is about their own professional development and to take time to engage in the many opportunities available. However, the day to day messaging they will receive from their supervisors, research associates, and senior PhD students may be quite different. The all consuming requirement for, data generated, high impact factor papers published and grants in, becomes a frenzied narrative of career dependence.

The sense of competition and requirement to spend more time researching to compete in the race to fulfil the REF (Research Excellence Framework (5)) requirements of the unit and institution quickly trickles down to a doctoral student just hoping to get to grips with their own project. Fundamentally if we really want to see a significant improvement in how researchers feel then there will need to be a radical shift in the way research is set up. (see another blog post https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/richardhetherington/2021/02/07/2020-a-vision-for-portfolio-careers-in-academic-research/)

Whist we wait for the great leap forwards, the question remains what can we do about the individuals currently caught in the crossfire of expectations for research outputs and personal and professional development? The first thing is to draw no division between the support and guidance that is technical, and is primarily there to provide tools to help with research and, the support that is for the individual to cope well with the research experience. So, when wellbeing services do recognise that the needs of PhD students are very different to undergraduates (PhD students are much less likely to be homesick for instance). Then the support which is provided is clearly signposted without any potential for stigmatisation by making it clear that personal development and support dealing with challenging situations is normalised as is counselling.

Research students should be able to access Cognitive Behavioural Therapies (CBT), talking therapy based workshops, or mindfulness meditation sessions in the same way as they would guidance on academic writing or statistics. Far better we are able to help researchers before a crisis point than wait until they hit to rocks or are standing on the levy.

For those who are heading toward a crisis point because of complexity of their research or the many other factors that may play a part in making life difficult, there needs to be appropriate support and well directed guidance. This is where the support and guidance provided to supervisors is key. This most complex of working relationships needs the recognition of boundaries and knowledge of signposting to adequate and timely resources. Supervisors are often friends and mentors to their students but they are not mental health counsellors and if a student’s problems go beyond their research project they should be given appropriate support from trained professionals.

So what can institutions introduce that might help researchers keep a sense of perspective and avoid the worst of the situations that might cause problems for their mental health. Here is where I link to my somewhat cryptic image, the reason my phone charger (like many, I guess) has broken at this point is because I’m trying to use the device whist it’s on charge, or I’m quickly pulling at it to draw it back into use when it has been charging. Dedicated researchers are generally so engrossed in their work that they are naturally drawn away from their time recharging. When they are not at the desk, bench or PC they are still thinking about the work. There needs to be freedom to escape and recharge. The first thing is not to amplify further their engagement with the research by making external demands of them to do more. Their own pace for a PhD is almost always fast enough (6).

The other thing is to structure the opportunity for support. Mindfulness meditation might not be for everyone but for those it works for, it really does make a massive difference. It helps people to live in their current moment and frees them up for the worries of what has not gone to plan or challenges that might lie in the future. Having Mindfulness sessions available is a real tangible way to help researchers manage the challenges they face. For others, who are happiest when they get something done, they may need something that is achievable to satisfy the need for some instant gratification that can often be lacking in the very long term goals and outputs of research. For those students community activities such as organising events like the North East Postgraduate Conference NEPG (7) could be one option. For other more individual pursuits like gardening or origami (8) may prove to be a source of some satisfaction. The recognition that time for these recharging processes is key and supervisors should encourage students to build these activities into their day. Productivity comes from happiness and being at ease with requirements not the constant pressure of needing to generate more data or outputs.

Finally, whatever the Universities choose to put in place to support their research students, there must be adequate resource for such support to continue through development. Research on any intervention ought to be through practitioner based enquiry with iterative development of good practice. This should not be an opportunity for researchers to further their careers as they observe from afar, assessing the potential influence of one off projects or schemes. There is surely enough compelling evidence that comprehensive support is needed for researchers to manage the challenges of research and the academic world. The question is should not be what is the one answer but how does the sector keep helping those who will need help.

1.https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8613173/file/8613174.pdf

2.https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/student-wellbeing-and-protection/student-mental-health/catalyst-fund-supporting-mental-health-and-wellbeing-for-pgr-students/

3.https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-020-01443-1

4.http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/102260/1/UDOC%20Survey%20Predictors%20of%20PGR%20symptoms%20BJPsychOpen%20Accepted%2011.10.21.pdf

5. https://www.ref.ac.uk/

6. Berg, M., & Seeber, B. K. (2016). The slow professor: Challenging the culture of speed in the academy. University of Toronto Press.

7. https://ne-pg.co.uk/

8. https://www.vitae.ac.uk/events/past-events/vitae-researcher-development-international-conference-2017/Posters2017/Can%20mindfulness%20through%20meditation%20or%20Origami%20be%20used%20to%20support%20resilience%20and%20well%20being%20in%20researchers

By Oonagh McGee and Richy Hetherington

Over the last 10 years there has been a shift in the way the UK Government has funded doctoral research. The Research Councils, RCUK (now UKRI, UK Research and Innovation) started concentrating funding with Doctoral Training Centres at specific locations and building cohorts of research students working at places where there was a significant area of expertise. This model was developed further ensuring that funding for research students was dedicated to higher education institutions (HEIs) with a strong record in research. Doctoral Training Partnerships (DTPs) required institutions to have a research grant income above a certain threshold to apply. Only a select few universities could apply individually, most would be required to partner up in order to fund a cohort of students. Alongside the DTP model, universities were also able to apply for Centres for Doctoral Training, with significant funding offered by UKRI. The majority of this specifically concentrated on EPSRC priority areas, in comparison to other funding councils. The latest call (launched in 2018) saw a combined investment from EPSRC and external partners of £945M. (1) These targeted investments cover a wide range of topics although subjects can be disparate within each centre and each with their own operating models.

The concept that research students should learn their research skills together and develop as a cohort is intrinsically a very positive step. Everything that can be done to foster collaboration in research endeavours must be considered a positive. It could be argued that where students are co-located with their cohorts, or brought together for regular events and training, these centres could provide an antidote to the ‘lonely journey’ often reported by doctoral students.

In a study of doctoral centres in (2019-2020) students (n=209) and staff (n=6) reported on the less tangible benefits of doctoral centres (2) primarily relating to wellbeing and support but also the opportunity to share methods, skills, and work on problems collaboratively.

There are excellent training opportunities for students, in a variety of areas with individual DTPs arranging training in Science Communication, Enterprise & Innovation and Personal & Professional Development more generally. The BBSRC took a very defined focus on the employability of research students with their Professional Internships for PhD Students (PIPS) scheme. The requirement for three month internships away from the research was originally met with some scepticism from academic supervisors but the internships have proved popular with students. The opportunity to demonstrate and recognise research skills in other environments has proved to be a significant positive.

However, for the many benefits this concentration of funding with three and a half or four year fully funded studentships with numerous additional training opportunities included has increased the disparity in experience between research students depending on how they are being supported and their discipline.

Whilst feedback from students (n=209) was generally positive, students also highlighted issues of competition, comparison and, in some cases, extra activities as a distraction from their core research. Additionally, students highlighted that whilst working together could be beneficial in many areas, they felt a research group would have been a more appropriate environment.

One good example of how DTP funding has made an impact more broadly. Is the North East Postgraduate conference (NE-PG.CO.UK). By supporting a conference for their own students to present their work to the broader research student community, the DTPs can also promote an opportunity for all research students in the discipline to submit and share their work, practice their presentation skills and network. It has also proved an important opportunity for researchers to develop skills in organising such an event. Including a broad range of skills that stem from research, such as reviewing abstracts and providing critical but fair feedback. The Student led conference also allows researchers to develop organisational skills that are a quite tangential extension of those acquired through organising a research conference.

This opportunity to maximise and broaden the benefit that can come from the funding that comes with funded training centres and partnerships is a relative scarcity. The perspective of many of the academics involved in organising partnerships or centres seems to be a one of caution not to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. There have been notable cases where research intensive universities did not get the DTP they applied for or did not have their partnership renewed. A clear steer from UKRI that spreading and maximising the support would be greatly welcomed. Brexit and Covid19 are already greatly testing international research students’ desire to come to the UK. If the Universities are to continue to encourage a range of models for research students they need to ensure there is not a two tier (or many tier) system in doctoral education. Whilst the funded centre model has provided opportunities for students to work collaboratively across institutions, there is also the argument that some Centres for Doctoral Training (CDTs) & DTPs can lead to a two-tier system with funding, opportunities and support built around a specific cohort of students which are not afforded to those without this funding .

It has been recognised for some time that the Master and Apprentice model of PhD supervision is becoming outmoded with research being performed by larger interdisciplinary groups. There could be some consideration into the way in which doctorates are assessed. The individual monograph is not entirely in-keeping with modern research methods, nor does it accurately reflect how many students will go on to work within their chosen career . Industries outside of academia have embraced the effectiveness of cross-cutting teams and collaboration. It would appear there is increasing recognition that the complexity of the projects academics researchers face means that there will need to be greater openness collaboration and recognition for all parties involved, this is articulate very well by Professor Muzlifah Haniffa when speaking about how the research team they work in responded to Covid-19 (3). If universities and research councils are genuinely interested in developing individuals for their career post-doctorate a radical rethink may be required.

UKRI have continued to fund large-scale, multidisciplinary grants over the last decade, recognising that in order to solve grand challenges a new approach is required. If we hope to develop research culture away from the application of individual rewards to the lead or last author on papers, and the named individual on grant applications then it maybe be necessary to change the formative stages of building a research career to bring in greater recognition of the contribution that many individuals make together on a project. Is the portfolio PhD the way forward?

Recommendations from the report to the UKCGE Conference 2020 (2)

Could UKRI funding be allocated to enable engagement with non-funded students?
Could we have further funding distributed across institutions?
Ensure student feedback is incorporated into review process
Integrate student wellbeing and satisfaction scales and benchmark with PRES.

Tag: PhD

Researcher Wellbeing: what are we willing to change?

Doctoral Training Partnerships & Centres and how they influence the formative development of researchers