The hidden realities of life as a doctoral student

Full text

Resources for doctoral students
1
Hopwood N, Alexander P, Harris-Huemmert S, McAlpine L & Wagstaff S (forthcoming
2011) The hidden realities of life as a doctoral student. In V Mallan & A Lee (Eds)
International perspectives on doctoral education: a resource for supervisors and students.
Serdang, Malaysia: Universiti Putra Malaysia Press.
The hidden realities of life as a doctoral student
Nick Hopwood, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Patrick Alexander, University of Oxford, UK
Susan Harris-Huemmert, University of Bamberg, Germany
Lynn McAlpine, University of Oxford, UK
Sheena Wagstaff, University of Oxford, UK
Introduction
This chapter is about the daily experiences of doctoral students. It discusses findings from
studies conducted in three countries (UK, Canada, USA) by an international team of
researchers, providing case studies from the UK project. Existing literature suggests that
everyday experiences are significant, variable, but rarely investigated, documented or
acknowledged. This chapter makes explicit aspects of students’ work and lives that are
often hidden from view, either because students feel reluctant to discuss such issues,
especially with supervisors or other faculty members, or because institutions perhaps
inadvertently contribute to unrealistic stereotypes of ‘normal’ students.
We hope that this chapter offers students (and their supervisors) a chance to reflect on their
working habits, study challenges, and on the relationships between academic work and
other aspects of their lives. We are mindful that a significant audience for this chapter may
be located in South East Asia, and that our research was conducted in the UK and North
America. While the multinational nature of our research gives us some grounds to expect a
broadly similar picture in other parts of the world, we do not assume that our findings
neatly generalise to other contexts. This is partly because doctoral experience always takes
the form of local particularities that reflect national systems, institutional practices, and
students’ personal backgrounds, interests and approaches to work. Issues relating to
national, cultural and religious diversity add further complexity and richness to the picture
in any one location. We would encourage readers to consider the extent to which the
findings we report here are reflected in the particulars of their own context (national,
cultural, institutional, personal etc.) and, if not, what the differences might mean.
Our research was conducted with students in the social sciences. Existing research has
shown that experiences vary considerably across disciplines, and contrasts are often drawn
between laboratory-based sciences and other less structured, more individualised work in
social sciences and humanities. Nonetheless we think it will still be useful for readers
working in any research area to understand some of the hidden realities we report here, and
to consider the extent to which their discipline affects their everyday experiences.
By providing four case studies, we illustrate the variation in how doctoral students
approach work and give meaning and order to their lives. It is likely that some readers may
find their own experiences match none of these, or only parts of them. This would be
consistent with our research – in fact one of the important messages is that normality is not
a useful benchmark for comparison.

The hidden realities of life as a doctoral student
2
Relation of study to existing literature
Doctoral education research now constitutes an established and global research field.
Despite this, however, there remain considerable gaps in what is known about doctoral
students, their experiences, how they learn and work, and how the doctorate fits in (or
perhaps not) with other aspects of students’ lives. Green (2009) identifies a need for studies
of ‘what goes on’ in doctoral education, and the research reported here begins to address
this gap.
Existing research has explored a wide range of issues, with some studies indicating the
importance of students’ wider lives. Postgraduate study cannot be isolated from other
aspects of life, and a holistic concern for doctoral candidates as people not just students
requires a range of personal, family, non-academic, faith, health and social aspects to be
recognised (Araujo, 2005; Gardner, 2008; Humphrey & McCarthy, 1999; Pearson et al.,
2004, 2008; Wright, 2003). Neumann and Rodwell (2009) argue that such issues require
further research attention:
The broad spectrum of demands across each of the facets of a candidate’s life may need to be
considered in future research, including study, work and family demands. (p. 66)
National policy frameworks have been criticised for failing to recognise diversity among
the doctoral student population, in particular basing funding structures, time limits and
curriculum on assumptions that PhD students are typically young (recent graduates, in their
early twenties), studying full time, with no or little or no prior workplace experience, and
geographically mobile (able to shift locations independently of family commitments or
other ties to particular places). However, doctoral education and doctoral students currently
enjoy relatively high profile in policy developments and debates in many countries,
including across South East Asia. Findings from research such as ours may be helpful in
informing such developments, including at institutional, faculty or departmental levels.
We conclude this chapter by highlighting additional literature that may be relevant to those
who wish to undertake further reading in this area.
Research context
The research on which this chapter is based took a different approach from many of the
survey or interview studies already conducted. Our approach was distinctive in two ways:
(1) we captured the everyday, mundane aspects of doctoral students’ lives; (2) we extended
data collection longitudinally so that we could see how experiences varied over time. While
existing studies have tracked students over time, or asked questions about routine
experiences, these two aspects have not previously been combined. Our research was also
novel in that we used the same methods for data collection in three related studies, each in a
different country (the UK, Canada, and the USA).
We asked students to complete a written log once a month for at least six months; some
students continued participating for up to 18 months. Each log was about one week of their
experience (including the weekend). Students were asked how much time they spent on
their doctorate, what else they did, how they felt about their work, who helped them,
difficulties they encountered, what they did about these difficulties, and what would have
made their lives easier. Many found completing the logs helpful to them in thinking about

Resources for doctoral students
3
their work habits, progress and sources of support, so we have developed a version of the
log for students to use on their own (this is available online1).
This paper focuses primarily on data from the UK study (led by McAlpine and Hopwood).
Here we recruited 32 doctoral students across 3 universities, representing 13 different
departments and interdisciplinary research centres within the social sciences (eg.
anthropology, economics, education, environmental studies, geography, management,
sociology, and social policy). In total these students provided 156 logs, each representing
one week of a particular student’s experiences. Of the 32 students 20 were female, 12 male,
17 from the UK and 15 from other countries. All were registered as full time students
(though as we will show, this did not mean that they did not have significant other
commitments including work and family). Some were in their first year of study, others
doing fieldwork, and others focusing on writing their thesis. For other reports of findings
from this study see Hopwood (2010b), Hopwood and Paulson (2012), Hopwood et al.
(2009), Paulson et al. (2009).
The Canadian study was led by McAlpine and used the same log-based methods with 20
largely Canadian doctoral students from one university, all in a faculty of education. Three
quarters of participants were female, reflecting the gender profile of this discipline. A
second institution was involved, but the methods were slightly different, preventing direct
comparisons. Similarly to those in the UK, while most were registered full-time, they had
family and work commitments; most had completed the coursework components of their
programmes. Overall they completed 163 logs. Findings from this study have been reported
elsewhere (Jazvac-Martek et al., forthcoming; McAlpine & Amundsen, 2007, 2009;
McAlpine & Asghar, 2010; McAlpine, Jazvac-Martek, & Hopwood, 2009; McAlpine et al.,
forthcoming).
The study in the USA, led by Solem and Hopwood, focused on one discipline: geography.
Thirty-one doctoral students participated from 9 universities. This sample was broadly
representative of the national graduate student populations (slight underrepresentation of
racial minorities and overrepresentation of female and international students) and included
students at all stages in the doctoral process. They provided a further 170 logs and a full
analysis of all the data is reported by Solem, Hopwood, and Schelmper (2011).
In total across the three studies we received 489 logs from 83 doctoral students studying in
13 universities across 3 countries. Log data were supplemented by interviews, but for the
purpose of this analysis, we will focus on the log data.
Findings
We present and discuss findings first at an aggregate level, highlighting patterns across the
larger data set, including the Canadian and US study data where relevant. Then in order to
illustrate individual variation in experiences we focus on four case students in the UK, with
respect to their engagement in doctorate-specific work and the wide range of other
activities they were engaged in. Those familiar with doctoral education, perhaps as
supervisors or researchers in the field, may not be surprised by these findings. Our point is
that while many aspects of doctoral experience are intuitively known to those who work
with them, these aspects are rarely acknowledged, shared publicly with students, or
properly recognised in institutional policies. Our purpose is not to make claims that are
entirely novel, but to make a contribution by documenting what is known but often remains
silent. In this way, student readers might better understand how their experiences relate to

The hidden realities of life as a doctoral student
4
those of the wider population. We hope institutions might take these findings as a basis for
refining policies and procedures. However, given that this chapter is primarily written as a
resource for students, we do not elaborate in detail on policy implications.
Key patterns in the dataset as a whole
In each log students were asked to write how many hours they had spent on work relating
directly to their doctorate. Figure 1 shows the general patterns for each of the three studies.
Care should be taken in interpreting these data. First, the lines do not represent like-for-like
comparisons, as the nature of samples and disciplinary bases in each study were different.
Students may have differed in what they regarded as work relating directly to their
doctorates: for example some may have included attending research seminars, while others
may have not. However additional data from the logs enabled us to ascertain that overall
students interpreted and answered this question in a similar way, making comparisons for
general indicative purposes valid. Finally, it should be noted that the hours counted here are
those reported by the students, and it is possible that students over- or under-estimated the
time spent on doctoral work.
Figure 1 Hours spent on work relating to the doctorate (aggregate data for all students)
Bearing in mind the need for care in interpreting these data, we can nonetheless highlight a
number of important features shown in Figure 1. Critically, working few or even no hours
was not uncommon – students across all three studies sometimes had weeks in which their
doctorate did not take priority, or in which they were not able to devote significant amounts
of time to their doctoral work. The three lines are not identical. Rather than indicating
variations at a national level, this perhaps suggests that aggregate patterns in doctoral
working hours reflect combinations of national, disciplinary, and more local factors (eg.
variation over time due to program expectations or other responsibilities). The lines show
that while some students reported working a high number of hours in a week, many worked
between 10 and 40 hours per week: while there is no ‘normal’, the trend is towards a more
moderate range. This time was often used for writing and reading (both crucial to
developing thinking) while for some students fieldwork created periods of intense focus on
doctoral activity (Jazvac-Martek, Chen, & McAlpine, forthcoming).

Resources for doctoral students
5
Wanting to set data on doctoral working hours in context, we asked students what else they
did each week. Some of the other activities reported by students related to academic work
or study more broadly. In the UK study, students attended lectures or seminars in 29% of
weeks, worked part time on other research projects in 28% of weeks, did some form of
university teaching in 24% of weeks, and institutional administration or committee work
were reported at just under 10% each. These students commonly used their time to
participate in activities that were not directly related to their doctorates (they were not
included in their calculation of hours discussed above), but nonetheless were essential to
developing an understanding of academic work. Often these provided sources of income
(research and teaching assistantships, for example), or means to gain experience in a wide
range of academic roles (particularly valuable for those intending academic careers in the
longer term). Broadly similar kinds and frequencies of activity were evident in the
Canadian and US studies.
Importantly, students also recorded a wide range of non-academic activities. These
included socialising, caring for others (children, spouses, parents, relatives), spending time
with family, sports and fitness pursuits, domestic work (household chores), and leisure
activities. Even among the ‘full time’ students in the UK study, it was not uncommon for
engagement in paid non-academic work to be reported. It was not clear that students were
consistent in reporting these activities to us, so we place less weight on numerical values
attached to them. Rather we stress the need to recognise that doctoral work is only part of
doctoral experience: doctoral students are also parents, siblings, daughters / sons, and
friends; they have other interests to pursue, health and fitness to maintain, and domestic
lives to run. This may seem an obvious point, but in our experience, and as the literature in
this area suggests, such basic facts are often ignored, or left unspoken in situations where
doctoral pedagogies and policies (eg. regarding time to completion) focus on doctoral work
as if it took place in a vacuum.
Contact with other people
Some studies, especially those situated in social sciences and humanities, suggest feeling
isolated is common among doctoral students. Our data suggests that the doctorate can in
fact be a highly social experience, but that this is by no means always the case. We briefly
highlight some relevant data showing doctoral students need (1) to be able to access
support from a wide range of resources when needed, but also (2) to recognise when
challenges can be dealt with by oneself, with the rewards and satisfaction this may bring
(see Hopwood & Sutherland, 2009).
We are interested here not so much in the number of people that a particular student
interacts with in a week, but in the different kinds of people they draw on for support.
Supervisors are an obvious group, and were cited as sources of support by students in all
three studies. In the UK, supervisors were the most frequently mentioned group, while in
the US study other students within the department were most likely to be named as a source
of support. In the Canadian study, family members and friends were reported with equal
frequency to supervisors, followed closely by other students. Overall we are struck by the
important role played by a range of others, not just supervisors, in supporting students in
their doctoral work: departmental peers, friends and family, other academic staff, and
students in other departments and institutions. In light of this, we suggest it can be
instructive to explore who is drawn on for support and what kind of support each role
provides (Jazvac-Martek et al., forthcoming).

The hidden realities of life as a doctoral student
6
We expect that if we had included students in laboratory sciences, contact with postdoctoral
researchers and other academics would be much more notable than in our social science
sample. Importantly, too, in some cases students said that ‘no-one’ helped them in a
particular week. This was most common in the UK (21% of weeks across the whole group,
in contrast with 10% in the Canadian data), and perhaps reflects the absence of structures
such as coursework or classes for many students studying social sciences in the UK
(particularly after the first year).
In order to understand what lay behind these responses, we looked elsewhere in the logs at
answers students gave about the progress they made and the challenges they faced in
particular weeks. In some cases students reported that no-one helped them in weeks when
they felt they made good progress, and either encountered no significant challenges or were
able to cope with them by themselves. Elsewhere, students were frustrated with their
progress and felt the need for help but were unable to access support, either because (i) the
people they asked were unavailable, (i) they did not feel they could ask for help, or (iii)
they were not aware that help might be available from particular sources. While a doctorate
can indeed feel like an isolating journey, sustained isolation is unlikely to be conducive to
progress, particularly if one recognises the important social dimensions of learning. Both
institutions and students have a responsibility in relation to support: institutions to provide
supervision and a culture of support from other academics, and students in seeking support
and providing it for each other. Being physically alone can be productive, and is necessary
and sometimes desired, but our data suggest the doctorate can be a highly interactive
process and that students play key roles in instigating a wide range of interactions to help
them with their work.
Everyday challenges of doctoral work
The doctorate itself is by definition challenging, and many of the ‘big’ challenges or
hurdles relate to knowing the literature in a field, designing and justifying research,
analysing data, writing, and ultimately making a significant contribution to knowledge.
These are well-known and common features of public discourses about the doctorate.
Perhaps less familiar, but no less significant, are the day-to-day difficulties faced by
students, and the ways in which the bigger challenges are manifest in and shape the daily
routines and experiences of doing doctoral work (see also McAlpine, Jazvac-Martek, &
Hopwood, 2009). In each log students were asked to describe any difficulties they
encountered and what they did about them. By far the most common response across all
three studies was a lack of time, reported in 28% of weeks by our UK participants, 37% of
weeks by those studying in Canada, and 69% of weeks by those in the US. It is all too easy
to take a zero sum or inelastic view of time, and to suggest that these students’ complaints
of needing more time stem from the multiple other activities they engage in (as discussed
above). However, when we looked across the data we found no clear relationship between
fewer hours devoted to doctoral work and a lack of time, nor between the range of other
commitments and time problems. Time problems have complex origins, reflecting
institutional constraints (a doctorate should take X years full time), other features of
research that have significant time dimensions (eg. needing to conduct fieldwork within
particular dates, having to wait for ethics clearance), other factors which shape what time is
available (illness, family matters, work commitments), and students’ own sense of the time
they need or want to spend on their work (perfectionism is not uncommon).
Emotional difficulties were the next most frequently reported in all three studies. These
were indicated through students’ reference to stress, anxiety, anger, frustration, sadness,

Resources for doctoral students
7
boredom and loneliness. (We should note that in other aspects of the study we also found
evidence of the positive emotional side of doctoral work: satisfaction, pride, exhilaration,
excitement, anticipation, feeling valued among peers.) Both our research and experiences
of engaging with wider doctoral communities suggest that supervision is often not seen or
used as a space in which emotions are discussed or emotional difficulties addressed. The
appearance of confidence and competence among peers and academic colleagues often
seemed to be important. However our data show that the emotional investment in doctoral
work and the difficulties inevitably encountered during the process render it a highly
emotional endeavour. Students should not feel alone when experiencing emotional lows
(and highs), and we would hope that there are suitable spaces in which emotional aspects
can be openly shared and worked through, perhaps with friends or peers if not supervisors.
Pragmatic issues such as access to resources (books, hardware, software, equipment,
information, fieldwork sites etc) as well as difficulties relating to study itself (writing block,
intellectual dead ends, lack of creativity), relationships (availability of supervisors,
problematic interactions with supervisors), and health issues were also mentioned by
students in all three studies.
While difficulties are not the primary focus of this chapter, it would be inappropriate to
conclude this section without considering how our participants responded to the difficulties
they reported. We categorised such responses into four types: strategic, sacrifice, engaging
others, and nothing. Strategic responses involved tactics such as prioritising aspects of
work, planning what to do and when, and choosing a different focus if they were struggling
with writing. Sacrificial responses involved working more hours, giving up on other
commitments (such as sport, family time), or sleeping less. Engaging others involved the
range of sources of support described previously. Doing nothing could mean that students
accepted a difficulty as part of the process, or it could mean that they felt nothing could be
done or no support could be sought. Learning when to respond in particular ways is a key
skill, but one that is not often explicitly discussed as part of doctoral pedagogy. While
sacrificing other activities including sleep is an almost inevitable reality of doctoral
experience we were concerned to see patterns of this response being repeated regularly by
individuals, and at times evidence of its consequences was apparent when students suffered
ill health and severe fatigue. Just as encountering challenges is a part of everyday doctoral
experience, so is responding to them. There is no automatically ‘best’ response, but
hopefully by sharing the experiences of our participants, we can help readers reflect on
their own coping strategies.
Case studies: Atmor, Acme, Lucy and Poppy
We will now revisit some of the key issues discussed above with reference to four students
who participated in the UK study. They were chosen partly because they each provided 12
or more logs. This means we have a good sense of their experiences over time, enabling us
to get a sense of the extent to which study habits, challenges and social contact are similar
or vary week-to-week. This proved highly significant, as we found considerable variation
not only between students, but also with respect to particular individuals over time. There is
no ‘normal’ student, and there is no ‘normal’ week. These students are also useful as cases
because they represent many of the ‘wider life’ features that were reported across our data
as a whole. By looking at cases in detail we can explore how these come together in
different combinations. As case studies these descriptions should not be taken as a basis for
extrapolating directly to wider populations. We are not proposing that these individuals
exemplify commonly found types of doctoral student. Rather these cases are presented to

The hidden realities of life as a doctoral student
8
show how the aggregate patterns described in the previous section actually relate to
individual students.
The four students chose the aliases to be used instead of their real names, and details about
them are provided in Table 1. We focus here on how they used their time, but it may be
noted that their approach to seeking support, difficulties encountered and responses to them
varied similarly from student to student and from week to week for a particular individual.
Table 1 Introducing the four case students
Student
Demographics
Area of study
Prior study
Prior work
Acme
Female, age 29,
USA
Interdisciplinary
environmental
sciences
BSc Electrical & Mechanical
Engineering, MSc Civil
Engineering
Series of jobs as
professional engineer,
consultant
Atmor
Female, age 33,
Greece
Interdisciplinary
education/ economics
BA Psychology, MSc
Counselling, MA
Psychometrics
Counsellor, University
tutor (statistics)
Lucy
Female, age 25, UK
Economics
BA Economics, MSc
Economics
None
Poppy
Male, age 43, UK
Education
BA Drama & English, PGCE
English & Drama, MA
Publishing in Education
Drama teacher (UK
secondary), Head of
Drama, Deputy Head of
School
These students’ work habits varied greatly from person to person: from an average of 20
hours per week for Lucy to 60 for Acme (this high average reflects a sustained period of
fieldwork). All four were registered as ‘full time’ at their institutions – clearly ‘full time’
does not straightforwardly denote a consistent commitment to study.
We also found evidence of variation within each student’s own working practices. Figure 2
shows the hours worked on the doctorate as a longitudinal curve, with a separate line for
each student. The horizontal axis denotes the number of the log in the order received –
these do not represent back-to-back weeks (there was usually at least a three-week gap
between logs).
Figure 2 Working hours for the four case students

Resources for doctoral students
9
Acme’s work patterns are highly variable, often in the 60-80 hour range, but sometimes
dropping down to 30 or 40. Other log data show that the ‘lows’ reflect weeks where her
other commitments (discussed below) required intense and sustained focus, while in
general she regarded 60 hours focused on her doctorate as quite normal. The lines for
Atmor and Lucy are comparatively flat. Both demonstrate one-off dips; in Atmor’s case
this was due to ill health, while Lucy spent an entire week helping her boyfriend move
house and did no work on her doctorate during this time. Poppy’s line is perhaps the most
consistent, and this reflects his habit (as explained in interview) of treating his PhD ‘like a
job’ and not working in the evenings or on weekends.
The working weeks of full-time doctoral students may be very different. These differences
occur between students and with respect to particular students over time. Rather than
suggesting that some students are lazier or less productive than others, our data show that
progress on the doctorate is achieved in very different ways, and that ‘full time’ work is
shaped by a range of factors which vary from week to week. In order to understand this
better we must attend to the other activities and responsibilities which feature in the
everyday lives of doctoral students.
Three of the case students (all except Acme) reported spending time in some kind of paid
academic work which was not directly related to their doctorate. Atmor had regular
undergraduate teaching commitments which included running workshops and marking
assignments. These were mainly confined to term time, although she did spend time
planning her teaching during vacations. About mid-way through she acquired an additional
role of professional development coordinator for graduate students in her department. Lucy
worked as an undergraduate tutor on a number of courses, and her commitments also
included exam marking, which peaked in demands at the end of each academic year. Poppy
had no teaching commitments, but worked intermittently as a part time research assistant
for academic staff in his department. This work was variable in its duration and timing, and
not confined to term time.
All four students engaged in some kind of unpaid academic activity in addition to working
directly on their doctorates. Acme regularly attended departmental seminars; occasionally
though over a lengthy period of time she mentored other students; and from time to time
she reported relatively intense work in co-authoring a paper with an academic colleague on
work not related to her doctoral research. Atmor, Lucy and Poppy attended committee
meetings (usually once a term or more), normally as representatives of the graduate student
body. Not only did Lucy regularly go to seminars, but she had (unpaid) responsibility for
convening a series of weekly seminars during term time for a whole academic year. Poppy,
like Acme, devoted time to co-authoring papers (unrelated to his doctorate) with academic
staff in pulses of activity associated with drafting, submitting, waiting for responses, and
revising a manuscript.
Two of the four case students reported undertaking paid non-academic work. Atmor had a
part-time job throughout her participation in the study (documented in every log), while
Acme reported several periods of intense consultancy work (described as not relating to her
academic work).
The logs also demonstrate a range of other activities and responsibilities that feature in the
daily lives of these students. In every log Acme described her unpaid role as a senior

The hidden realities of life as a doctoral student
10
partner in a non-governmental organisation involved in supporting engineering projects in
less economically developed countries. This took considerable time but was central to her
values and commitment to helping others less fortunate than herself, and to her identity and
ambitions as someone who maintained a grip on the ‘real world’ rather than becoming
exclusively focused on academic work and research. During her studies her father became
increasingly ill, and on her trips back home to the USA she reported spending time caring
for him. Her logs also document a strict exercise routine (daily gym work outs), and
commitments to salsa dancing. Similarly, Atmor reported regular gym-going and sports
activities, and in every log mentioned socialising with friends. Lucy’s logs also document
socialising and sports, but also commitments to a student club and time spent with her
boyfriend. Poppy drew clear boundaries between work and non-work time, spending his
evenings and weekends socialising, running, gardening and completing domestic chores.
All these students also reported taking ‘time off’ at some point from their doctoral work,
whether due to ill health, to go on holiday, or spend time with family.
Discussion
Although our studies document relatively mundane aspects of doctoral life, they raise
important questions regarding the categories we use to describe doctoral students and
assumptions made in policy and by institutions about the nature of doctoral work. In
particular we think our findings suggest the need to think carefully about what designating
students as ‘full’ or ‘part’ time might mean. Much is determined for and assumed about
doctoral students on the basis of whether they are registered as full or part time (fees,
supervisory arrangements, expected completion times), yet the everyday lives of our four
full-timers may not look very different from what one might expect of part time students in
some respects.
Many of the practical consequences of the notion of ‘full time’ students rest on assumptions
that they are free of the external commitments associated with ‘part time’ students that
warrant a longer timeframe for completion. We have seen that those registered as full time
are not likely to be free of other work, personal or domestic commitments. These are not
challenges to inconsequential uses of terminology – the designation one way or the other
has very real consequences for doctoral students and their institutions. The idea of ‘full
time’ is ingrained in many policies and practices, and yet continues to go unquestioned by
universities and funding bodies as a useful means to understand and respond to differences
among students and the relationship between their doctoral study and other aspects of their
lives. The use of such terms would benefit from a better understanding of how doctoral
study time is constructed and experienced by students within their wider life contexts.
That doctoral students and their institutions are under pressure to ensure ‘timely’
completion of theses is nothing new, but pressures relating to doctoral completions have
intensified around the world. Such changes have been subject to strong criticism for their
imposition of arbitrary timeframes and for encouraging safe projects, creating an aversion
to risk taking and creativity (eg. McWilliam, 2009; Neumann, 2007). With completion
times made so consequential, they have become the target of relentless institutional
attention. It is understandable that under such pressures institutions wish students to focus
more on their thesis work and less on other things. However attachment to this narrow
notion of timely outcomes leads to a naïve assumption that activities compete with each
other, or that there is a straightforward relationship between time spent, progress made, and
preparation for the future. Our data add further weight to Araujo’s (2005) argument, that
the doctorate must be understood as a ‘phase’, where the timing of this within a student’s

Resources for doctoral students
11
life and career trajectory, as well as its relationship with other phases (family life, episodes
of ill health, employment) are recognised.
While time should not be treated as infinitely elastic, it is equally problematic to see the
path to ‘timely’ completion as a journey that can be ensured so long as students aren’t
distracted by other things. Other work (Hopwood, 2010a, 2010c; McAlpine & Asghar,
2010; McAlpine & Amundsen, 2007, 2009; McAlpine et al., 2009) suggests that different
activities are often not in competition with each other. Other commitments, whether
academic or otherwise, can play a significant role in contributing to students’ personal and
professional well-being and development, their feelings of belonging, sense of identity, and
ability to devote their energies in accordance with their values. Given the frequency with
which students in our study mentioned sport / fitness activities, and the incidence of ill
health, it is important to remind ourselves that doctoral students have bodies as well as
intellectual brains to maintain. Daily exercise is as much part of the doctorate, and as much
part of the production of a doctorate as an hour in the library.
Conclusions
We introduced this chapter by suggesting that there are a number of aspects of doctoral
experience that frequently remain hidden from the public view. In making these explicit
and sharing them with students (and those who support them), we have developed a more
nuanced and empirically grounded sense of what being a doctoral student involves. In our
experience we have often found that students harbour anxieties in terms of how they
compare to their peers. Such comparisons are frequently made in relation to an imagined
‘normality’, from which students tend to feel they differ. Our data suggest that ideas of a
‘normal’ student or working week on a doctorate are actually difficult to define empirically.
While there are certainly more or less common features, and clear patterns emerging across
our three studies, it seems to us that the hidden reality often concerns a lack of anything
‘normal’.
In summarising our key findings we would therefore highlight:
(i) That the everyday lives of doctoral students vary greatly from individual to individual
– there is no ‘normal’ student.
(ii) For particular students, working patterns and time spent on other activities vary from
week to week: there is no ‘normal’ week.
(iii) Although often rumoured to be isolating, doctoral experiences can involve
interactions with a wide range of people; these are not guaranteed and they reflect
institutional provisions and students’ own agency in making them happen; there is no
‘normal’ pattern for interacting with others – interactions vary from person to person
and from week to week.
(iv) While it is ‘normal’ to experience challenges or difficulties on a regular basis during
the doctorate, particularly in relation to time and emotions, responses to these
challenges vary between students from week to week for particular individuals.
Further reading
We have not done justice to the vast literature on doctoral education in the citations in our
chapter. The following may be particularly useful as further reading for students. Aitchison,
Kamler, and Lee’s (2010) book is an excellent resource supporting doctoral writing.
Hopwood (2010a, 2010c) and Nyquist et al. (1999) are especially useful for those
considering academic careers, while Lee and Williams’ (1999) paper gives a moving
account of the emotional turmoil that may be involved in a doctorate. Kearns, Gardiner, and

The hidden realities of life as a doctoral student
12
Marshall (2008) describes strategies students and universities can use to cope with time
difficulties, as well as a very resonant account of a ‘busy’ day in which not much writing
gets done!
Notes
1 A version of the log we used, designed to help students reflect on and manage their work, can be
downloaded from http://www.cetlrecord.ox.ac.uk/resources/resource09.php?reURL=../themes/toolkit.php
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions made by all team members in the three research projects.
In the UK, the Next Generation of Social Scientists study was conducted at the University of Oxford by Lynn
McAlpine, Nick Hopwood, David Mills, Gill Turner, Patrick Alexander, Susan Harris-Huemmert, and Julia
Paulson, with additional analytic assistance from Russell Francis and Sheena Wagstaff. It was funded as part
of the Centre for Excellence in Preparing for Academic Practice (supported by HEFCE), and through the
Oxford University Press John Fell Fund and Oxford Learning Institute. In Canada the Docwork project was
conducted at McGill and Simon Fraser Universities by Lynn McAlpine, Anthony Paré, Doreen Starke-
Meyerring, Cheryl Amundsen, Marian Jazvac-Martek, Allison Gonsalves, Shuhua Chen, Larissa Yousoubova
and Barbara Edwards. It was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. In
the US, the project was conducted by Michael Solem, Nick Hopwood and Beth Schlemper, reflecting
collaborations between the Association of American Geographers and the University of Oxford. As a
supplement to the Enhancing Departments in Graduate Education (EDGE) project, this was funded by the
National Science Foundation. This chapter relates closely to a presentation given by Nick Hopwood at the 2nd
conference of the International Doctoral Education Research Network (IDERN).
References
Aitchison, C., Kamler, B., & Lee, A. (Eds.). (2010). Publishing pedagogies for the doctorate and beyond.
London: Routledge.
Araujo, E. R. (2005). Understanding the PhD as a phase in time. Time and Society, 14(2/3), 191-211.
Green, B. (2009). Challenging perspectives, changing practices: doctoral education in transition. In D. Boud
& A. Lee (Eds.), Changing practices of doctoral education (pp. 239-248). London: Routledge.
Hopwood, N. (2010a). Doctoral students as journal editors: non-formal learning through academic work.
Higher Education Research & Development, 29(3), 319-331.
Hopwood, N. (2010b). A sociocultural view of doctoral students’ relationships and agency. Studies in
Continuing Education, 33(2), 103-117.
Hopwood, N. (2010c). Doctoral experience and learning from a sociocultural perspective. Studies in Higher
Education, 35(7), 829-843.
Hopwood, N., & Paulson, J. (2012). Bodies in narratives of doctoral students' learning and experience.
Studies in Higher Education, 37(7).
Hopwood, N., & Sutherland, K. (2009). Relationships and agency in doctoral and early career academic
experience. In H. Wozniak & S. Bartoluzzi (Eds.), Research and development in higher education,
volume 32: the student experience (pp. 210-218). Milperra, NSW: Higher Education Research and
Development Society of Australasia.
Hopwood, N., McAlpine, L., Mills, D., Alexander, P., Turner, G., Harris-Huemmert, S., & Paulson, J. (2009).
The next generation of social scientists: key findings and recommendations. Oxford: University of
Oxford, Centre for Excellence in Preparing for Academic Practice.
Jazvac-Martek, M., Chen, S., & McAlpine, L. (forthcoming). Tracking doctoral student experience over time:
cultivating agency in diverse spaces. In L. McAlpine & C. Amundsen (Eds.), Doctoral education:
research-based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors and administrators. Amsterdam: Springer.
Kearns, H., Gardiner, M., & Marshall, K. (2008). Innovation in PhD completion: the hardy shall succeed (and
be happy!). Higher Education Research & Development, 27(1), 77-89.
Lee, A., & Williams, C. (1999). "Forged in fire": narratives of trauma in PhD supervision pedagogy. Southern
Review, 32(1), 6-26.
McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2007). Academic communities and developing identity: the doctoral student
journey. In P. B. Richards (Ed.), Global issues in higher education (pp. 57-83). Hauppage, New York:
Nova Science Publishers.
McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2009). Identity and agency: pleasures and collegiality among the challenges
of the doctoral journey. Studies in Continuing Education, 31(2), 109-125.

Resources for doctoral students
13
McAlpine, L., & Ashgar, A. (2010). Enhancing academic climate: doctoral students as their own developers.
International Journal for Academic Development, 15(2), 167-178.
McAlpine, L., Jazvac-Martek, M., & Hopwood, N. (2009). Doctoral student experience: activities and
difficulties influencing identity development. International Journal for Researcher Development, 1(1),
97-112.
McAlpine, L., Paulson, J., Gonsalves, A., & Jazvac-Martek, M. (forthcoming). 'Untold' doctoral stories: can
we move beyond cultural narratives of neglect? Higher Education Research & Development.
McWilliam, E. (2009). Doctoral education in risky times. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.), Changing practices of
doctoral education (pp. 189-199). London: Routledge.
Neumann, R. (2007). Policy and practice in doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 459-473.
Neumann, R., & Rodwell, J. (2009). The 'invisible' part-time research students: a case study of satisfaction
and completion. Studies in Higher Education, 34(1), 55-68.
Nyquist, J. D., Manning, L., Wulff, D. H., Austin, A. E., Sprague, J., Fraser, P. K., Calcagno, C., &
Woodford, B. (1999). On the road to becoming a professor: the graduate student experience. Change,
May/June, 18-27.
Paulson, J., Hopwood, N., McAlpine, L., & Mills, D. (2009). Untold doctoral experiences: research findings
and recommendations from a study into the challenges of doctoral study. Oxford: University of Oxford
/ Centre for Excellence in Preparing for Academic Practice.
Pearson, M., Cumming, J., Evans, T., Macauley, P., & Ryland, K. (2008). Exploring the extent and nature of
the diversity of the doctoral population in Australia: a profile of the respondents to a 2005 national
survey. In M. Kiley & G. Mullins (Eds.), Quality in postgraduate research: research education in the
new global environment - conference proceedings (pp. 90-114). Canberra: Australian National
University.
Solem, M. N., Hopwood, N., & Schlemper, B. (2011). Experiencing graduate school: a comparative analysis
of students in geography programs. Professional Geographer, 63(1), 1-17.
Wright, T. (2003). Postgraduate research students: people in context? British Journal of Guidance &
Counselling, 31(2), 209-227.