Content uploaded by Isabelle Skakni
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Isabelle Skakni on Mar 24, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cshe20
Studies in Higher Education
ISSN: 0307-5079 (Print) 1470-174X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20
PhD experience (and progress) is more than work:
life-work relations and reducing exhaustion (and
cynicism)
Lynn McAlpine, Isabelle Skakni & Kirsi Pyhältö
To cite this article: Lynn McAlpine, Isabelle Skakni & Kirsi Pyhältö (2020): PhD experience (and
progress) is more than work: life-work relations and reducing exhaustion (and cynicism), Studies in
Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1744128
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1744128
Published online: 25 Mar 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
PhD experience (and progress) is more than work: life-work
relations and reducing exhaustion (and cynicism)
Lynn McAlpine
a,b
, Isabelle Skakni
c,d
and Kirsi Pyhältö
e,f,g
a
Department of Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK;
b
Department of Educational and Counselling
Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada;
c
Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University,
Lancaster, UK;
d
University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Western Switzerland, Lausanne, Switzerland;
e
Center for
University Teaching and Learning, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland;
f
Faculty of Educational Sciences,
University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland;
g
Department of Curriculum Studies, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch,
South-Africa
ABSTRACT
Prior studies have reported high levels of PhD stress resulting in
exhaustion and cynicism related to negative institutional factors. Yet, we
know little of the possible influence of personal lives on exhaustion/
cynicism. This mixed-methods study examines the interrelation. We
drew on exhaustion, cynicism, life-work relation scales and free-write
responses about managing life and work of 123 Swiss PhD students.
Respondents typically reported positive life-work relations, with this
experience particularly buffering exhaustion, which can lead to cynicism
and possibly burnout. The analysis of free-write responses supported
this view. Respondents reported they largely balanced/managed to
balance life and work, with family most frequently referenced in this
regard. Finally, we combined the scaled and free-write responses.
Individuals, even if reporting exhaustion and negative aspects in their
life-work relations, consistently reported being able to combine their
career and life goals. This alignment may serve as a mechanism for
buffering other life-work and institutional challenges.
KEYWORDS
Doctoral education;
exhaustion; cynicism; life-
work relation; mixed
methods
Context
Traditionally, efforts to understand PhD experience have focused on experiences related to contex-
tual factors within academia. Qualitative studies have tended to examine how supervision, peer inter-
action, writing support, and cultural diversity influence PhD student satisfaction and progress, but
due to their small scale, and often exploratory, nature they do not specifically link to (lack of) well-
being (Ives and Rowley 2005)–an issue of increasing concern institutionally (The Graduate Assembly
2014). Quantitative studies, on the other hand, have made more direct links to the influence of insti-
tutional factors on satisfaction, progress and (lack of) well-being (Holbrook et al. 2014 in Australia)
and high rates of fatigue, stress and unhappiness (Solem, Hopwood and Schlemper 2011 in the
US ).
Overall, both sets of studies have linked an accumulation of negative institutional experiences,
such as intellectual climate, funding, social support, supervisory relationship, to burnout –whereas
positive experiences contribute to well-being and the absence of experienced burnout. By focusing
on the institutional context, these studies have largely leafte aside the possible influence of personal
lives on reduced well-being, e.g. exhaustion and cynicism, and PhD progress. They have ignored how
© 2020 Society for Research into Higher Education
CONTACT Lynn McAlpine lynn.mcalpine@ctl.ox.ac.uk Department of Education, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford, 0X2 6PT, UK
STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1744128
PhD experiences are embedded in broader life experiences (McAlpine and Amundsen 2011). In this
mixed-methods study, we examined this possible interaction drawing on scaled-item and free-write
survey responses of 123 Swiss PhD students.
Previous research
PhD program influences
For some time, retention, satisfaction and completion have been key reference points for universities
and for research on doctoral experience. Retention often measured in share of those students who do
complete their doctoral degree incorporates the notion of persistence, the ability to experience sat-
isfaction, since satisfaction is linked to engagement in research, greater well-being and more timely
completion –with the reverse effects being burnout and lack of completion risk. Prior research shows
that retention rates in doctoral education are far from optimal; depending on the discipline, 30% to
70% of doctoral students never to complete their PhD degree (Gardner and Gopaul 2012; Ivankova
and Stick 2007). Those who do complete their degree show consistent determination i.e. persistence
in their studies by facing and overcoming long line of challenges that may without sufficient support
turn into stressors (Barry et al. 2018; Cotterall 2013).
Unfortunately, there is plentiful evidence that globally PhD students do experience prolonged stress
during their programs. For instance, approximately 40% of PhD students in the University of California
(US) reported feeling under constant strain, while 30% reported feeling unhappy (University of California
Graduate Student Well-Being Survey 2017). Similarly, at the University of Berkeley (US) about a fourth of
the PhD students reported reduced levels of life satisfaction (The Graduate Assembly Graduate Student
2014). In the Netherlands, comparable high levels of anxiety experienced by PhD students have been
reported (van der Weijden et al. 2017). Given the growing reports on PhD student distress, it is clear that
aspects of PhD work do not necessarily provide an optimal environment for sustaining well-being (Levecque
et al. 2017; Reevy and Deason 2014). In one such study in Finland, 56% considered dropping out at some point
during the PhD process, and that decision was influenced by experiences of stress, anxiety, exhaustion, and
lack of interest (Anttila et al. 2015). Experiences of exhaustion and cynicism increased the risk of dropping out,
while receiving supervision from several supervisors decreased this risk (Cornér, Löfström, and Pyhältö 2017).
Burnout syndrome results from chronic work-related stress (Maslach and Jackson 1981). It has two
distinctive symptoms: exhaustion that is characterized by feelings of strain, chronic fatigue and lack of
emotional energy (Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter 2001), and cynicism by loss of interest in one’swork
and feeling that it has lost its meaning, and distancing oneself from work (Maslach 2003; Maslach and
Leiter 2008). A strong relationship between exhaustion and cynicism has been identified: in general,
both tend to emerge from overload at work, heavy job demands, and social conflict (Maslach 2003).
Exhaustion is the initial component of burnout leading to the development of cynicism, an ineffective
coping strategy which eventually cumulates in feelings of inadequacy (Leiter 1989; Moneta 2011).
Prolonged extensive stress amongst doctoral students can lead to exhaustion and feelings of cyni-
cism that are separately precursors of burnout syndrome which is, for instance, the case for Swiss lec-
turers (Lewis 2016). It can also lead to depression as reported in Dutch PhD students (van der Weijden
et al. 2017) and in Flemish PhD students (Levecque et al. 2017). In fact, it has been suggested that up to a
third of PhD students have suffered from exhaustion (Danish students: Hermann, Wichmann-Hansen,
and Jensen 2014; multi-national study: Hunter and Devine 2016)and up to 47% have displayed some
depressive symptoms in a US study (The Graduate Assembly Graduate Student 2014). Results of prior
studies on gendered differences in experienced well-being are inconsistent. While some studies
suggest that gendered differences do exist, for instance, women being more likely to suffer from
exhaustion, men are found to suffer from lower levels of stress and sleeping problems (see review
by Schmidt and Hansson 2018). Yet in other studies, there are no statistically significant differences
between female and male doctoral candidates, for instance, in depression symptoms or life-satisfaction
(The Graduate Assembly Graduate Student 2014; van der Weijden et al. 2017).
2L. MCALPINE ET AL.
Previous research has shown that academic social support, sense of belonging, good work-
environment fit, and employing active strategies can buffer exhaustion and cynicism among PhD stu-
dents (Hunter and Devine 2016). In turn, supervisory problems and lack of faculty support are related
to increased risk for developing burnout (Peluso, Carleton, and Asmundson 2011). Our cross-national
team has been working for some time examining these factors. For instance, Pyhältö, Stubb, and
Lonka (2009) and Castelló et al. (2017) have both reported that engaging intellectually and socially
with other students promotes greater satisfaction –and reduces risk for experiencing exhaustion
and cynicism and study abandonment. Similarly, students in research teams can display experienced
support, reduced stress levels, fewer emotional problems, and enhanced success rates (Stubb,
Pyhältö, and Lonka 2011). Cornér, Löfström, and Pyhältö (2017) and Stubb, Pyhältö, and Lonka
(2011) showed that academic social support, sense of belonging, good work-environment fit, and
employing active strategies can buffer exhaustion and cynicism. Lastly, Pyhältö et al. (2019)
showed experiencing high levels of interest, particularly research interest may reduce the risk of
experiencing exhaustion, cynicism and study drop-out, as well as increase satisfaction with doctoral
studies.
Identity-trajectory and life-work relation
The conception of identity-trajectory (McAlpine and Amundsen 2011), which draws on longitudinal
data, identified individuals’lives outside of work as a powerful ongoing source of both resources and
constraints in relation to work experiences. In other words, this personal, non-work, element of indi-
viduals’lives was in relatively constant interaction with PhD/ work experiences in both positive and
negative ways. For instance, family could provide emotional support for PhD work and/or take time
away from the PhD.
This interaction, often characterized negatively in the literature as interference or intrusion, is typi-
cally high in academia (Fox, Fonseca, and Bao 2011; Sun, Wu, and Wang 2011). PhD students, for
instance, commonly work evenings and weekends (El-Ghoroury et al. 2012; Kinman 2001) which
may increase the risk of home-work conflict (e.g. with researchers, Woehrer 2014; with PhD students,
Mason, Goulden, and Frasch 2009). PhD students have reported struggling to reconcile their personal
values with the requirements of their programs to ‘sacrifice animals’(Holley 2009), leaving early if
they experience a poor fit (Golde 1998), turning away from a desire for an academic career given
the negative effects of work on personal life in faculty careers (Mason, Goulden, and Frasch 2009).
As well, de Welde and Laursen (2011), among others, have reported conflicts between childbearing
and an academic career. A number of qualitative studies have more directly explored this life-work
interaction (e.g. Brown and Watson 2010; Martinez et al. 2018)–broadening our understanding of
factors outside the program that influence PhD investment and progress –though not a connection
to (lack of) well-being or exhaustion. Yet, life-work conflicts among academic employees have shown
particularly strong relations with psychological distress (Kinman and Jones 2003; Kinman, Jones, and
Kinman 2006), implying that in turn good life-work relations may function as a buffer for experiencing
exhaustion and cynicism among PhD students, though empirical evidence is scarce.
Our own work in this regard dates to McAlpine, Amundsen, and Jazvac-Martek (2010) in which
qualitative analysis of PhD characterizations of life-work relation were bi-directional and dynamic.
A later analysis (McAlpine and Amundsen 2017) demonstrated a constellation of life-work relation
factors contributing to disengagement from the PhD, again not linked to exhaustion –personal
values not aligned to work, lack of well-being, lack of work-life balance, tensions between family pri-
orities and responsibilities and work, and poor alignment with life goals. In Mitra and McAlpine (2017),
negotiating work and family life was the strongest of the life-work concerns amongst post-PhD
researchers. While the relation was bi-directional and could be positive or negative, the primary inter-
action pattern was family to work. Finally, in a mixed methods study of post-PhD researchers, we
concluded that work-related factors were insufficient to explain intention to remain and that
further quantitative work was required to understand the interaction of life-work relation and
STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 3
work-related factors (McAlpine, Pyhältö, and Castelló 2018). The conjunction of these studies, both
qualitative and mixed-methods, led to this study exploring the potential intersection of exhaustion
and cynicism related to program factors and life-work relation in a mixed-methods study.
Objectives
The study aimed to understand better the interaction of life-work relation with PhD students’exhaus-
tion, cynicism and progress. We used a concurrent nested mixed-method design (Creswell and Clark
2017). Accordingly, the quantitative and qualitative data were collected in a single phase from the
same participants in order to obtain a more developed understanding of the interrelation
between the life-work relation, and exhaustion and cynicism among the PhD. students. We then
used the different but complementary data in a nested analysis to seek information from different
perspectives on the research problem and to ensure the overall results were robust (Creswell et al.
2003). We looked first at the quantitative data, before the qualitative data with the aim of comparing
and explaining the two sets of results. While the quantitative data and results offer a general picture,
the qualitative phase provides a refined explanation of the statistical results by highlighting the sub-
jective dimension of the experiences (Creswell and Clark 2017). In this study, we used a three-phase
approach:
Quantitative analysis (scaled survey items)
.Does the experienced life-work relation scale predict experienced exhaustion and cynicism
towards doctoral studies and study abandonment intentions among PhD students?
.What differences in experienced life-work relation, exhaustion and cynicism can be detected (a)
between women and men, and (b) doctoral students with and without children?
Qualitative analysis (free-write survey items)
.How do PhD students characterize the influence of their personal lives (positively and nega-
tively) on work and why?
Combined analysis (both sets of data)
.Are there patterns in the responses to the scaled and free-write responses that offer insight into
the interaction of life-work issues and experience of exhaustion and cynicism?
There are two main drawbacks of the concurrent design: firstly, it does not entail follow-up on any
interesting or confusing issues that may arise as analysis unfolds, and secondly the data integration
may become challenging if the results are divergent (Creswell et al. 2003; Warfa 2016). It may also be
difficult to compare and contrast qualitative and quantitative data without transforming them to a
common scale though such transformation may sacrifice the depth and the contextual data associ-
ated with the qualitative research (Warfa 2016). To avoid these pitfalls we carried out the analysis in
the three phases described above.
Method and results
Data collection
The data were collected through an online Cross-Country Doctoral Experience (abbreviation C-DES)
survey during 2017 (see C-DES manual Pyhältö et al. 2018; Castelló, Pyhältö, and McAlpine 2018).
The survey included both scaled items and free-write questions. The C-DES survey is a multidimen-
sional self-report instrument designed to measure PhD student’s study experience across countries
and disciplines. The scale and item development of the C-DES was based on PhD student reports
gained in qualitative, exploratory studies on PhD students’study experiences across the disciplines
and countries. The survey was originally developed and used for exploring doctoral experience
4L. MCALPINE ET AL.
among Finnish PhD students (e.g. Pyhältö, Stubb, and Lonka 2009; Pyhältö, Vekkaila, and Keskinen
2015; Sakurai, Vekkaila, and Pyhältö 2017; Löfström and Pyhältö 2019). The present version of C-
DES has been further developed and validated in across seven European countries, including
Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Estonia, UK and Switzerland. The validation procedures have
included cross-country validation by using expert judgement (researcher from each country) and
forward–backward translation procedure, pilot studies in each participating country (before data col-
lection) to confirm the appropriateness of the wording both linguistically and culturally –and the
overall structure of the questionnaire, and confirmatory factor analysis on the scales (see C-DES
manual Pyhältö et al. 2018). In this study, the following C-DES-scales were used: (1) cynicism and
exhaustion and (2) life-work relation. The qualitative data were open-ended questions that asked
individuals to characterize how well they balanced their work and personal lives and why.
Quantitative analysis
Respondents
Respondents (N= 123) were doctoral students enrolled in four research-oriented universities, each
equally representative of the Western Switzerland context. The universities vary as regards the size
of their PhD population –from 600 to 2300. The doctoral students of these universities were con-
tacted via their graduate schools’listservs
1
in 2017. Amongst the 123 who completed the survey,
the majority were females (58.3%), and their average age was 31.50 (SD = 4.75) years. Forty
percent of them had considered dropping out at some point. Furthermore, 58.3% were full-time doc-
toral students, and 41.7% were part-time students. A minority (22.0%) had children.
Measures
For this analysis, we used items from three of the scales: cynicism, exhaustion and life-work relation –
the first two collectively representing burnout (Cornér, Löfström, and Pyhältö 2017; Stubb, Pyhältö, and
Lonka 2011). The cynicism towards studies scale (5 items) and exhaustion in studies scale (6 items) draw
on the burnout scale originally developed by Maslach and Jackson (1981). They have been validated
with different professionals and across socio-cultural contexts. Cynicism refers to losing interest in
one’s work and feeling that one’s research has lost its meaning, with often reduced work involvement,
while exhaustion is characterized by a lack of emotional energy and feeling strained and tired at
research work. The scales measuring the doctoral students’cynicism towards doctoral studies and
exhaustion resulted from studies piloted in seven European countries, including forward–backward
translation procedure. Moreover, the scales have been validated in prior studies by using different
national contexts with different sub-samples of doctoral students and different disciplinary back-
grounds have consistently showed good reliability (see e.g. Cornér, Löfström, and Pyhältö 2017; Pelto-
nen et al. 2017). The life-work relation scale (3 items) characterizes three dimensions of life-work-
relation developed from our qualitative studies (for instance, McAlpine, Amundsen, and Jazvac-
Martek 2010; McAlpine and Amundsen 2017), summarized in McAlpine and Amundsen (2018). The
three were all positively stated: (a) satisfaction with the balance between work and personal life, i.e.
work-life balance not an issue; (b) career and life goals can be combined, i.e. life goals supported in
work, and (c) PhD work in line with personal values, i.e. personal values relevant in work. The items
were first formulated in English and then a translation-back-translation procedure was applied. The
life-work-relation scale was piloted in an Estonian university before collecting the data from Switzer-
land. Moreover, the French scale was piloted in Swiss contexts before actual data collection. All the
scale items were measured using a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = fully agree). The confirma-
tory analysis on all the scales used in this study has been conducted (see Pyhältö et al. 2018 C-DES
manual). The items and the results of the explorative factor analyses with the Swiss data are presented
in Table 1. In addition, the number of children and gender were also surveyed. It took 15–20 min to
complete the survey. All the participants received written information about the project and gave
their consent to participate according to the research ethics procedures in the respective jurisdictions.
STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 5
Quantitative analysis
We first screened all the data for missing values, outliers, and distribution, using procedures designed
to ensure that the assumptions for exploratory factor analysis and t-tests were met. This was followed
by exploratory factor analyses (EFA) with Maximum Likelihood extraction and Promax rotation to
investigate the factorial structure of the measures of Burnout -scale and Life-work relation-scale.
The decision as to the number of factors to retain was based on the eigenvalues of the factors,
the screen test criterion, and the theoretical salience of the rotated factors. A two-factor solution
for the Burnout -scale explaining 51.6% of the variance of the empirical variables and a one-factor
solution explaining 41.3% of the variance of the empirical variables for the Life-work relation-scale
(see Table 1) seemed most plausible. Compound variables representing the factors were created
by calculating the arithmetic mean of the variables with the highest loading on a given factor. The
reliability of the scales ranged from good to satisfactory. Set of t-test were utilized in order to test
the differences between females and males, those with children and those without in experienced
cynicism, exhaustion and life-work relation.
2
Finally, simple linear regressions were performed to
predict exhaustion, cynicism and drop-out intentions based on life-work relation.
Results
We asked:
.Does the experienced life-work relation scale predict experienced exhaustion and cynicism
towards doctoral studies and study abandonment intentions among PhD students?
.What differences in experienced life-work relation, exhaustion and cynicism can be detected (a)
between women and men, and (b) doctoral students with and without children?
Overall, doctoral students experienced moderate levels of cynicism (M= 3.31, S.D. = 1.50) and
exhaustion (M= 3.54, S.D. = 1.30). At the same time, they typically reported a good life-work relation
(M= 4.98, S.D. = 1.19), that is, individuals were satisfied with balance, able to combine career and life
goals, and PhD work aligned with personal values.
Further investigation showed that female doctoral students (M= 3.86, SD = 1.29) experienced
more (t(124) = 2.344.16, p> .05) exhaustion than male students (M= 3.31, SD = 1.31). There were no
gender differences in cynicism and life-work relation nor did we found statistically significant
Table 1. Items included in Burnout and Life-work relation scales.
Scales Factor 1 Factor 2
Burnout (*two-factor solution, KMO = .87; Bartlett’s test p< .001)
F1: Cynicism (7 items; eigenvalue = 5.39; alpha = .91)
I have difficulties in finding any meaning to my doctoral dissertation.
I feel that I am losing interest in my doctoral research.
I feel my doctoral dissertation is useless.
I often have feelings of inadequacy in my doctoral research.
I brood over matters related to doctoral research a lot during my free time.
I used to have higher expectations of my doctoral research than I do now.
I often feel that I fail at my doctoral research.
1.03
.90
.86
.66
.66
.58
.53
F2: Exhaustion (4 items; eigenvalue = 1.77; alpha = .76)
I feel burned out.
The pressure of my doctoral dissertation causes me problems in my close relationships with others.
I often sleep badly because of matters related to my doctoral research.
I feel overwhelmed by the workload of my doctoral research.
.77
.68
.65
.61
Life-Work-Relation (**one-factor solution, KMO = .61; Bartlett’s test p< .001)
F1: Balance and values (3 items; eigenvalue = 1.91; alpha = .71)
I am satisfied with my work-life balance.
I am able to combine my career and life goals such as the desire for children
My work as a researcher is in line with my personal values
.87
.75
.43
*ML factoring with Promax rotation was used.
**PA factoring was used.
6L. MCALPINE ET AL.
differences between those PhD students who had children and who had no children on exhaustion
and cynicism or life-work relation score.
A simple linear regression was carried out to predict exhaustion, cynicism and drop-out intentions
based on life-work relation. For all three predicted variables, we found significant regression
equations (see Table 2).
As seen from Table 2, poor life-work relation predicted both exhaustion and cynicism negatively
and explained 21% and 9% of the variance of the variables, respectively. However, life-work relation
was not a statistically significant predictor of drop-out intentions. Accordingly, the results showed
that positive experienced life-work relation plays a central role in buffering experienced cynicism
and, particularly exhaustion.
Free-write analysis
Our purpose was to explain the subjective individual experiences underlying the quantitative
responses (Creswell and Clark 2017) by analyzing the free-write responses at the end of the
survey. These responses were not based on the scaled items about life-work relation, rather asked
individuals to characterize how well they balanced their work and personal lives and why.
Respondents
We set aside any of the 123 surveys in which the free-write responses were missing, resulting in 87
responses, 70.7% of the total sample. This group was representative of the larger group: 60.1% were
female, average age was 31.90 (SD = 5.08) years, 41.4% had considered dropping-out at some point,
54.0% were full-time doctoral students and 22.9% had children.
Data
For this analysis, we used the responses from three of the four free-response items setting aside the
last question that was not central to the study:
Q1. In general, how well do you balance your work and personal lives?
Q2. What elements of your personal life have an influence on your work achievement?
Q3. Why?
Q4. What strategies enable you to create a balance in your personal and work life or challenges prevent you from
creating this balance?
Analysis
We used a narrative approach (Reissman 2008), which meant we focused at the level of the individual
–interpreting each individual’s free-write responses within the context of all information we had
about that individual, specifically, gender, discipline, whether in partnership, with or without children,
as well as their coded scores on the exhaustion and life-work relation scales.
All these data were imported into MaxQDA. The exhaustion items represent negative statements
about life-work relation, so the expectation was that high scores on exhaustion would tend to be
associated with negative free-write responses for Q.1. The reverse was true for the life-work relation
Table 2. Results of simple regression analyses using Life-work relationas predictor
Predicted variable tPBFdfPadj. R
2
Exhaustion −5.81 <.001 −.51 33.79 1,125 <.001 .21
Cynicism −3.69 <.001 −.39 13.61 1,125 <.001 .09
Study abandonment intentions* −1.59 .114 −.06 2.53 1,125 .114 .02
*Used as a dummy variable where 0 = no and 1 = yes.
STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 7
items: high scores on life-work relation would tend to be associated with positive free-write
responses to Q.1 as well as to Q.2 and Q. 3 that were understood to provide rationales for the
answer to Q.1. As noted above, we do not examine Q.4 but report some of the responses in the
respondent examples below.
We used emergent thematic coding (Schreier 2012) in which we looked at the first 20 responses
together discussing possible codes, then coded these individually followed by discussion to refine
codes and code definitions. We continued in this fashion, coding and then discussing another 20–
30 at a time and making adjustments as needed.
We generated the following codes for the free-responses; they represent the more recurrent
themes that emerged from the respondents’answers to the three questions:
Q.1: balancing life and work (unequivocally positive), managing to balance (may include some hedging), not bal-
ancing (unequivocally negative)
Q.2: family (nuclear and extended), partner, sports, personal life broadly, other (finances, job security); note that
individuals often named more than one element
Q.3: life influencing work, work influencing life, maintaining a balance, other; again, respondents sometimes gave a
number of reasons
For the scales, we coded each scale as a unit, assigning a code that represented the overall profile of
the responses to the individual items (explained in more detail later). We proceeded in this way for
each of the 87 respondents.
Results
We asked the question: How do PhD students characterize the influence of their personal lives (posi-
tively and negatively) on work and why?
In reporting the results, we provide examples, brief cameos, to give a sense of what individ-
uals actually said situated within their individual contexts (demographic information and their
coded scale items). These respondents are representative of the group as a whole: mostly
female, mostly without children, around average age, so roughly in the same life phase (Levinson
1986).
Four-fifths of participants reported either maintaining a balance (about 2/5) or managing to
balance (about 2/5) life and work, with the remaining 1/5 reporting not balancing. Their responses
support the statistical conclusion that respondents were generally positive about their ability to main-
tain balance.
Maria’s answer is representative. A social scientist, aged 31, in a couple, no child had a low exhaus-
tion score and medium-high life-work score. Maria describes herself as currently balancing life and
work (though not in the past) due to the encouragement of her family and the well-being provided
by her lover. She recognized multiple factors in this regard and had clear strategies for separating life
and work. Here are her detailed answers:
Q1. In general, how well do you balance your work and personal lives?
At the moment, I’m quite satisfied and confident in my capacity to maintain a balance between my work and personal lives
(but this has not always been the case!)
Q2. What elements of your personal life have an influence on your work achievement?
My family and my relationship with my partner (both positively and negatively).
Q3. Why?
My family is a great source of encouragement.
My relationship with my partner has an impact on both my pace of work and my work commitment as well as on how I
anticipate my future (mobility, level of responsibilities, working hours, etc.). But the opposite is also true; my family and my
love relationship are impacted by my work (both positively and negatively)
Q4. What strategies enable you to create a balance in your personal and work life or challenges prevent you from
creating this balance?
Not working on weekends and not answering emails outside of office hours
8L. MCALPINE ET AL.
As seen in Maria’s example, most reported more than one aspect of their lives which
influenced their sense of balance (or lack thereof). The most frequent responses (close to half)
were family; followed closely by partner; then sports with close to a quarter; personal life one-
sixth (social life, rest, holidays, hobbies, well-being) and ‘other’(finances, lack of job security,
my ‘other’work) less than 10%. These results confirm previous qualitative studies of life factors
as influential, and goes beyond them in linking these perceptions to balancing (or not) personal
life and work.
Examining the responses to ‘why?’(Q.3) began to provide insight into responses to Q.1 and Q.2 as
can be seen in Maria’s answers above. Here we see something of the bi-directionality of the relation
between work and personal life, i.e. that sometimes work influenced personal life and other times
personal life influenced work.
The most frequent response, close to half, could be characterized as ‘life influencing work’and
these were generally positive.
Diane (social sciences, aged 30, in a couple, no child with exhaustion score medium-low and life-
work score medium-high) is a good example. Her answer to Q.1 represents a particularly clear
response and rationale (italicized):
I don’t want to put my work first and foremost. My personal life is my priority. Balancing my personal and work lives
is essential and I do everything I can to ensure that my work doesn’t impinge my personal life.
As to why this was (Q.3): ‘My partner is an academic too, so we have enriching and supportive dis-
cussions when I face difficulties’[…] having a social life and hobbies along with physical exercise
really is a real change from sitting behind a desk.’
Greg (social sciences, aged 29, single with no child, with low exhaustion and high life-work scores)
reported the following: ‘Being a sports trainer and doing loads of other activities outside university
lets me, in fact, forces me to leave the office and think about other things.’
Elsa (social sciences, aged 31, married, no child, with medium-low exhaustion and medium life-
work scores) noted the influence of life on limiting mobility though not necessarily in a negative
sense but as a reality: ‘A postdoc abroad would imply moving with my [partner], so this is not just
about me.’Others made similar comments in relation to children.
While most reported life impacting work, 1/5 reported work impacting life. For instance, Annabel
(natural sciences, aged 36, in a couple with one child, with high exhaustion and mixed life-work
scores) reported the following: ‘I must comply with strict schedules to be able to spend time with
my daughter and, often, I have to work again once she is in bed.’
Less than 10% reported that the relationship between their work and life was bi-directional, as
James (social sciences, aged 40, married, no child, with medium-low exhaustion and high life-work
scores) explains here: ‘My [doctoral] research is part of my life plan. It helps me reconcile my personal
and professional lives and it enables me to grow professionally in my field of expertise.’
In contrast, descriptions of ‘work influencing life’tended more to the negative, for instance,
Evelyna (social sciences, aged 35, single, no child, with medium exhaustion and medium-high life-
work scores) reported her struggles as follows: ‘To be efficient, I must engage myself body and
soul in my work [and] sometimes I’m unavailable for those around me.’
These findings are intriguing in that they suggest individuals are setting clear priorities in mana-
ging their life-work decisions –with in many cases life trumping work –and that doing so buffers
experienced burnout (quantitative results). In other words, these results support the quantitative
analysis and provide a basis for interpreting the results of the combined analysis.
Combined analysis
Again, the question we asked was: How do PhD students characterize the influence of their personal
lives (positively and negatively) on work and why? But this time we combined the qualitative and
quantitative coded data and asked a more pointed question: Are there patterns in the responses
STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 9
to the scaled and free-write responses that offer insight into the interaction of life-work issues and
experience of exhaustion?
Analysis
To combine the two scaled items (Exhaustion and Life-work relation) into our analysis of the 87 free-
write responses, we coded each scale as a unit, assigning a code that represented an overall response
pattern to the individual items, for each respondent (based on the 7-point scale: 1 = strongly dis-
agree, 7 = fully agree). Table 3 shows these different response patterns.
We were quite surprised at the number of mixed codes that emerged in the life-work scale. Thus,
we looked more closely at the response patterns and noticed that one item was consistently rated
high –regardless of the scores on the other two items:‘I am able to combine my career and life
goals such as the desire for children.’As a result, we set aside this item and re-coded the life-work
scale responses.
3
The result was a much clearer distribution of responses. (We are mindful that
this item directs attention to having children –and not the range of other career and life goals align-
ments possible, e.g. co-locating with partner, caring for elderly parents).
Then, we did a series of analyses. These incorporated both our shared understanding of the data
and MaxQDA analysis tools, e.g. complex coding queries, to create profiles of respondents as regards
the relationship between their different free-write comments and the survey responses, for instance,
intersection of ‘balancing’(Q1) and low exhaustion (exhaustion scale); intersection of managing to
balance (Q1) and ‘work impacts life’(Q3).
Results
The first finding relates specifically to the life-work scale: the consistency with which respondents had
high scores on the item about combining their career and life goals. This was regardless of their
responses related to the other two items, which could be extremely low. This consistency suggests
PhD students may generally seek to engage in PhD programs and research that avoid such a mis-
alignment.
Second, what was particularly striking was that a small portion of individuals (14%) showed pat-
terns that were somewhat contradictory. The first pattern was reporting ‘managing to balance’life
and work in their free-write responses, alongside ‘medium’or ‘mixed exhaustion’and ‘medium
life-work’scores. A second pattern was reporting ‘balancing’life and work in their free-write responses
but reporting ‘mixed exhaustion’and ‘high’or ‘medium-high life-work’scores. Further, there was one
instance of reporting ‘balancing’in the free-write response alongside ‘high exhaustion’and ‘medium-
high life-work’scores. This suggests to us that while individuals may be balancing or managing to
balance, this was sometimes a precarious situation with the presence of different aspects of exhaus-
tion (e.g. sleep disruption) potentially having long-term effects that could contribute to burnout. The
examples below make concrete these patterns of precariously balancing life and work.
Jeanne, 27, and a social scientist is single with no child. She reported balancing life and work was
‘no problem because schedules are flexible.’What helped her maintain a balance was that ‘physical
activity is paramount’since ‘health must take precedence over work.’She also noted that ‘flexible
hours’were helpful, though ‘working 42 h/week’was not. As to her scores, while her life-work
Table 3. Response patterns to the scaled items and related codes.
CODE Response pattern
Low Scores 1 or 2 on all the items of the same scale
Medium Scores 3–5 on all the items of the same scale
High Scores 6 or 7 on all the items of the same scale
High-
medium
A mix of high and medium scores on the items of the same scale
Medium-low A mix of medium and low scores on the items of the same scale
Mixed A mix of opposite scores (high and low) or a mix of low, medium and high scores on the items of the same scale
10 L. MCALPINE ET AL.
score was high, her exhaustion score was also high. In other words, she appeared to be experiencing
a potential contributor to burnout (long work week in addition to doing PhD) –though was still posi-
tive overall.
Julia, 30, and a natural scientist is single with no child. She found balancing life and work ‘quite
manageable from my point of view.’She added: ‘I reserve one night a week for sports and
another night and weekends for my partner and my friends. It’s the minimum for my emotional
and physical balance.’Further, she said it was important ‘to know how to say no / stop.’Still, while
her life-work score was medium-high, her burnout score was mixed (both high and low scores) –
reporting, for instance, often sleeping badly because of matters related to her PhD while not
feeling overwhelmed by the workload.
Here is an example of managing to balance life and work. Ghiselle, is 41, a social scientist and
married with no child. She noted ‘I manage to balance my professional and personal life’helped
by ‘my partner and physical activity.’She added that her ‘well-defined work schedules’helped as
regards ‘time set aside my doctorate.’While her life-work score was high, her exhaustion score
was medium-high making clear that ‘managing to balance’was taking a toll.
Limitations
As researchers investigating the academic context, we are aware that our personal beliefs about and
perceptions of this context were likely to induce biases at every step of the research process, includ-
ing when developing the survey items and formulating the open-ended questions (Onwuegbuzie
and Johnson 2006). To minimize such potential biases, at every stage of the development of the
survey, the three senior researchers who led the project were engaged in discussions aimed at chal-
lenging their respective perceptions. Further, while the sample size is small, the results of the analyses
showed sufficient statistical power for identifying significant effects. Lastly, the respondents were
recruited from one delimited region of a specific national context, which limits the generalizability
of the findings. Thus, further research should be conducted with larger samples across a more
diverse set of institutional and national contexts.
Discussion
We argued initially that PhD stress is a growing concern in doctoral education. Most research seeking
explanations for how exhaustion and burnout impact retention, satisfaction and completion have
focused on institutional factors. Alongside these studies, a number of qualitative studies have
reported personal life factors are also influencing PhD experiences –though not directly linked to
exhaustion and burnout. Thus, we undertook this study for two reasons. First, the notion of iden-
tity-trajectory (McAlpine, Amundsen, and Jazvac-Martek 2010) urged us to look more holistically at
how personal lives and PhD/work experience interacted in students’lives. Second, we wanted to
follow-up on McAlpine, Pyhältö, and Castelló (2018) in which we concluded that structural factors
were insufficient to address retention. We realized that further work was required to understand
quantitatively the interaction of life-work relation and work-related factors on experienced exhaus-
tion and cynicism (constituting the main burnout symptoms) and further examine life-work relations
qualitatively. The outcome is tentative evidence that a fundamental mechanism for buffering such
symptoms may be life-work relation, in particular, the ability to achieve both life and career goals.
Specifically, the initial quantitative analysis suggested positive life-work relation reduces risk for
exhaustion and cynicism. The results point to positive life-work relation buffering both exhaustion
and cynicism, but particularly the former one. This could be since exhaustion typically results from
work overload, so life-work balance would be more powerful in this regard. In contrast, cynicism typi-
cally is more specifically manifest in relation to work and social relations within it (Hunter and Devine
2016; Maslach 2003), and individuals’personal lives would have little to do with this. As a result, it
does not have the same power to buffer.
STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 11
The subsequent two qualitative analyses, using a narrative approach, examined individuals’
responses in relation to their personal contexts. These analyses confirmed the quantitative
findings, while also offering a more nuanced picture, one complementary to previous qualitative
studies (e.g. Brown and Watson 2010; Martinez et al.2018). First, one particular life-work scale item
–‘I am able to combine my career and life goals such as the desire for children’–remained overwhel-
mingly high across participants. This was true even when the other two life-work items were low (Iam
satisfied with my work-life balance and My work as a researcher is in line with my personal values). The
consistency of this finding suggests that PhD students may generally seek to avoid such a mis-align-
ment. Our supposition is that even in choosing a program to apply to PhD students may rule out
options they perceive as potentially creating such a mis-alignment. This may be why there is so
little reference to lack of alignment in the literature. Overall, we conclude that when this alignment
exists, it may serve as a mechanism for buffering other life-work and institutional challenges.
No study we know has expressly examined the ability to achieve both life and career goals in
relation to well-being. Nevertheless, sustaining a balance between these two may be fundamental
in buffering any experiences of exhaustion and help explain the high number of individuals reporting
they were able to maintain or manage a balance between life and work, despite challenges. Still, the
fact that individuals reported balancing life and work or managing to balance but also experienced
exhaustion despite reporting relatively good life-work relation suggests incipient problems. Our pre-
vious findings indicate that good life-work relation becomes even more important in terms of well-
being after earning the PhD (McAlpine and Amundsen 2018). A reason for this might be that PhD
graduates are even more likely than PhD students to be at the point in their lives when long-term
relationships involve issues such as managing dual careers and seeking to co-locate, alongside poss-
ibly having and raising children.
Future research and implications
In considering the influence of these findings on future research, we were particularly struck by the
value of this concurrent nested analysis mixed-method design (Creswell and Clark 2017). A richer
more nuanced result emerged from combining and analyzing both scales and free-write survey
responses in a three-step process. Still, we need to explore more closely the constellation of life-
work relation factors contributing to disengagement from the PhD (McAlpine and Amundsen
2018). In particular, we need to examine the wording of the life-work item about life and career
goals since it is distinct from the other life-work items in providing a specific example. Further, we
suggest future research use a similar approach in researching the experiences of post-PhD research-
ers, given different work conditions (often precarious) and the evidence of academic workplace
pressures leading to experienced exhaustion and burnout amongst Swiss lecturers (Lewis 2016).
As to practical implications, the results are a reminder that as supervisors or program directors we
need to be attentive to the many ways in which life experiences may be interacting with PhD experi-
ence either constructively and/or intrusively. More specifically, institutional interventions should
focus on creating more optimal working environments that alleviate influences on burnout and
help students deal with life-work relations that may contribute to exhaustion.
Conclusion
Our study provides a better understanding of how life-work relation, particularly the alignment of
career and life goals, functions in buffering burnout symptoms, particularly exhaustion. Further, it
suggests based on respondents’comments that life has more frequent preeminence than work –
and reminds us that a focus on the institutional context as regards well-being or lack of it is insuffi-
cient. In our view, the methods we used were critical in revealing these relationships. Still, these are
preliminary studies so more research is needed to better understand the emerging patterns.
12 L. MCALPINE ET AL.
Notes
1. As these listservs are confidential, it is not possible to estimate how many people have received our recruitment
message.
2. Also ruled out were status (full-time/part-time), funding and working in the exhaustion scores of males and
females, given earlier research suggesting these factors might be influential.
3. The reported coded life-work scale for each individual above used this revised coding scheme.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by a European Erasmus + Programme under the project ‘Researcher Identity Development:
Strengthening Science in Society Strategies’[grant number 2017-1-ES01-KA203-038303] and by the Fonds de recherche
du Québec –Société et culture (FRQSC) [grant number 2016-B3-193871].
ORCID
Lynn McAlpine http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5361-1361
Isabelle Skakni http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7704-7737
Kirsi Pyhältö http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8766-0559
References
Anttila, H., S. Lindblom-Ylänne, K. Lonka, and K. Pyhältö. 2015.“The Added Value of a PhD in Medicine-PhD Students’
Perceptions of Acquired Competences.”International Journal of Higher Education 4 (2): 172–180.
Barry, K. M., M. Woods, E. Warnecke, C. Stirling, and A. Martin. 2018.“Psychological Health of Doctoral Candidates, Study
Related Challenges and Perceived Performance.”Higher Education Research & Development 37 (3): 468–483.
Brown, L., and P. Watson. 2010.“Understanding the Experiences of Female Doctoral Students.”Journal of Further and
Higher Education 34 (3): 385–404.
Castelló, M., M. Pardo, A. Sala-Bubar, and N. Suñe-Soler. 2017.“Why do Students Consider Dropping out of Doctoral
Degrees? Institutional and Personal Factors.”Higher Education 74 (6): 1053–1068.
Castelló, M., K. Pyhältö, and L. McAlpine. 2018.“European Cross-national Mixed-method Study on Early Career Researcher
Experience.”In The Postdoc Landscape: The Invisible Scholars, edited by A. J. Jaeger, and A. J. Dinin, 143–174. London:
Academic Press.
Cornér, S., E. Löfström, and K. Pyhältö. 2017.“The Relationship between Doctoral Students’Perceptions of Supervision
and Burnout.”International Journal of Doctoral Studies 12: 91–106. doi:10.28945/3754.
Cotterall, S. 2013.“More than Just a Brain: Emotions and the Doctoral Experience.”Higher Education Research &
Development 32 (2): 174–187.
Creswell, J., and V. Clark. 2017.Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., V. L. Plano Clark, M. L. Guttmann, and W. E. Hanson. 2003.“Advanced Mixed Methods Research Designs.”In
Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, edited by A. Tashakkori, and C. Teddlie, 209–240.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
de Welde, K., and L. Laursen. 2011.“The Glass Obstacle Course: Informal and Formal Barriers for Women PhD Students in
STEM Fields.”International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology 3 (3): 571–595.
El-Ghoroury, N., D. Galper, A. Sawaqdeh, and L. Bufka. 2012.“Stress, Coping and Barriers to Wellness Among Psychology
Graduate Students.”Training and Education in Professional Psychology 6 (2): 122–134.
Fox, M., C. Fonseca, and J. Bao. 2011.“Work and Family Conflict in Academic Science: Patterns and Predictors Among
Women and Men in Research Universities.”Social Studies of Science 41: 715–735.
Gardner, S. K., and B. Gopaul. 2012.“The Part-time Doctoral Student Experience.”International Journal of Doctoral Studies
7: 63–78.
Golde, C. 1998.“Beginning Graduate School: Explaining First-year Doctoral Attrition.”New Directions for Higher Education
1998 (101): 55–64.
The Graduate Assembly. 2014.Graduate Students’Happiness and Well-being Report 2014. Berkeley: University of California
at Berkeley.
STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 13
Hermann, K., G. Wichmann-Hansen, and T. Jensen. 2014.Quality in the PhD Process. Aarhus: Aarhus University. http://
www.au.dk/en/quality-in-the-phd-process/reports/.
Holbrook, A., K. Shaw, J. Scevak, S. Bourke, R. Cantwell, and J. Budd. 2014.“PhD Candidate Expectations: Exploring
Mismatch with Experience.”International Journal of Doctoral Studies 9: 329–346.
Holley, K. 2009.“Animal Research Practices and Doctoral Student Identity Development in a Scientific Community.”
Studies in Higher Education 34 (5): 577–591.
Hunter, K., and K. Devine. 2016.“Doctoral Students’Emotional Exhaustion and Intentions to Leave Academia.”
International Journal of Doctoral Studies 11: 35–61.
Ivankova, N. V., and S. L. Stick. 2007.“Students’Persistence in a Distributed Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership in
Higher Education: A Mixed Methods Study.”Research in Higher Education 48 (1): 93–135.
Ives, G., and G. Rowley. 2005.“Supervisor Selection or Allocation and Continuity of Supervision: Ph.D. Students’Progress
and Outcomes.”Studies in Higher Education 30 (5): 535–555.
Kinman, G. 2001.“Pressure Points: A Review of Research on Stressors and Strains in UK Academics.”Educational
Psychology 21: 473–492.
Kinman, G., and F. Jones. 2003.“Running Up the Down Escalator: Stressors and Strains in UK Academics.”Quality in Higher
Education 9: 22–37.
Kinman, G., F. Jones, and R. Kinman. 2006.“The Well-being of the UK Academy.”Quality in Higher Education 12 (1): 15–27.
Leiter, M. 1989.“Conceptual Implications of Two Models of Burnout: A Response to Golembiewski.”Group and
Organizational Studies 14: 15–22.
Levecque, K., F. Anseel, A. De Beuckelaerd, J. Van der Heyden, and L. Gisle. 2017.“Work Organization and Mental Health
Problems in PhD Students.”Research Policy 46: 868–879.
Levinson, D. 1986.“A Conception of Adult Development.”American Psychologist 41 (1): 3–13.
Lewis, R. 2016.“Work-life Balance in Academia: Experiences of Lecturers in Switzerland.”International Journal of Business
and Management 4 (1): 69–84.
Löfström, E., and K. Pyhältö. 2019.“What Are Ethics in Doctoral Supervision, and How do they Matter? Doctoral Students’
Perspective.”Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 63. doi:10.1080/00313831.2019.1595711.
Martinez, E., C. Ordu, M. Della Sala, and A. McFarlane. 2018.“Striving to Obtain a School-work-life Balance: The Full-time
Doctoral Student.”International Journal of Doctoral Studies 8: 39–59. http://informingscience.com/ijds/Volume8/
IJDSv8p039-059Martinez0375.pdf.
Maslach, C. 2003.“Job Burnout: New Directions in Research and Intervention.”Current Directions in Psychological Science
12 (5): 189–192.
Maslach, C., and S. E. Jackson. 1981.“The Measurement of Experienced Burnout.”Journal of Organizational Behavior 2 (2):
99–113. doi:10.1002/job.40300202.
Maslach, C., and M. Leiter. 2008.“Early Predictors of Job Burnout and Engagement.”Journal of Applied Psychology 93 (9):
498–512.
Maslach, C., W. B. Schaufeli, and M. P. Leiter. 2001.“Job Burnout.”Annual Review of Psychology 52 (1): 397–422.
Mason, M., M. Goulden, and K. Frasch. 2009.“Why Graduate Students Reject the Fast Track: A Study of Thousands of
Doctoral Students Shows that they Want Balanced Lives.”Academe 95 (1): 11–16.
McAlpine, L., and C. Amundsen. 2011.“Making Meaning of Diverse Experiences: Constructing an Identity through Time.”
In Doctoral Education: Research-based Strategies for Doctoral Students, Supervisors and Administrators, edited by L.
McAlpine, and C. Amundsen, 173–184. Amsterdam: Springer.
McAlpine, L., and C. Amundsen. 2017.“How do the Career Intentions of PhDs and Post-PhDs Reflect Personal Lives and
Career Opportunities?”Paper presented at the EARLI conference, Tampere, Finland.
McAlpine, L., and C. Amundsen. 2018.Identity-trajectories: Ways of Understanding Post-PhD Career Choices. Basingstoke:
Palgrave MacMillan.
McAlpine, L., C. Amundsen, and M. Jazvac-Martek. 2010.“Living and Imagining Academic Careers.”In Becoming an
Academic: International Perspectives, edited by L. McAlpine, and G. Akerlind, 125–154. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
McAlpine, L., K. Pyhältö, and M. Castelló. 2018.“Building a More Robust Conception of Early Career Researcher Experience:
What Might we be Overlooking?”Studies in Continuing Education 2 (40): 149–165. doi:10.1080/0158037X.2017.
1408582.
Mitra, M., and L. McAlpine. 2017.“A Balancing Act: The Interaction Between the Work and Broader Lives of Male and
Female Early Career Researchers.”Higher Education Review 50 (1): 5–34.
Moneta, G. 2011.“Need for Achievement, Burnout, and Intention to Leave: Testing an Occupational Model in Educational
Settings.”Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2): 274–278. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.002.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and R. B. Johnson. 2006.“The Validity Issue in Mixed Research.”Research in the Schools 13 (1): 48–63.
Peltonen, J. A., J. Vekkaila, P. Rautio, K. Haverinen, and K. Pyhältö. 2017.“Doctoral Students’Social Support Profiles and
Their Relationship to Burnout, Drop-out Intentions, and Time to Candidacy.”International Journal of Doctoral Studies
12: 157–173. doi:10.28945/3792.
Peluso, D., N. Carleton, and G. Asmundson. 2011.“Depression Symptoms in Canadian Psychology Graduate Students: Do
Research Productivity, Funding, and the Academic Advisory Relationship Play a Role?”Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science 43: 119–127.
14 L. MCALPINE ET AL.
Pyhältö, K., M. Castello, L. McAlpine, and J. Peltonen. 2018.The Cross-country Doctoral Experience Survey (C-DES). User’s
Manual. Manual Version 2018.
Pyhältö, K., J. Peltonen, M. Castelló, and L. McAlpine. 2019.“What Sustains Doctoral Students’Interest? Comparison of
Finnish, UK and Spanish Doctoral Students’Perceptions.”Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International
Education 1–16. doi:10.1080/03057925.2019.1585229.
Pyhältö, K., J. Stubb, and K. Lonka. 2009.“Developing Scholarly Communities as Learning Environments for Doctoral
Students.”International Journal for Academic Development 14: 221–232.
Pyhältö, K., J. Vekkaila, and J. Keskinen. 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.
Reevy, G., and G. Deason. 2014.“Predictors of Depression, Stress, and Anxiety Among Non-tenure Track Faculty.”Frontline
Psychology 5: 1–17. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00701.
Reissman, C. 2008.Narrative Methods for The Human Sciences. Los Angeles, US: Sage.
Sakurai, Y., J. Vekkaila, and K. Pyhältö. 2017.“More or Less Engaged in Doctoral Studies? Domestic and International
Students’Satisfaction and Motivation for Doctoral Studies in Finland.”Research in Comparative and International
Education 12 (2): 143–159.
Schmidt, M., and E. Hansson. 2018.“Doctoral Students’Well-being: A Literature Review.”International Journal of
Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being 13: 150–171. doi:10.1080/17482631.2018.1508171.
Schreier, M. 2012.Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. Thousand Oaks, US: Sage.
Solem, M., N. Hopwood, and B. Schlemper. 2011.“Experiencing Graduate School: A Comparative Analysis of Students in
Geography Programs.”The Professional Geographer 63 (1): 1–17.
Stubb, J., K. Pyhältö, and K. Lonka. 2011.“Balancing Between Inspiration and Exhaustion? PhD Students’Experienced
Socio-psychological Well-being.”Studies in Continuing Education 33 (1): 33–50. doi:10.1080/0158037X.2010.515572.
Sun, W., H. Wu, and L. Wang. 2011.“Occupational Stress and its Related Factors Among University Teachers in China.”
Journal of Occupational Health 53: 280–286.
The University of California Graduate Student Well-Being Survey Report. 2017.“Institutional Research and Academic
Planning.”UCOP 05/19/2017.
van der Weijden, I., I, Meijer, I. van der Ven, J.-J. Beukman, R. Ali, and E. de Gelder. 2017.The Mental Well-being of Leiden
University PhD Candidates: The Policy Report. Leiden: CWTS.
Warfa, A. M. 2016.“Mixed-Methods Design in Biology Education Research: Approach and Uses.”CBE Life Sciences
Education 15: 1–11. doi:10.1187/cbe.16-01-0022.
Woehrer, V. 2014.“To Say or to Go? Narratives of Early-stage Sociologists About Persisting in Academia.”Higher Education
Policy 27 (4): 469–87.
STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 15
