Content uploaded by Andrea Kis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrea Kis on Mar 04, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
detected, handled with care, and prevented from being repeated and normalized is the only
way of complying with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) outlined by the United Nations.
SDG 8, defined by the UN as the aim to “promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable eco-
nomic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all” is specifically relevant
in this context. Only by ensuring that the issues percieved by (early career) researchers are
addressed sufficiently and discussing the values underlying our policies, guidelines, rules, and
norms, can we ensure the sustained development of science and the academic workforce.
Preventing (or at least lowering) attrition due to the impact of bad
practices (such as questionable and unethical conduct) is part of a uni-
versity’s duties of care. Moreover, making sure that bad practices are
SDGs Values can add to the discussion about the possible effects of
research environments on the socialization of researchers as well as a
range of systemic factors such as competition within science. Several
researchers call attention to the harms of the competitive nature of the academic reward system - and
the narratives still promoting it. Competition is cited to be harmful to many aspects of responsible
conduct of research, including integrity, reliability, openness, transparency, and cooperation knowl-
edge generation. In addition, drawing attention to preferable values can facilitate behaviors consis-
tent with the value in question, marking. Gaining a better understanding of the values researchers
have, is useful to improve scientific careers, make science attractive to a more diverse group of
individuals, and elucidate some of the mechanisms leading to exemplary and questionable science.
VALUES
OSF.IO/ESJC2
AUTHORITY
AMBITION
ENJOYMENT
VARIETY
AUTONOMY
UNIVERSALISM
BENEVOLENCE
CONFORMITY
/ TRADITION
WORKING
ENVIRONMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL
SUPPORT
ACADEMIC
RESEARCH
VALUES
TWO LINES OF CONNECTED RESEARCH
RECOMMENDATIONS
DISCUSSION
To better work environments, an increasing number of measures is being implemented in many universities, including TU/e, to improve the well-
being of PhDs and reduce doctoral attrition. Several other implications emerged in conversations with university stakeholders about our results.
We reflect on how we can ensure that bad practices do not become part of a toxic circle, repeating from researcher generation to generation in
Gaining further insights
- longitudinal data (periodical surveys)
- exit interviews with PhDs who quit
- number of wrongdoings and wrongdoers
-periodical inquiries about PhDs’ research
environments (for interventions)
Ensuring good supervision
-providing trainings, setting norms and
expectations, implementing evaluation
system for supervisors
-proper recognition for good supervision,
peer discussion groups, other forums
Promoting research integrity
-organize trainings and courses for or
together with supervisors
-familiarize supervisors and PhDs with
lists of questionable research practices
and questionable supervision practices
LEAVE STAY
CONSEQUENCES
FOR THOSE WHO
Fair evaluation
Openness
Sufficient time
Integrity
Trust
Freedom
Lack of support
Unfair evaluation
Normalization of overwork
Insufficient supervision
Inadequately handle data/materials
Keep inadequate notes
Ignore quality assurance
Not publish 'negative' study
Not report method details
Selectively cite
Personal convictions influence conclusions
Insufficiently report flaws/limitations
Turn a blind eye
Use unpublished ideas without permission
Use published ideas without referencing
Unfairly review papers/applications
Insufficiently supervise
Gift authorship
Fabricate or falsify data
Plagiarize
Other
Quit current job
-.18**
-.19**
-.17**
-.25**
-.20**
-.20**
.28**
.19**
.13*
.31**
.15*
.26**
.27**
.24**
.20**
.19*
.15*
.16*
.06
.04
.06
.03
.26**
.14*
.03
.05
.11
Leave academia
-.26**
-.24**
-.29**
-.22**
-.27**
-.25**
.31**
.18**
.17*
.25**
.15*
.22**
.24**
.22**
.16*
.15*
.16*
.15*
.13*
.00
.12
.09
.25**
.11
.04
.03
.14*
Left without supervision
Left without help
Favors some PhDs
Exploited thoughts / outputs
Progress hindered
Learned to hide viewpoints
Thesis reflects supervisors’ choices
Inadequately prepared for supervision
Lacks cultural sensitivity
Receive supervision when need it
Can negotiate central choices
Encourages collaboration with PhDs
Encourages to explore viewpoints
Treats all PhDs fairly
Expressess criticism in a friendly manner
Only those attributed who contributed
Those who contributed, attributed
Can discuss personal matters
Quit current job
.29**
.29**
.21**
.14*
.11*
.28**
.21**
.34**
.26
-.30**
-.31**
-.26**
-.24**
-.26**
-.23**
-.20**
-.21**
-.26**
Leave academia
.28**
.24**
.13*
.14*
.01
.27**
.17*
.24**
.20**
-.26**
-.21**
-.24**
-.19**
-.26**
-.18**
-.12*
-.13*
-.29**
*p < .05
**p < .001 (2-tailed)
Only QRPs within the working environment are displayed here.
Several items throughout the poster have been shortened.
Original fomat can be found in our paper (see QR code below).
Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree
40%60% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I am disappointed that I ever entered academia
If I could do it all over again, I would not choose to work in academia
If I could go into a different industry which paid the same I would do so 52%
75%
82%
26%
12%
8%
I definitely want a career for myself in academia
This is the ideal vocation (academia) for a life work
I love this vocation (doing research in academia) too much to give it up
If I had money without working, I would still continue to work in academia 22%
29%
33%
37%
61%
50%
40%
34%
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Never Very rarely Rarely Sometimes Often Very often Almost always
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40%
Leave academia
Quit current job 10%
18%
79%
62%
How often have you seriously considered quitting academia / quitting your current job?
CAREER CONSIDERATIONS
Leave and quit considerations were connected to almost all of our constructs. In terms of responsible research climates, both leave and quit considerations
correlated negatively with facilitators (e.g., trust or freedom), and positively with barriers (lack of support or insufficient supervision). Most supervisory prac-
tices were also related to leave and quit considerations. Leave and quit considerations were connected to most QRPs within work environments but not to
those within the PhD candidates’ disciplines. This may be an effect of distance: candidates are likely to be more upset by negative experiences closer to
home than by factors experienced more indirectly. While our results are only correlative, they support the notion that experiences of QRPs are connected
to considerations of leaving academia.
Training PhD candidates is an investment that requires funding,
specific educational programs organized by the university, as well
as supervisors’ time and commitment. Negative impressions
about professional and research practices can affect science and
academia’s reputation, as well as research institutes’.
The aim of the PhD process is not only to train skilled researchers,
but also to guide them through a professional socialization and
leave them with the ethical considerations, values, and attitudes
expected from researchers globally. Neither of these outcomes
are facilitated by bad research environments.
40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sufficient time for work
Openness
Trust
Freedom
Integrity
Fair evaluation
Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree
3%
3%
4%
5%
6%
25%
92%
92%
92%
91%
90%
62%
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60%
Normalization of overwork
Insufficient supervision
Lack of support
Unfair evaluation policies
Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree
82%
73%
70%
35%
10%
18%
19%
45%
To what extent do you agree with the following statements? In my scientific environment (i.e. research group) I experience...
RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH CLIMATE
QUESTIONABLE RESEARCH PRACTICES
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
21%
22%
26%
30%
30%
31%
32%
34%
34%
43%
44%
46%
47%
48%
54%
54%
55%
Panel A: Discipline
How often does this form of research misbehavior occur in the disciplinary field you’re most familiar with / your current work environment? (i.e., research group or institution)?
Plagiarize
Fabricate or falsify data
Use unpublished ideas without permission
Unfairly review papers/applications
Turn a blind eye
Other
Gift authorship
Inadequately handle data/materials
Use published ideas without referencing
Not publish 'negative' study
Keep inadequate notes
Ignore quality assurance
Insufficiently supervise
Personal convictions influence conclusions
Selectively cite
Not report method details
Insufficiently report flaws/limitations
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Keep inadequate notes
Almost always Very often Often Sometimes Rarely Very rarely Never NA
40%
Fabricate or falsify data
Plagiarize
Use unpublished ideas without permission
Use publ ished ideas without referencing
Unfairly review papers/applications
Other
Gift authorship
Turn a blind eye
Not publish 'negative' study
Inadequately handle data/materials
Personal convictions influence conclusions
Ignore quality assurance
Selectively cite
Not report method details
Insufficiently report flaws/limitations
Insufficiently supervise 39%
38%
37%
37%
33%
33%
32%
30%
24%
23%
20%
18%
16%
15%
11%
10%
Panel B: Work environment
QUESTIONABLE SUPERVISION PRACTICES
40% 60% 80% 100%
My supervisor finds it important that authors contributed sufficiently
My supervisor encourages PhDs to collaborate with each other
My supervisor encourages me to explore viewpoints in my research
My supervisor treats all doctoral students in a fair way
I can negotiate central choices of my dissertation with my supervisor
I receive supervision when I need it
I can tell my supervisor if a personal matter affects my work
My supervisor finds it important that everybody is acknowledged
My supervisors expresses critical comments in a friendly manner 5%
7%
7%
7%
8%
8%
10%
15%
17%
91%
86%
86%
86%
87%
86%
78%
70%
70%
Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree
20% 0% 20%
40%
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20%
If my supervisor cannot advise me I am usually left without help
I have been left without supervision at some point during my PhD studies
My dissertation reflects the choices of my supervisor rather than mine
My supervisor favors some of their doctoral students
I have learned to hide viewpoints that differ from those of my supervisor
My supervisor is not prepared for my supervision (meetings/research)
My supervisor lacks cultural competency/multicultural sensitivity
I feel that my supervisor has exploited my thoughts/outputs in unfairly
My dissertation is hindered by my supervisor making me do others’ work
90%
89%
89%
82%
78%
72%
69%
68%
67%
6%
6%
8%
12%
15%
16%
15%
22%
22%
Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree
How would you characterize your experience with your supervisor? If you have multiple, think about your primary supervisor, or the person you are most in contact with regarding your supervision
countries like the Netherlands where most PhDs earn a salary,
only a minority finish in the usually appointed four years. In the
absence of funding concerns, a key determinant of career inten-
tions is the research climate. Based on PhDs’ perceptions, we see
that those reporting more QRPs and worse supervision feel their
research environment is poor. The poorer their experiences, the
more often they consider leaving. While low attrition is not always
desirable (depending on the underlying causes), lowering attrition
due to questionable conduct is part of a university’s duties of care.
32%32.9%
Male
Female
Gender
32% female
TU/e | sample
Nationality
52% Non-Dutch
TU/e | sample 52% 59%
Non-Dutch
Dutch
INTRODUCTIONAttrition rates are
important to mea-
sure the efficiency of
PhD education. Higher rates lead to increased costs and negative consequences
for all involved. Many factors may contribute to attrition and intentions of leaving
academia (e.g., funding, supervision quality, scientific discipline, mental health,
organizational climate, academic socialization, community support, lack of
career prospects, (non)financial costs, personal factors). While funding is often
cited as one of the most robust predictors of timely doctoral completion, even in
N = 391
24.32%
PARTICIPATION
ABSTRACTWe investigated PhD candidates’ perceptions
about their research environment at TU/Eind-
hoven and assessed whether their perceptions
are related to their career considerations. Using an online survey tool, we gathered
self-report data and conducted descriptive and within-subject correlation analysis of the
results. While most PhDs experience fair evaluation, openness, integrity, trust, and free-
dom, many report lack of time and support, insufficient supervision, and witness ques-
tionable research practices (QRPs). Spearman correlations indicate that those working in
less healthy environments, more often consider leaving academia as well as their PhD.
Andrea Kis | Dr Elena Mas Tur | Dr Daniel Lakens | Dr Krist Vaesen | Dr Wybo Houkes
Contact information: a.kis@tue.nl | LinkedIn: /in/kisandrea | Twitter: @andreakis_psy
Leaving academia: PhD attrition and unhealthy research environments
Poster identifier: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/573XT
AUDIO POSTER
PHD ATTRITION AND UNHEALTHY
RESEARCH ENVIRONMENTS
LEAVING ACADEMIA
