There has been some progress in recent years to better understand and improve access to postgraduate research. But not only does this work need to accelerate across the sector, but there needs to be more recognition that for students from low-socioeconomic status (low-SES) backgrounds, access is just the first hurdle.
The PhD experience of those from low-SES backgrounds remains largely unexplored, including basic information around completion rates and whether they complete on time. As we continue to battle a post-doc crisis and we see the vast majority of PhD graduates quickly vacate for “greener” pastures, we have to explore why and if socioeconomic background is contributing.
With some PhD programmes reporting challenges in recruiting domestic talent in the first place, it’s important that the sector is focused on ensuring that undertaking a PhD is a rewarding experience that enables a student to thrive and reach their potential – not to run the gauntlet and hope to survive until the end.
To start to address this knowledge gap, Martingale has undertaken research exploring the experiences of low-SES STEM PhD students. The research, which included focus groups and a survey, explored and compared factors such as the support offered through different types of PhD programmes and the opportunities students had access to during their studies.
A barrier to fitting in
A recent Russell Group paper emphasised that support for PhD students shouldn’t end with access, since students from low-SES backgrounds can also struggle to “navigate research culture and network.”
Our research backs this up. While many may perceive PhD study as reaching the “inner sanctum” of higher education, our research shows that social barriers persist and impact a person’s ability to make the most of their studies. Those from low-SES backgrounds were consistently less likely to engage in networking and development opportunities compared to their peers, and were less likely to participate in social events and conferences.
Many cited how being from a low-SES background was a factor that hindered integration with peers and the broader research environment, highlighting a feeling of “not belonging” as a barrier to participating in opportunities such as networking events. One research participant said they had been prevented from engaging in networking by “confidence, impostor syndrome [and] class discrimination.”
On top of the social barriers, the practical financial constraints experienced by those from low-SES backgrounds also impacted the training and development opportunities they prioritised.
Our research explores how different PhD programme types provide different levels of access to training and development, with Centres for Doctoral Training (and similar) celebrated for their structure and peer networks. These training programmes gave the highest levels of access to training and opportunities, such as project management training and internships, supporting wider career development.
Through the Martingale Development Programme, we have seen first-hand how development and training opportunities are incredibly valued by students, not only helping them in their academic skills, but also preparing those who decide to enter industry.
Frowned upon
More progressive attitudes are needed towards PhD students undertaking part-time work. Many from low-SES backgrounds have little financial support from family. Combine this with the cost-of-living crisis and stipends that don’t meet the living wage, and it is not surprising that many students are turning to part-time work to support themselves.
Indeed, new research from Unite has found that 90 per cent of undergraduates now expect to work during term-time – we can expect this trend to also be in evidence for postgraduates.
But several participants in our research reported part-time work was “frowned upon”, with some unable to openly discuss undertaking part-time work with peers or supervisors, due to concerns that it might be perceived as a lack of commitment to their research.
One commented:
Supervisors expect students to be working on their PhD around the clock, dedicating every waking moment to their research. I have a part-time job alongside my PhD but I would never tell this to my supervisor.
Where students are clearly undertaking part-time work as a way to keep financially afloat, they need to be able to discuss this with their supervisor – and for it not to be met with a negative reaction. The pressures of juggling paid work with their studies should not be compounded by the feeling that they are not committed to their research.
Status issues
Elsewhere, we saw how the rights and status of PhD students are still a point of contention. In many ways, PhD students sit within a grey zone. Officially, they are students who can access the benefits which come along with this status – but in reality they are often conducting work in a similar manner to paid employees. Indeed, they are sometimes actual paid employees in some capacities (for example, as a postgraduate teaching assistant). This has created a system where different conditions can apply to doctoral students, depending on the policies and culture of the institution, department, or even individual supervisor.
During our research, we heard calls for PhD students’ status to be re-evaluated, with many research participants telling us they would like to be considered employees, in line with countries like Norway and Denmark, where PhD candidates are generally employees rather than students. This was the overwhelming view of our report’s participants, with financial stability and working conditions being the key concerns.
In my view, there is scope to improve the rights of students and for these rights to be better communicated, without necessarily formally switching PhD students to employee status.
What needs to happen next
It is clear that both the financial background of PhD students and the research culture in which they’re operating in can have a significant impact on students’ ability to succeed.
We need to challenge a research culture that for too many, feels rigid and does not allow for PhD students to be anything more than a student. A key example is highlighted in Maddy Godwin’s report for the Russell Group, calling for greater support for those who become parents during their studies. We must see them as people first and students second.
Consistent approaches across institutions – with student rights that are clearly communicated from the outset – can help safeguard against exploitation and overwork, ensuring that students are protected and empowered throughout their research journey. This is particularly important to those from low-SES backgrounds who do not have the privilege of relying on family support.
Supervisors should be able and encouraged to have conversations with their students around all aspects of PhD life and the challenges that students may be facing – we can also note that many participants were calling out for more universities to consider providing a second supervisor.
Finally, higher education policymakers need to provide a consistent approach for PhD programme providers to collect higher quality data about the socioeconomic background of postgraduate researchers and PhD outcomes. Through this, we can build findings that will inform support and ensure that all students are supported to thrive within their studies.
Martingale Foundation’s paper Socioeconomic Status and the Doctoral Experience, based on research carried out by Martingale programme coordinator Sophie Bird, is available here.
