phd completion rates uk

• PhD Failure Rate – A Study of 26,076 PhD Candidates
• Doing a PhD

The PhD failure rate in the UK is 19.5%, with 16.2% of students leaving their PhD programme early, and 3.3% of students failing their viva. 80.5% of all students who enrol onto a PhD programme successfully complete it and are awarded a doctorate.

Introduction

One of the biggest concerns for doctoral students is the ongoing fear of failing their PhD.

After all those years of research, the long days in the lab and the endless nights in the library, it’s no surprise to find many agonising over the possibility of it all being for nothing. While this fear will always exist, it would help you to know how likely failure is, and what you can do to increase your chances of success.

Read on to learn how PhDs can be failed, what the true failure rates are based on an analysis of 26,067 PhD candidates from 14 UK universities, and what your options are if you’re unsuccessful in obtaining your PhD.

Ways You Can Fail A PhD

There are essentially two ways in which you can fail a PhD; non-completion or failing your viva (also known as your thesis defence ).

Non-completion

Non-completion is when a student leaves their PhD programme before having sat their viva examination. Since vivas take place at the end of the PhD journey, typically between the 3rd and 4th year for most full-time programmes, most failed PhDs fall within the ‘non-completion’ category because of the long duration it covers.

There are many reasons why a student may decide to leave a programme early, though these can usually be grouped into two categories:

• Motives – The individual may no longer believe undertaking a PhD is for them. This might be because it isn’t what they had imagined, or they’ve decided on an alternative path.
• Extenuating circumstances – The student may face unforeseen problems beyond their control, such as poor health, bereavement or family difficulties, preventing them from completing their research.

In both cases, a good supervisor will always try their best to help the student continue with their studies. In the former case, this may mean considering alternative research questions or, in the latter case, encouraging you to seek academic support from the university through one of their student care policies.

Besides the student deciding to end their programme early, the university can also make this decision. On these occasions, the student’s supervisor may not believe they’ve made enough progress for the time they’ve been on the project. If the problem can’t be corrected, the supervisor may ask the university to remove the student from the programme.

Failing The Viva

Assuming you make it to the end of your programme, there are still two ways you can be unsuccessful.

The first is an unsatisfactory thesis. For whatever reason, your thesis may be deemed not good enough, lacking originality, reliable data, conclusive findings, or be of poor overall quality. In such cases, your examiners may request an extensive rework of your thesis before agreeing to perform your viva examination. Although this will rarely be the case, it is possible that you may exceed the permissible length of programme registration and if you don’t have valid grounds for an extension, you may not have enough time to be able to sit your viva.

The more common scenario, while still being uncommon itself, is that you sit and fail your viva examination. The examiners may decide that your research project is severely flawed, to the point where it can’t possibly be remedied even with major revisions. This could happen for reasons such as basing your study on an incorrect fundamental assumption; this should not happen however if there is a proper supervisory support system in place.

PhD Failure Rate – UK & EU Statistics

According to 2010-11 data published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (now replaced by UK Research and Innovation ), 72.9% of students enrolled in a PhD programme in the UK or EU complete their degree within seven years. Following this, 80.5% of PhD students complete their degree within 25 years.

This means that four out of every five students who register onto a PhD programme successfully complete their doctorate.

While a failure rate of one in five students may seem a little high, most of these are those who exit their programme early as opposed to those who fail at the viva stage.

Failing Doesn’t Happen Often

Although a PhD is an independent project, you will be appointed a supervisor to support you. Each university will have its own system for how your supervisor is to support you , but regardless of this, they will all require regular communication between the two of you. This could be in the form of annual reviews, quarterly interim reviews or regular meetings. The majority of students also have a secondary academic supervisor (and in some cases a thesis committee of supervisors); the role of these can vary from having a hands-on role in regular supervision, to being another useful person to bounce ideas off of.

These frequent check-ins are designed to help you stay on track with your project. For example, if any issues are identified, you and your supervisor can discuss how to rectify them in order to refocus your research. This reduces the likelihood of a problem going undetected for several years, only for it to be unearthed after it’s too late to address.

In addition, the thesis you submit to your examiners will likely be your third or fourth iteration, with your supervisor having critiqued each earlier version. As a result, your thesis will typically only be submitted to the examiners after your supervisor approves it; many UK universities require a formal, signed document to be submitted by the primary academic supervisor at the same time as the student submits the thesis, confirming that he or she has approved the submission.

Failed Viva – Outcomes of 26,076 Students

Despite what you may have heard, the failing PhD rate amongst students who sit their viva is low.

This, combined with ongoing guidance from your supervisor, is because vivas don’t have a strict pass/fail outcome. You can find a detailed breakdown of all viva outcomes in our viva guide, but to summarise – the most common outcome will be for you to revise your thesis in accordance with the comments from your examiners and resubmit it.

This means that as long as the review of your thesis and your viva examination uncovers no significant issues, you’re almost certain to be awarded a provisional pass on the basis you make the necessary corrections to your thesis.

To give you an indication of the viva failure rate, we’ve analysed the outcomes of 26,076 PhD candidates from 14 UK universities who sat a viva between 2006 and 2017.

The analysis shows that of the 26,076 students who sat their viva, 25,063 succeeded; this is just over 96% of the total students as shown in the chart below.

Students Who Passed

The analysis shows that of the 96% of students who passed, approximately 5% required no amendments, 79% required minor amendments and the remaining 16% required major revisions. This supports our earlier discussion on how the most common outcome of a viva is a ‘pass with minor amendments’.

Students Who Failed

Of the 4% of unsuccessful students, approximately 97% were awarded an MPhil (Master of Philosophy), and 3% weren’t awarded a degree.

Note : It should be noted that while the data provides the student’s overall outcome, i.e. whether they passed or failed, they didn’t all provide the students specific outcome, i.e. whether they had to make amendments, or with a failure, whether they were awarded an MPhil. Therefore, while the breakdowns represent the current known data, the exact breakdown may differ.

Summary of Findings

By using our data in combination with the earlier statistic provided by HEFCE, we can gain an overall picture of the PhD journey as summarised in the image below.

To summarise, based on the analysis of 26,076 PhD candidates at 14 universities between 2006 and 2017, the PhD pass rate in the UK is 80.5%. Of the 19.5% of students who fail, 3.3% is attributed to students failing their viva and the remaining 16.2% is attributed to students leaving their programme early.

The above statistics indicate that while 1 in every 5 students fail their PhD, the failure rate for the viva process itself is low. Specifically, only 4% of all students who sit their viva fail; in other words, 96% of the students pass it.

What Are Your Options After an Unsuccessful PhD?

Appeal your outcome.

If you believe you had a valid case, you can try to appeal against your outcome . The appeal process will be different for each university, so ensure you consult the guidelines published by your university before taking any action.

While making an appeal may be an option, it should only be considered if you genuinely believe you have a legitimate case. Most examiners have a lot of experience in assessing PhD candidates and follow strict guidelines when making their decisions. Therefore, your claim for appeal will need to be strong if it is to stand up in front of committee members in the adjudication process.

Downgrade to MPhil

If you are unsuccessful in being awarded a PhD, an MPhil may be awarded instead. For this to happen, your work would need to be considered worthy of an MPhil, as although it is a Master’s degree, it is still an advanced postgraduate research degree.

Unfortunately, there’s a lot of stigma around MPhil degrees, with many worrying that it will be seen as a sign of a failed PhD. While not as advanced as a PhD, an MPhil is still an advanced research degree, and being awarded one shows that you’ve successfully carried out an independent research project which is an undertaking to be admired.

Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.

Additional Resources

Hopefully now knowing the overall picture your mind will feel slightly more at ease. Regardless, there are several good practices you can adopt to ensure you’re always in the best possible position. The key of these includes developing a good working relationship with your supervisor, working to a project schedule, having your thesis checked by several other academics aside from your supervisor, and thoroughly preparing for your viva examination.

We’ve developed a number of resources which should help you in the above:

• What to Expect from Your Supervisor – Find out what to look for in a Supervisor, how they will typically support you, and how often you should meet with them.
• How to Write a Research Proposal – Find an outline of how you can go about putting a project plan together.
• What is a PhD Viva? – Learn exactly what a viva is, their purpose and what you can expect on the day. We’ve also provided a full breakdown of all the possible outcomes of a viva and tips to help you prepare for your own.

Data for Statistics

• Cardiff University – 2006/07 to 2016/17
• Imperial College London – 2006/07 to 2016/17
• London School of Economics (LSE) – 2006/07 to 2015/16
• Queen Mary University of London – 2009/10 to 2015/16
• University College London (UCL) – 2006/07 to 2016/17
• University of Aberdeen – 2006/07 to 2016/17
• University of Birmingham – 2006/07 to 2015/16
• University of Bristol – 2006/07 to 2016/17
• University of Edinburgh – 2006/07 to 2016/17
• University of Nottingham – 2006/07 to 2015/16
• University of Oxford – 2007/08 to 2016/17
• University of York – 2009/10 to 2016/17
• University of Manchester – 2008/09 to 2017/18
• University of Sheffield – 2006/07 to 2016/17

Note : The data used for this analysis was obtained from the above universities under the Freedom of Information Act. As per the Act, the information was provided in such a way that no specific individual can be identified from the data.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

• Teaching, learning and quality

Higher education in facts and figures: 2021

Last updated on Wednesday 14 Jun 2023 at 2:52pm

On this page

About this data.

• Back to top

An overview of the data on students, staff and university finances from our member institutions.

Highlights 

Record proportions of the most disadvantaged students began a full-time undergraduate course in the UK in 2020, across all four nations of the UK.

In 2020, median graduate salaries were £10,000 higher in England than non-graduate salaries.

In 2019−20, 15.8% of undergraduate students and 40.5% of postgraduate students at UUK member institutions were from outside the UK.

In 2019−20, nearly half of total expenditure was spent directly on teaching and research activities.

What data have we used? 

Most data we’ve used refers to just our member institutions. This covers 140 universities and higher education providers in the UK. 

The data we have used for each chart is clearly labelled and mostly comes from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) records, which covers a wider set of providers. The below charts show the proportion of student, staff and finance data within each of the public HESA records that is represented by Universities UK members.

Promoted content

Stay up to date with our work.

Our monthly updates are a great way for you to stay up to date with our work, events, and higher education news.

In 2019−20, there were 2,413,155 students at UUK member institutions; an increase of 3.1% compared to 2018−19. Of these students:

• 79.6% studied full time
• 74.5% were undergraduates
• 5.8% were from EU countries
• 16.3% were from other non-EU countries
• 56.9% were females
• 59.9% were mature students (aged 21 and over)

Students by mode of study and country of institution, 2019–20

The number of students studying full time has increased by 3.1% since 2018–19. Part-time numbers have decreased slightly (down 0.2% on 2018–19). In 2019−20, part-time students accounted for 36.9% of postgraduate students and 14.7% of undergraduate students.

Students by level and mode of study, 2019–20

In 2019–20, four fifths of students were studying full-time. 69.2% of students were studying for a first degree either full or part time, and a quarter (25.5%) were postgraduates. 'Other undergraduates' (which includes those studying for foundation degrees, diplomas in higher education, or Higher National Diplomas among others) were the most likely to be studying part time, followed by postgraduate taught students.

Applicants, acceptances and UK 18-year-old entry rates, 2011 to 2020

For the 2020 cycle, the total number of people applying for UK full-time undergraduate higher education courses increased by 3.2% on 2019, while total acceptances increased by 5.4%. The UK 18-year-old entry rate was also at record levels, with 37.0% of this group starting a full-time undergraduate course.

Entry rates of the most disadvantaged 18-year-olds by domicile, 2011 to 2021

Record proportions of the most disadvantaged students began a full-time undergraduate course in the UK in 2020 across all four nations of the UK. The charts below show the proportion of 18-year-olds from the areas considered to be in the top fifth most disadvantaged areas who began a course.

Students by age and ethnicity, 2019–20

In 2019−20, mature students (aged 21 and over) accounted for 57.5% of the student population at UUK member institutions. This includes 44.3% of students studying for their first undergraduate degree. Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) students accounted for 25.1% of students living permanently in the UK.

Students by sex, subject area and level of study, 2019–20

In 2019−20, undergraduate student numbers were highest in the subjects of business, subjects allied to medicine and social sciences. Postgraduate numbers were highest for business, subjects allied to medicine and education. Psychology had the highest proportion of female students at 81.1% with the lowest found in computing, and engineering and technology at 19.8% each.

Students by domicile and level of study, 2019–20

In 2019−20, 5.5% of undergraduates were from EU countries, while 10.3% were from outside the EU. Percentages for postgraduates were 6.8% and 33.7% respectively.

In 2019-20, UUK members awarded 761,215 qualifications.

• 61% were undergraduate qualifications and 39% were postgraduate
• 80% of graduates were in employment or unpaid work 15 months after graduation
• 19% of graduates were in further study
• Median salaries for graduates were £9,500 higher than non-graduates
• 5.3% of non-graduates were unemployed compared to 3.7% of graduates

Qualifications awarded by level and mode of study, 2019–20

In 2019−20, more than half (53.6%) of qualifications awarded by UUK member institutions were first degrees. 85.8% of qualifications awarded were for full-time study.

Graduate outcomes by activity, 2018–19

In 2019−20, 80% of graduates who responded to HESA's Graduate Outcomes survey were in employment or unpaid work. 19% of survey respondents were in further study, including those who were also in employment.

Unemployment rates and median salaries in England, 2020

In 2020, median salaries for England-domiciled graduates were £9,500 higher than median non-graduate salaries. The graduate unemployment rate was 3.7%, compared to 5.3% for non-graduates, while the high-skill employment rate was 53.9 percentage points higher for postgraduates than non-graduates, and 41.5 percentage points higher for graduates than non-graduates.

In 2019−20, there were 409,055 staff at UUK member institutions, of these:

• 53.0% were academic staff 
• 12.7% were from EU countries
• 9.5% were from non-EU countries
• 54.2% were female
• 30.7% were aged under 35 years old
• 14.4% were Black, Asian and minority ethnic staff.

Staff by nationality and employment function, 2019–20

In 2019−20, over a fifth (22.2%) of staff at UUK member institutions had a non-UK nationality. Half (48.9%) of academic staff with a 'research only' function had a non-UK nationality.

Academic staff by nationality and cost centre, 2019−20

In 2019−20, non-UK staff accounted for nearly half (47.2%) of academic staff in engineering and technology compared to 13.3% in education.

Academic staff by sex, mode of employment and age, 2019–20

In 2019−20, 46.6% of academic staff at UUK member institutions were female, while 34.0% of staff were working part-time. 29.0% were 35 or under.

Professors by sex and ethnicity, 2015–16 to 2019–20

Although the number of Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME), professors has increased by nearly a third (32.2%) since 2015−16, they only accounted for 10.0% of professors in 2019−20. Over half (58.6%) were white males.

In 2019–20, the total reported income of UUK member institutions was £39.8 billion. Just over half of this income (£20.7 billion) was related to teaching, 15% was related to research (£6.1 billion), and 11% was related to knowledge exchange activity (£4.5 billion).

In 2019–20, our members' total expenditure was £36.4 billion. Nearly half (£17.5 billion) was spent on direct teaching and research activity, and over a tenth (£3.8 billion) was spent on libraries, IT and museums.

Income and size of higher education institutions, 2018–19 to 2019–20

In 2019−20, three quarters of UUK members had an annual income of £100 million or more, with a similar proportion having at least 10,000 students.

Income by source, 2019–20

In 2019−20, the total reported income of UK higher education institutions was £39.8 billion. Around half (£20.7 billion) of this income was sourced through tuition fees.

Teaching, research and knowledge exchange income by source, 2019–20

In 2019−20 around a third (32.3%) of teaching income was from international students from outside the EU. A third of research income came from research councils (33.6%), and nearly a quarter (23.3%) came from outside of the UK. In 2019−20, over a third of knowledge exchange income came from collaborative research involving public funding. This includes collaboration with at least one non-academic partner, which can include businesses, the third sector, and the public. The estimated current turnover of spin-off or start-up firms based on providers' intellectual property, or started by staff, students or graduates increased significantly in 2019−20. Businesses associated with UUK members had an estimated turnover of £7.9 billion with the majority coming from staff start-ups (£2.8 billion) and student start-ups (£2.6bn).

International Facts and Figures 2021

International Facts and Figures is our annual snapshot of the international dimensions of UK higher education.

Operating expenditure of UK higher education institutions, 2019–20

In 2019–20, the total reported operating expenditure of UUK member institutions was £36 billion. Nearly half of this was spent directly on teaching and research activities. Other areas of spending include those that support teaching and learning, such as libraries and IT, maintaining campuses, providing financial support to students and student facilities.

Academic employment function

A HESA field relating to staff with academic contracts. Categories are divided according to whether the contract is ‘teaching only’, ‘research only’ (no more than six hours of teaching per week), ‘teaching and research’, and neither teaching nor research. For more information visit HESA's website .

Cost centre

Cost centre is a financial concept which groups staff members to categories of spending. They enable analysis between the student, staff and finance streams. The cost centre groups are separate to the JACS/HESA codes due to the groupings and are therefore non-comparable. The reason they can't be compared and the breadth of the elements in this field is to replicate the way in which resources (including staff) can be split over multiple courses and the differences in the way individual higher education providers allocate them. For more information visit HESA's website .

A student’s permanent country of residence. This differs from nationality (see below).

The number of university entrants divided by the estimated base population.

The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) is the designated data body for English higher education.

High-skill employment

Occupations at this level are generally termed ‘professional’ or ‘managerial’ positions and are found in corporate enterprises or governments. Occupations include senior government officials, financial managers, scientists, engineers, medical doctors, teachers and accountants.

Knowledge exchange activities

Activities that bring together academic staff, users of research and wider groups and communities to exchange ideas, evidence and expertise. Information on knowledge exchange activities is collected by HESA through their Higher Education Business and Community Interaction (HEBCI) survey. For more information visit HESA's website . 

Level of study

Whether a student studies at undergraduate or postgraduate level. With these groupings, there are other levels such as ‘first degree’, ‘other undergraduate’, ‘postgraduate (research)’ and ‘postgraduate (taught)’. For more information visit HESA's website .

Mode of study

Whether a student studies full or part time.

Nationality

A HESA field that records the legal nationality of staff. For more information visit HESA's website .

Participation of Local Areas (POLAR) is a widening participation measure which classifies local areas or ‘wards’ into five groups, based on the proportion of 18-year-olds who enter higher education aged 18 or 19 years old. These groups range from quintile 1 areas, with the lowest young participation (most disadvantaged), up to quintile 5 areas with the highest rates (most advantaged).

Professorial staff

HESA codes each staff contract. Professor level is defined as ‘senior academic appointments which may carry the title of professor, but which do not have departmental line management responsibilities’. Other senior contracts include leadership and management responsibilities. These contracts may also be held by people who hold the title of professor. It is likely that the methodology undercounts the number of professors because many will fall into more senior levels, eg heads of department.

The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation for 2016 is a widening participation measure that identifies small areas of multiple deprivation across Scotland and classifies them into five groups. These groups range from quintile 1 – areas identified as the most disadvantaged, to quintile 5 – areas identified as the most advantaged. 

HESA Standard Rounding Methodology

We have applied HESA’s Standard Rounding Methodology to all analysis of HESA data:

• Counts of people are rounded to the nearest multiple of five
• Percentages are not published if they are fractions of a small group of people (fewer than 22.5)
• We have applied the methodology after making calculations, which sometimes means numbers in tables may not sum up to indicated totals

For more information, visit HESA's website . 

HESA sources in this report are copyright Higher Education Statistics Agency Limited. 

Neither the Higher Education Statistics Agency Limited nor HESA Services Limited can accept responsibility for any inferences or conclusions derived by third parties from data or other information obtained from Heidi Plus.

Higher education in numbers

Key facts and figures about UK higher education.

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Personal tools

• Log in/Register Register

https://www.vitae.ac.uk/doing-research/are-you-thinking-of-doing-a-phd/what-is-it-like-doing-doctoral-research-in-the-uk/the-uk-doctoral-research-experience

This page has been reproduced from the Vitae website (www.vitae.ac.uk). Vitae is dedicated to realising the potential of researchers through transforming their professional and career development.

• Vitae members' area

The UK doctoral research experience

Although the UK has about 4% of the world’s researchers, they are responsible for nearly 12% of citations and 16% of the most highly cited research (International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base report, 2013) . So the UK punches above its weight in terms of research quality and output. But what makes the UK research experience unique?

The UK has a long and rich history in education and of producing rigorous research. The pedagogy and educational culture in UK higher education encourages free and independent thinking, challenging of existing theories and testing new ones. There is also some attraction in the relatively shorter length of UK doctoral programmes than in many other countries, particularly when compared to US doctoral degrees.

The completion rate is also high in the UK, where institutions have limited registration periods (unlike in the US where there is no limit on registration time for a PhD). Around 75% of full-time doctorates are submitted within seven years in the UK, which is rising, and about 80% of those funded by the UK Research Councils submit within four years. On the other hand, it is exceptional in the US to complete in four years or less (11% of full-time complete in four years, and over one in four formally give up within this time).

These positive aspects result in UK universities being able to attract large numbers of doctoral researchers from around the world, to add to their already highly international taught masters student cohorts. This means that the UK’s postgraduate population is possibly uniquely cosmopolitan, which can have real benefits in developing a global outlook.

The UK’s world-class research base has been achieved through continued development of the people within it. There is a strong dedication from government, universities and research institutes to skills development for the UK research workforce with most universities provide a programme of development for researchers that is informed by the Vitae Researcher Development Framework . The UK’s support for researchers' professional development is world-leading.

Bookmark & Share

• Postgraduate
• PhD and Professional Doctorates
• Fees and funding

Fees and funding for research students

Find out how much a PhD or Professional Doctorate will cost and the funding options available, including PhD studentships, stipends, loans and doctoral awards.

Once you’ve decided to study a research degree, the next step is figuring out how you're going to fund it. There are many different types of funding, including studentships, external grants, and loans. Explore this page to see what’s available and how much a research degree will cost.

How much does a PhD or Professional Doctorate cost?

Our tuition fees are set and reviewed on an annual basis and the amount you pay will depend on the length of your course and mode of study. For some Science and Technology projects, an annual bench fee may also be payable.

Postgraduate Research fees for 2023/24 entry

Postgraduate research fees for 2024/25 entry, phd funding.

There are many different ways to fund a PhD, including university studentships, funding from research councils, charities or businesses, and doctoral loans. PhD funding falls into three main categories:

• Fully-funded – your PhD tuition fees are covered in full along with an amount for living costs and other expenses (usually called a stipend).
• Partially-funded – part of your fees or living costs are covered, but not both. You will usually need to top up this funding with your own money or other grants.
• Self-funded – you are financing your own PhD fees and living costs through a combination of savings or earnings and loans.

Search our current projects .

ESRC studentships

The Midlands Graduate School (ESRC accredited) is looking to recruit top quality PhD students to commence study in October 2024 across a range of subjects, offering studentships – covering a maintenance stipend and payment of tuition fees at the home fee rate.

NTU fully-funded PhD studentships

Every year we provide fully-funded PhD studentships with opportunities across all our academic disciplines. These cover the full cost of tuition plus a stipend for living expenses for both UK and International students. Applications usually open in October.

Sign up for emails to be notified of the next release and to keep up to date with research funding.

What is a PhD stipend?

Some funded projects may eligible for a stipend – a grant to help cover your living expenses that you don't have to pay back. Find out the  current minimum stipend rates set by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).

Funding for international researchers

Many of our funded PhD projects are open to international students. Check the specific project details to see who is eligible.

FindaPhD also provides a guide to funding for international students looking to study a PhD in the UK.

Other funded opportunities at NTU

We’re pleased to participate in funded projects that improve access to research and benefit local communities.

Midlands4Cities

Funding and supporting outstanding research in Arts and Humanities across the Midlands.

Co(l)laboratory

A Universities for Nottingham project providing funding for locally-relevant, challenge-based research.

Equality and Doctoral Education through Partnership and Innovation (EDEPI)

A funded programme for NHS workers, created to tackle barriers to doctoral education for racially minoritised groups.

ESRC Studentships

Funding and further support for doctoral candidates in a range of subjects and pathways.

Doctoral loans

Student Finance England and Student Finance Wales provide a non-means-tested Doctoral loan of up to £28,673 to help with course fees and living costs for a postgraduate research course, such as a PhD or Professional Doctorate.

These are available on full-time, part-time and distance learning courses if you are living in the UK and you’ll only start to repay when your income is over £21,000 a year.

Disabled Students’ Allowances (DSA)

Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA) helps to cover the extra costs you might incur because of a disability, including a long-term health condition, mental health condition, physical disability, or specific learning difficulty such as dyslexia or dyspraxia.

Learn more about DSA

Alumni discount

We offer an exclusive 20% discount to NTU alumni who enrol on an eligible postgraduate course.

External funding

A variety of research councils, governmental agencies and charities can provide funding for your research degree. Take a look at some of the opportunities available below.

Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences

• Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) - the UK's main agency for funding and managing research, training and knowledge transfer in the environmental sciences.

Art and Humanities

• Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) - small, large, and project-based grants for students in humanities and social sciences.

Science and Technology

• Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) - funding provider for research into biological systems
• Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) - funding for Information Systems and Mathematics research.

Social Sciences

• Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) - small, large, and project-based grants for students in humanities and social sciences
• Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) - the UK's largest organisation for funding research on economic and social issues
• Ford Foundation - provides grants to support research into social change and development
• Joseph Rowntree Foundation - endowed charity that funds a large, UK-wide research and development programme focussing on social policy issues
• National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) - supporting researchers in health and social care
• Nuffield Foundation - fund research and innovation in education and social policy
• Social Science Research Council (SSRC) - an independent non-profit organization devoted to the advancement of social science research and scholarship
• Wellcome Trust - grants for human health-related research.

Situational

• Commonwealth Scholarships - offers opportunities to Commonwealth citizens to study in the UK
• Leverhulme Trust - funding for cross-disciplinary research.

Financial support

Studying through the cost-of-living crisis.

How we can support you, and how you can make your funding go further.

We provide a range of support and resources to help you manage your finances while you're studying at NTU.

Need advice on how to fund your studies?

Our student finance team are here to help. They can offer guidance on postgraduate fees, loans, and money management.

Chat to the  team on Unibuddy , email  [email protected] or call +44 (0)115 848 2494 .

For advice on making secure international payments please visit our international scholarships and fees pages .

Studentships and doctoral training

Get a studentship to fund your doctorate.

UKRI studentships offer funding for doctoral research. They also offer you access to training, networking and development opportunities to help you build a research and innovation career.

Our expectations for research organisations, supervisors and students are set out in the statement of expectations for doctoral training .

You could get:

• a minimum stipend of £19,237 per year for your living costs, which is paid to you in regular instalments
• support for your tuition fees (minimum £4,786 per year)

The stipend is usually non-taxable and does not need to be paid back. Some research organisations may offer more if you study in London, or they or one of their collaborators might decide to top up the payment. This will be outlined in the studentship advert from the research organisation.

We normally pay the support for tuition fees directly to your research organisation.

The levels given here are for the academic year 2024 to 2025. UKRI’s approach to doctoral stipend and fee levels will be reviewed through the  new deal for postgraduate research .

Additional support for your doctoral studies

As a UKRI-funded doctoral student, you may be able to access additional funding to cover the cost of other related training and development opportunities.

This could include:

• conference attendance
• language training
• overseas research visits
• internships or placements with a non-academic partner

The availability of support will depend on the research organisation and the training grants they have on offer. You should contact the research organisation you are interested in applying to, to find out what you could get.

Extra support if you have a disability

If you have a disability, you may be entitled to a Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA) on top of your studentship.

You should speak to your research organisation’s disability advisor to assess your needs. They can help put the right support in place, including a DSA application if necessary. You cannot claim DSA directly from UKRI.

DSA helps to cover the cost of any additional support that a person studying for a doctorate might need as a result of a disability, mental health problem or specific learning difficulty.

The allowance covers:

• non-medical personal assistance
• specialist equipment
• extra travel costs
• general expenses

Find out more about DSA in our framework .

If you are a research organisation you can download claim forms and guidance for DSA .

Who can apply

Any prospective doctoral student wishing to study at a UK research organisation, including prospective international students, can apply for a UKRI studentship.

All UKRI-funded doctoral students will be eligible for the full award, both the stipend to support living costs, and home-level fees at the UK research organisation rate.

How to find opportunities

Many UK research organisations offer some form of studentship funding from UKRI. These opportunities will depend on the subject you want to study and will normally be advertised by the research organisations.

Research organisations may have additional opportunities that do not involve UKRI. UKRI supports around 20% of all UK-based postgraduate researchers. You should speak to the research organisation you are interested in to find out what studentships are available.

You could also consider using a specialist website like   FindaPhD  to look for opportunities.

When to apply

Research organisations set their own deadlines for applications.

Many open for applications early in the academic year and close in January or February. This is not a hard and fast rule. It is important that you check the deadlines for the research organisation where you want to study.

How to apply

You cannot apply to UKRI for a studentship. You must contact the research organisation you are interested in studying with and use their application process.

For doctoral students who are already studying with a studentship, there are opportunities to get additional funding to support placements that are separate from your doctorate.  Find training and development opportunities .

Last updated: 14 February 2024

This is the website for UKRI: our seven research councils, Research England and Innovate UK. Let us know if you have feedback or would like to help improve our online products and services .

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Course Directory
• Qualification types

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Postgraduate Study

• Why Cambridge overview
• Chat with our students
• Cambridge explained overview
• The supervision system
• Student life overview
• In and around Cambridge
• Leisure activities
• Student unions
• Music awards
• Student support overview
• Mental health and wellbeing
• Disabled students
• Accommodation
• Language tuition
• Skills training
• Support for refugees
• Courses overview
• Department directory
• Funded studentships
• Part-time study
• Research degrees
• Visiting students
• Finance overview
• Fees overview
• What is my fee status?
• Part-time fees
• Application fee
• Living costs
• Funding overview
• Funding search
• How to apply for funding
• University funding overview
• Research Councils (UKRI)
• External funding and loans overview
• Funding searches
• External scholarships
• Charities and the voluntary sector
• Funding for disabled students
• Widening participation in funding
• Colleges overview
• What is a College?
• Choosing a College
• Terms of Residence
• Applying overview
• Before you apply
• Entry requirements
• Application deadlines
• How do I apply? overview
• Application fee overview
• Application fee waiver
• Life Science courses
• Terms and conditions
• Continuing students
• Disabled applicants
• Supporting documents overview
• Academic documents
• Finance documents
• Evidence of competence in English
• AI and postgraduate applications
• Terms and Conditions
• Applicant portal and self-service
• After you apply overview
• Confirmation of admission
• Student registry
• Previous criminal convictions
• Deferring an application
• Updating your personal details
• Appeals and Complaints
• Widening participation
• Postgraduate admissions fraud
• International overview
• Immigration overview
• ATAS overview
• Applying for an ATAS certificate
• Current Cambridge students
• International qualifications
• Competence in English overview
• What tests are accepted?
• International events
• International student views overview
• Akhila’s story
• Alex’s story
• Huijie’s story
• Kelsey’s story
• Nilesh’s story
• Get in touch!
• Events overview
• Upcoming events
• Postgraduate Open Days overview
• Discover Cambridge: Master’s and PhD Study webinars
• Virtual tour
• Research Internships
• How we use participant data
• Postgraduate Newsletter

The degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) is the University's principal research degree for graduate students and is available in all faculties and departments.

A Cambridge PhD is intellectually demanding and you will need to have a high level of attainment and motivation to pursue this programme of advanced study and research.

In most faculties, a candidate is expected to have completed one year of postgraduate study, normally on a research preparation master's course, prior to starting a PhD.

Completion normally requires three or four years of full-time study, or at least five years of part-time study, including a probationary period.

Terms of research are normally consecutive and, for full-time students, require residency in Cambridge. Not all departments offer part-time research degrees.

Various routes to the PhD are possible and, if you are made an offer of admission, it will be made clear whether you are required to study for a master's degree or certificate in the first instance, or will be admitted directly to the probationary year for the PhD. You are registered for the PhD only after a satisfactory progress assessment at the end of the probationary year (five terms for part-time degrees). The assessment is designed also to focus your mind on the stages necessary for the completion of your research within the normal time limit and to address any structural problems that have arisen during the first year. Students must pass the first year assessment in order to continue their PhD study.

During your PhD, your effort will be focused on writing a dissertation. The word count of the dissertation is dependent on the department and the Student Registry or Educational Student Policy will be able to tell you the maximum word limit. This must represent a significant contribution to learning, for example through the discovery of new knowledge, the connection of previously unrelated facts, the development of a new theory, or the revision of older views, and must take account of previously published work on the subject. Some Cambridge dissertations go on to form the basis of significant publications.

Although you will spend long hours working independently, your department and College will both support you throughout your PhD. You are also able to attend regular seminars in your subject area and could be involved in teaching, perhaps giving seminars or supervising, or in the social life of your department and College.

PhD course search

Go to the Course Directory and filter courses using the relevant checkboxes.

Term Information

Explanation of terms, postgraduate admissions office.

• Admissions Statistics
• Start an Application
• Applicant Self-Service

At a glance

• Bringing a family
• Current Postgraduates
• Cambridge Students' Union (SU)

University Policy and Guidelines

Privacy Policy

Information compliance

Equality and Diversity

Terms of Study

About this site

About our website

Privacy policy

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

PhD completion rates, 2013

The proportion of phd students in england expected to obtain degrees has risen slightly, but at some institutions around a fifth may never qualify..

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

According to a report published on July 26 by England’s funding council, 72.9 per cent of the 11,625 students from the UK or the EU who began full-time doctorates in 2010-11 will obtain a degree within seven years. This compares with 70.1 per cent who started in 2009-10 and 70.5 per cent in 2008-09.

A further 1.7 per cent of students who began in 2010-11 will qualify with another postgraduate research qualification, according to the report, entitled “Rates of qualification from postgraduate research degrees: Projected study outcomes of full-time students starting postgraduate research degrees in 2010-11”.

Meanwhile 80.5 per cent will complete their PhD within 25 years: the point at which anyone who is going to earn a doctorate is assumed to have done so. The equivalent figure for the 2009-10 cohort was 78.2 per cent.

The predictions are based on the proportion of students who change status in institutions’ annual submissions to the Higher Education Statistics Agency.

This is compared with a benchmark figure, calculated using a sector average adjusted for factors such as variations in each institution’s subject spread and their students’ domicile, highest entry qualification and funding source.

The figures also show that nine institutions are likely to see the qualification rates for their 2010-11 intakes fall significantly below their expected benchmark qualification levels, compared with 10 in the 2009-10 intake.

The only Russell Group member among them is the University of Warwick , whose predicted 25-year pass rate of 68.9 per cent is 13.4 percentage points below its benchmark – although the universities of Exeter and Newcastle also fall short of their benchmark for passes within seven years.

The lowest predicted pass rate is recorded by London Metropolitan University , only 15.2 per cent of whose 2010-11 cohort is expected to qualify within 25 years, compared with a benchmark of 77.5 per cent. At the University of Bolton , 19.8 per cent are expected to qualify within 25 years, compared with a benchmark of 79.5 per cent.

The number of universities expected to significantly exceed their benchmarks remains five: Queen Mary, University of London, King’s College London and the universities of Oxford, Liverpool and Bradford.

Steven Hill, head of research policy at the Higher Education Funding Council for England, welcomed the improvement in qualification rates.

“Hefce will seek to continue to enhance understanding of qualification rates from different forms of postgraduate study so that we can most effectively support continuous improvement as well as excellence in the national research base,” he said.

[email protected]

Related files

Projected outcomes of full-time students starting postgraduate research degrees in 2010-11.

Register to continue

Why register?

• Registration is free and only takes a moment
• Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
• Sign up for our newsletter

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

• Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
• Digital editions
• Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

You might also like

NIH raises postdoctoral salaries, but below target

Top US funding agency manages record increase in key programme for younger scientists, and sees gains in overall equity, while absorbing net cut in its annual budget

How to win the citation game without becoming a cynic

Boosting your publication metrics need not come at the expense of your integrity if you bear in mind these 10 tips, says Adrian Furnham

Black vice-chancellor eyes new generation of minority researchers

David Mba creates fully funded PhD studentships after taking reins at Birmingham City University

Featured jobs

PhD completion: an evidence-based guide for students, supervisors and universities

Senior Lecturer in Management, Fellow of the APS College of Organisational Psychologists, Swinburne University of Technology

Disclosure statement

Timothy Colin Bednall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Swinburne University of Technology provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Many students enrol in a Master or PhD postgraduate research degree, but few complete them. From 2010-2016 , 437,030 domestic and international students enrolled in postgraduate research programs in Australian public universities. Only 65,101 completed within the same six year period.

This discrepancy does not necessarily mean postgraduate research students “failed” their degree. Common reasons not completing a degree include changes of career goals, work-family conflicts, poor health or financial strain. Alternatively, some students remain enrolled in their degree for long periods without making significant progress.

Even so, the discrepancy is large enough for universities to be concerned. Nobody wants a student to suffer through years of hard work and frustration without achieving their goal.

What does research say about completion rates?

Research has identified several factors that make students more likely to persist with their degrees. These factors are related to the students themselves, their supervisor, and the university environment.

Psychological studies of postgraduate students find the more successful ones tend to perceive themselves as competent and be intrinsically motivated . These are students who enjoy their topic area, perceive their postgraduate studies as a valuable learning experience, and who strongly identify with being a career researcher. Students who are motivated by external factors (such as pursuing a prestigious academic role) are more likely to say they want to quit.

Scholarship holders are more likely to complete their degrees. This is likely because they are academically stronger than non-scholarship holders and are less vulnerable to financial strain. Students can support themselves financially through teaching, research assistant roles or other work, but this must be balanced carefully. Part-time students are less likely to complete their degrees.

Students’ field of study also affects completion rates. A higher proportion of students in sciences tend to complete their degrees than those in arts and humanities. This is likely because students working in the sciences are more often involved in laboratory-based work in teams, where there is greater social support and knowledge exchange. People studying humanities more often work on their research alone.

A positive student-supervisor working relationship is critical. A good supervisor should be an expert in the student’s subject of choice and a supportive mentor. They should help the student navigate through the frustrations and uncertainties of writing a thesis, and help students adjust to the world of academia.

Students are also more likely to finish their research degrees if they have strong connections with their peers . Such connections help students develop their professional identity as researchers, as well as providing opportunities for social support and informal learning .

The quality of associated coursework is also important. Ideally, postgraduate programs should provide students with a sound foundation of research skills and content knowledge, and facilitate ongoing communication with their faculty.

Involvement in formal and informal professional activities is also important. Students who complete tend to participate in departmental events, such as research seminars and professional development workshops. They also tend to participate in academic conferences. These events allow students to learn and expand their networks.

What students and their supervisors should do

First, given the importance of the student-supervisor relationship, universities can provide advice to students about locating and approaching a suitable supervisor. Specifically, students should consider the research area they wish to work in and locate a supervisor with relevant expertise. They should approach supervisors with an openness to negotiating a research topic.

Read more: Ten types of PhD supervisor relationships – which is yours?

Both students and supervisors should be upfront about their expectations about how the supervision will work. An excellent starting point for discussion is the Expectations in Supervision questionnaire. Students and supervisors sometimes have mismatched expectations about how often they should meet, the amount of feedback the supervisor should provide on drafts, and how much counselling and emotional support the supervisor should provide.

Supervisors have an important role in providing a realistic preview of academic life. One useful exercise is to review an academic competency model, such as the Vitae Researcher Development Framework , to discuss which skills academics need. In addition to knowledge of their topic area and research methods, academics increasingly need to be good at managing complex projects, working in multidisciplinary teams, and engaging with industry and media.

This discussion should enable supervisors and students to plan how students will develop their capabilities. Alternatively, it could prompt some students to opt out of a research degree if they think an academic role is not compatible with their goals.

What universities should do

As well as providing research training, universities can also increase the capabilities of students by helping them understand self-handicapping patterns. These include busyness, procrastination and disorganisation.

Students can be guided to replace these with more helpful actions such as scheduling dedicated writing time, reframing difficult tasks as learning opportunities, and developing a work routine. This could be done as part of a workshop or supervisory relationship.

Universities should also encourage greater connectedness between research students to build social support. This could be accomplished through team-based activities or face-to-face events.

For instance, some universities offer Three Minute Thesis , a research communication competition where students present their work in under 180 seconds.

Some universities organise Shut Up and Write sessions, which turns writing into a social experience and limits distractions. These activities can be complemented by encouraging students to become involved in supportive online communities and blogging .

Read more: The rise of writing events gives PhD students the support often lacking in universities

Finally, universities should be dedicated to helping academics develop as supervisors through ongoing training and coaching. Departments could consider tracking the progression of students and ensuring supervisors have the time and skills to take on new students.

Completing a dissertation can be richly rewarding, but it’s the endpoint of a process that’s often long, frustrating and uncertain. Helping students achieve their research aspirations makes academic life a better experience for all involved.

• Postgraduate degrees
• PhD supervisors
• PhD students

Case Management Specialist

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

UCL English

MPhil/PhD in English Literature and Language

One of the highest-ranking English Departments in the UK, UCL provides fantastic opportunities for PhD students to study in the heart of literary London, with access to vast quantities of resources and research materials, and a high number of academic staff working on a diverse range of specialist topics. 

Note that you should identify a prospective supervisor yourself (see our list of staff ) and contact them before you make your formal application, to check that they are in a position to support the project that you are proposing.

Dr Julia Jordan ( [email protected] ) is the English Department's Graduate Tutor. Application enquiries can also be directed to Natasha Clark ( [email protected] ), Senior Education Administrator.

With access to a vast collection of archival materials, and world-leading supervision in a wide range of literary periods and topics, UCL is one of the best universities in which to study for an English PhD.     

There are normally about 45 students undertaking research degrees in the department. Graduate students initially register for the MPhil degree, but usually in the second year, when a realistic and workable thesis has been confirmed, and work-in-progress and a future plan have been discussed, students are upgraded from MPhil to PhD status.

Students accepted for admission are given a principal supervisor with whom the student will work closely during the course of the degree. A secondary supervisor is also appointed to provide additional advice. Great importance is attached to matching student and supervisor, and ensuring that students' progress is well monitored. Students meet either one or other supervisor approximately ten times during the academic year. The Department is eager to ensure PhD completion rates within four years, and therefore reviews each student's progress by means of an interview at the end of each year. When completed and submitted, the thesis is defended in an oral examination. 

Students are expected to complete the PhD within three or four years of registration, and the minimum period of registration is two years. Part-time students complete the degree within five to seven years of registration. 

The Department offers MPhil/PhD supervision in a wide range of topics, including English and English-related language and literature from Old English to the present day. Information on the research interests of staff can be found here (click on the name of each member of staff to access their personal profile). 

Research Resources

UCL Library has outstanding physical and digital collections for literary research, as well as specialist materials in its excellent Special Collections department. Among these are the George Orwell Archive; Little Magazines; the Routledge and Kegan Paul Archives (publishing history); the Brougham Papers and papers of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge (19th-century liberalism); and the Chadwick Papers (19th-century sanitary reform). UCL Library also has superb holdings in London history. For language topics the Department is especially well placed, as it houses the world-renowned Survey of English Usage.

Other London archives with manuscript and rare book resources relevant to the Department’s research interests include (but are by no means limited to):

• British Library
• University of London Library (Senate House Library)
• Guildhall Library
• London Library
• Library of the London School of Economics
• Dr Williams’s Library
• Bishopsgate Institute Library
• Library of the Victoria and Albert Museum
• Archives of the Royal Society
• The Women’s Library at London School of Economics

Research is expected to take students into numerous libraries and archives, not only within London, but also throughout Britain, and often internationally. 

Research Environment

The Department places great emphasis on opportunities for students to discuss their work and participate in the exchange of knowledge and ideas. There is a programme of regular departmental Research Seminars at which PhD students are invited to present their work; speakers may also include members of the department’s academic staff and invited guests. The department also hosts a seminar series on Race, Power, and Poetics , and a wide range of informal discussion groups and reading groups.

The Institute of Advanced Studies (part of the Faculty of Arts and Humanities) hosts an exciting programme of research events and activities. UCL students also have access to the abundance of seminars and conferences available across London, including those of the Institute of English Studies  at the University of London.

The English Department’s graduate students organise a one-day conference each year; many of the papers delivered at the conference are published in  Moveable Type , the Department's graduate-led online journal. There is a Graduate Common Room in the English Department. Many PhD students spend much time working at the British Library, to which UCL has unrivalled proximity, which also functions as a hub for academic networking.

Details of current PhD students and their projects can be found here . 

Your research proposal does not need to be long (typically somewhere between 800-1000 words). The most important things we are looking for you to explain are:

1) What primary literature/texts will you be studying?

2) What is your idea/approach to this literature?

3) How does your project fit in to the secondary literature/criticism on this topic?

4) Practical details, like which archives you will use, roughly how long you will spend on each chapter, what each chapter may be about, etc

5) That you have considered how the chosen project will work within a 100,000 word limit (so it's clearly not something so small that it's 20,000 words maximum, nor have you chosen something so big that you couldn't possibly do it justice in 500,000).

Proposals and intentions often change a little/quite a lot once they are on the course, but the important thing is just to demonstrate that you have thought about the practicalities and you have a clear, viable research topic that we could supervise in the Department, and which you could complete within three years.

Applicants should usually expect to begin their studies in September at the start of an academic year (although in some cases, a January start can be discussed). UCL’s application process usually opens in mid-October, and you are encouraged to apply as early as possible, as there are a number of stages to the process.

It is essential to understand that your application for a place must be fully processed, and an offer of a place at UCL secured, before you can apply to any of the various funding schemes (see under ‘Applying for Funding’ below). You should allow time for this, and for us to advise you on your funding application(s). For this reason your full, formal application for a place via UCL’s online system must be submitted by Friday 5 January 2024 at the latest . This is an internal departmental deadline and supersedes any dates given on external websites.

We strongly recommend that all candidates should apply for funding; but those candidates who intend to self-fund may apply for entry in September 2024 at any time up to 31 March 2024.

The steps for applying for a place take some time, and are as follows:

1. Contact a member of staff in the English Department to establish whether they are available and interested in supervising your project. They may ask to see your CV and a brief research proposal (see above, ‘The Research Proposal’). You can find details of the research interests of individual members of staff here (click on each name to see the staff member’s profile). If you are not sure who to approach, you may consult the English Department’s Graduate Tutor, Dr Julia Jordan ( [email protected] ) .

Please be aware that members of staff cannot give detailed advice on how to improve your research proposal. This is because evaluation of the proposal is an important part of the process for the selection of candidates, so it must be your own independent work. If we invite you for interview (step 3 below) this will be an opportunity for you to discuss your proposal with your prospective supervisor. If we offer you a place (step 4 below), we will then advise you on how to make your research proposal as strong as possible for your funding application(s).

2.   If you have been encouraged to make a full, formal online application, please do so, following the instructions here . Your application must include a research proposal, two references, a CV, and transcripts from your previous academic courses. If you intend to proceed to funding applications, your application for a place must be submitted by 5 January 2024 . When you submit your application, please also send your research proposal and academic CV directly by email to the English Department’s Graduate Tutor, Dr Julia Jordan ( [email protected] ) .

Applying as an international student  

Further information about English language requirements and applying as an international student can be found here: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-students/graduate/applying-international-student . 

3.   The English Department will consider the strength of each applicant’s proposed research project, the applicant's grades in undergraduate and Masters level study, and the suitability (and availability) of academic staff in the Department to supervise the proposed project. If we decide to proceed with the application, the applicant will be invited to a short interview to discuss the research proposal in more detail. This will normally be with the applicant's proposed primary supervisor, a potential secondary supervisor, and/or the Tutor for Graduates. UK applicants will normally be interviewed at UCL; international students, or those who are unable to attend for other reasons, will be interviewed online. Please try to ensure that you are available for interview from November to January.

4.  If your interview is successful, we will offer you a place. You can now proceed to funding applications (see ‘Applying for Funding’ below). PLEASE NOTE: it is your responsibility to be aware of the deadlines for different funding schemes, and to ensure that there is time for your application for a place to be fully processed before you proceed to funding applications.

Scholarships for which you may be eligible to apply are listed here .  

Studentships for PhDs in English at UCL are available from LAHP (the London Arts and Humanities Partnership), funded by the AHRC (Arts and Humanities Research Council). LAHP is a consortium of Higher Education Institutions in London. More information, including eligibility for a studentship and how to apply, is available from their website . Around 10% of applications for studentships are successful.

Applicants who are interested in LAHP funding must also have submitted a completed PhD application to UCL by Friday 5 January 2024. Once we have confirmed your offer of a place, you must then submit a completed LAHP application form,  including the supervisor statement,  by their  deadline   ( 26th January 2024 at 5pm ).  Your prospective supervisor will advise you on how to make your LAHP application as strong as possible. It is your responsibility to allow sufficient time for all of these processes.

If you have any further questions about the LAHP application procedure, please email Ms Natasha Clark ( [email protected] ) 

Research Excellence Scholarship (RES)

UCL Research Excellence Scholarships aim to attract high-quality students to undertake research at UCL. Up to 40 UCL  Research Excellence Scholarships (RES) are available to prospective and current research students from any country.

More details about the application process for the Research Excellence Scholarships, including deadlines, can be found here .

Wolfson Scholarships

The Wolfson Foundation is offering six postgraduate research awards in the humanities for 2024/25. These will be for three areas in history, literature and languages.

Details about the award scheme and the application process can be found here . 

Applicants should send the mandatory documents to Natasha Clark ( [email protected] ) by the end of 12 January 2024.

UCL Research Opportunity Scholarship

UCL's Research Opportunity Scholarship (UCL-ROS) supports UK BAME postgraduate research degree students. Details about eligibility, the award and the application process can be found here .

Each student works closely with their supervisor to develop research skills specific to their project. Regular completion of an online research log helps the student and supervisor to assess training needs.

The English Department provides a course in PhD Skills Training. The first term is on Research Skills and Methods, and is aimed at first-year students, who are required to attend. The second term is on Professional Academic Skills, and is open to all PhD students.

Across UCL, PhD training is co-ordinated by the Doctoral School . The Doctoral Skills Development Programme is delivered via the Inkpath platform, and benefits from participation by the Bloomsbury Postgraduate Skills Network , a consortium of leading Higher Education Institutions.

Training courses and events are also available from LAHP (the London Arts and Humanities Partnership). LAHP-funded students are given priority for booking, but places may also be available to other students.

Teaching opportunities for research students

PhD students who are making good progress with their research project are offered teaching opportunities. Those in their second year are normally offered experience in teaching one-to-one tutorials. Those in their third year are normally offered experience in teaching seminars.

PhD students in English also work with UCL’s Access and Widening Participation team to deliver a highly successful Summer School for Year 12 school students.

Employment Prospects

PhD graduates from the Department have an excellent record of securing employment in institutions of higher education. In recent years PhD alumni have progressed to academic positions here at UCL, as well as at Oxford and Cambridge, in the wider University of London, and at other universities across the UK. Others have successfully gained international appointments, in destinations including the United States, Canada, and New Zealand. Our PhD graduates are also well placed to pursue careers outside academia, as the skills in research, analysis, writing, and communication obtained during the PhD transfer easily to high-level work in many sectors.

UCL prospectus page for the MPhil/PhD programme.

For further information, please email Natasha Clark ( [email protected] ).

Apply Online

You can find a link to the online application form on the main UCL website at the bottom of this page: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-students/graduate/apply

We do accept some visiting students, if there is a suitable academic to act as supervisor. The first step is to identify someone who looks like a suitable supervisor by looking through the list of academic staff yourself:  https://www.ucl.ac.uk/english/people/academic-staff  . Then, you should contact them with your research proposal to see if they think they would be well-positioned to supervise and will be available to do so over the period of time you’d like to visit. If they are happy to supervise you, you must submit an application via our online system. Further details about this and the link for applying can be found on this page: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-students/international/study-abroad-and-exchange/visiting-research-students .

Student Views

"I am currently completing my PhD on Shakespeare. The English department at UCL is a very special place: the academic staff are dedicated, supportive. I would whole-heartedly recommend applying to study English at UCL."

Shani Bans, PhD Candidate

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Study reveals low PhD completion rates

Nearly three out of 10 full-time PhD students have still not completed their doctorates seven years after starting their studies, research revealed today.

And figures for part-time students are much worse, with only one third submitting a thesis, making a part-time doctorate a "high-risk venture", according to the Higher Education Funding Council (Hefce).

Completion rates vary considerably between universities, noted the study, although the research did not identify the best (or worst) places to study.

The research also identified big differences between subjects - students doing natural sciences and maths had much better completion rates than humanities and social sciences.

Agriculture came top of the doctorates league, with 76% of students completing the course, compared to an overall average of 62%.

The study, which traced the progress of more than 19,000 students between 1995-96 and 2002-03, found that students were more likely to gain a doctorate if they had financial backing, particularly from research councils, charities or the British Academy.

Overseas students did better than average and so did younger students, the study found. So, unsurprisingly, did students who gained a first in their undergraduate degrees. Men and women had similar success rates, in contrast to school and first degree performance where males tend to lag behind.

The study grouped subjects into three areas - natural sciences, humanities and social sciences and vocational subjects including computing, engineering and business. It pointed out that the natural sciences, including agriculture, have well-established research fields with largely agreed methodologies.

"In these subjects, identifying topics and questions for PhD students is usually relatively straightforward. Fields of research in social sciences and humanities are not always as well established as in the natural sciences, and methodologies may still be disputed," the study said.

"Sometimes it may be difficult to identify topics which can yield substantial results through a PhD research programme. Completion rates for students on programmes in these subjects are not universally low, but when we take account of other factors we see that the 'subject effect' is negative compared to the natural sciences and related subjects," it added.

In vocational subjects, where the completion rates varied widely, the report mentioned alternative careers to research within the same field, for which a student with a partly completed PhD could be well-placed to enter. Computing, for instance, has a 50% completion rate for full-timers and only 23% for part-time students.

"Should these figures be cause for congratulation or concern?" pondered Hefce. "In part this depends on whether an uncompleted PhD programme is judged to be of value. This will vary from individual to individual. What is clear is that starting a part-time PhD is a high-risk venture: we can estimate that only one in three students is likely to submit a thesis within six years."

The report said that making meaningful international comparisons from currently available sources was not possible, and that it was difficult to know whether UK universities were doing better or worse than those in other countries.

• Higher education
• Postgraduates

Most viewed

Advertisement

Predictors of UK postgraduate researcher attendance behaviours and mental health-related attrition intention

• Open access
• Published: 08 December 2022
• Volume 42 , pages 30521–30534, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Clio Berry   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1164-9836 1 ,
• Jeremy E. Niven   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7786-5254 2 &
• Cassie M. Hazell   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5868-9902 3  

1441 Accesses

3 Citations

Explore all metrics

High rates of postgraduate researchers (PGRs) terminate their studies early. This attrition can have detrimental personal consequences, and results in a loss of productivity, and research and innovation for the higher education sector and society as a whole. PGRs are vulnerable to the experience of mental health problems; a factor that appears to be increasing attrition amongst students in the UK. However, investigation of the determinants of problems with PGRs’ attendance and influencing intention to discontinue their studies is rare. Here, we consider the relative predictive validity of a set of putative predictors (mental health symptoms, demographic, occupational, psychological, social, and relational) of attendance behaviours (absenteeism, presenteeism, mental health-related intermission) and early attrition intention amongst UK PGRs. Depression, anxiety, and suicidality predicted attendance behaviours and greater attrition intention. Individual demographic and occupational factors predicted all outcomes. Psychological, social and relational factors had less predictive validity, although individual variables in these conceptual clusters did significantly predict some outcomes. Our results suggest that interventions to reduce high rates of mental health problems are likely to improve attendance behaviours, and reduce the extent to which PGRs intermit or consider ending their PhD studies for mental health-related reasons. Initiatives designed to improve supervisory relationships and reduce loneliness may also reduce absenteeism, intermission and attrition intention.

Similar content being viewed by others

Doctoral students’ experiences leading to completion or attrition: a matter of sense, progress and distress

Evaluating mental health and wellbeing of postgraduate researchers: prevalence and contributing factors.

Physical and mental determinants of dropout and retention among nursing students: protocol of the SPRiNG cohort study

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Doctoral attrition is high in many countries, with reported rates of up to 40 to 50% of postgraduate researchers (PGRs) terminating their PhD studies before completion (Geven et al., 2017 ; Litalien & Guay, 2015 ). Attrition can be considered a process, in which PGRs weigh the costs and benefits of persisting or discontinuing, and then do or do not actually end their studies accordingly (Jaksztat et al., 2021 ). Attrition may be provoked by reasons outside of the PhD, such as other opportunities, changing goals, or family obligations (Maher et al., 2017 ), and is not in itself ‘bad’. However, for many PGRs, attrition results in adverse psychological, financial and employment outcomes, as well as there being problematic consequences of non-completed PhD research for supervisors, institutions, and society (Litalien & Guay, 2015 ).

There has been limited research attention to PGR attrition (Jaksztat et al., 2021 ; Litalien & Guay, 2015 ), especially as it relates to mental health problems and other psychological factors (Jaksztat et al., 2021 ). The few known studies that have been conducted in this area originate from the US, where the PhD experience is unique; for example, typically being more structured and longer in duration (Jaksztat et al., 2021 ). This lack of research is especially concerning as increasing numbers of university students generally in the UK appear to be discontinuing their studies due to poor mental health (The Guardian, 2017 ).

Much evidence has emerged in the past few years in particular to suggest that PGRs experience high rates of stress (Hazell et al., 2020 ), depression, anxiety and suicidality; seemingly at rates that exceed those seen in other student and working populations (Hazell et al., 2021 ; Levecque et al., 2017 ). The PhD itself and its surrounding environment have been implicated in the onset and exacerbation of PGR mental health problems (Berry et al., 2020 ; Levecque et al., 2017 ), with the recent COVID-19 pandemic seemingly exacerbating the poor mental health and wellbeing of the adult population generally (Amerio et al., 2021 ; Odone et al., 2020 ), and PGRs specifically (Byrom, 2020 ) even further.

Poor mental health and suicidality are inherently distressing and associated with negative health and functional outcomes (DeRoma et al., 2009 ; Okajima et al., 2015 ), including death by suicide; a frequently under-reported phenomenon (Visentin et al., 2019 ). A functional outcome for PGRs that is important, yet under-investigated, is mental health-related attrition. However, attrition is not the only index of disengagement from academic study. Disengagement can be conceptualised multi-dimensionally, with a focus on problematic attendance behaviours as well as attrition-related cognitions. Attendance behaviours themselves can be conceptualised as using multiple indices: absenteeism (non-planned/non-holiday absences); presenteeism (working or studying when unwell enough to take absence); and intermission (interruption or prolonged break from doctoral studies). Evidence suggests that PGRs with experience of mental health problems report greater absenteeism and presenteeism (Berry et al., 2021a ), intermission, and intention to discontinue doctoral study (Castelló et al., 2017 ; González-Betancor & Dorta-González, 2020 ; Hunter & Devine, 2016 ).

The present study tests a comprehensive range of potential determinants of attendance behaviours and attrition intention amongst a large sample of UK PGRs. We were informed by our previous work which identified putative determinants of mental health symptoms as demographic, occupational, psychological, social and relational in nature (Berry et al., 2021b ). Taking this same approach here aligns with studies that suggest influences on doctoral attrition are complex and multifactorial (Castelló et al., 2017 ; Gardner, 2010 ), and with theoretical models of student retention as being a product of both academic and social integration (Tinto, 2016 ). We first predicted that mental health symptoms would predict poorer attendance and attrition intention. 

We next predicted that demographic and occupational factors would predict attendance and attrition intention. White PGRs report fewer days absent but more severe presenteeism (Berry et al., 2021a ). Female PGRs appear to spend more time in presenteeism and absenteeism (Berry et al., 2021a ), report greater number of intermissions (Moore & Keith, 1992 ), greater attrition intention (Castelló et al., 2017 ), and are more likely to actually discontinue their PhD studies (Jaksztat et al., 2021 ). A lack of funding is associated with greater attrition intention (Castelló et al., 2017 ) and attrition (Litalien & Guay, 2015 ). PGRs who spend less time per week in PhD study report greater attrition intention (Castelló et al., 2017 ). However, it is unclear to what extent demographic and PhD-study related characteristics independently and uniquely influence attendance behaviours and attrition intention, i.e. when modelled simultaneously and when considering psychological and social factors.

Finally, we predicted that psychological, social and relationship factors would predict PGR attendance behaviours and attrition intention. With respect to psychological factors, PGRs who perceive themselves to lack competence report greater attrition intention (Castelló et al., 2017 ) and attrition (Litalien & Guay, 2015 ). Moreover, lower academic aspirations are associated with a greater number of intermissions (Moore & Keith, 1992 ). This suggests a potential role in doctoral attrition for the psychological traits of perfectionism ( i.e. having high standards and/or believing one is not meeting their standards) and impostor thoughts ( i.e. believing that one is not as competent as others perceive one to be). Moreover, the nature of interpersonal relationships in general, and specifically with the supervisor, are likely important. Social disconnectedness is associated with PGR attrition intention (Castelló et al., 2017 ; Volkert et al., 2018 ). Supervisory relationship stressors and lack of psychological support are associated with attrition intention (Litalien & Guay, 2015 ; Volkert et al., 2018 ), and clear authoritative direction, i.e . supervisor agency, seems important in doctoral completion (McCray & Joseph-Richard, 2020 ). Mental health problems may be a confounding factor here, however, as previous research has found supervisory relationship qualities to predict mental health symptoms (Berry et al., 2021b ) and thus, this should be accounted for in modelling associations with attendance and attrition-related outcomes.

Research considering the relative contribution of influences across multiple domains on PGR disengagement is rare, especially considering indices spanning multiple proxies of attendance and attrition intention. Furthermore, although research has considered whether dissatisfaction is a precursor to attrition (González-Betancor & Dorta-González, 2020 ), no known study has tested whether problematic attendance behaviours themselves may function as precursors to attrition intention. We predicted that this would be the case because academic disengagement leads to intention to leave academia (Lesko & Corpus, 2006 ). Furthermore, absence and presenteeism reduce productivity (Johns, 2010 ), organisational commitment and embeddedness (Boswell et al., 2008 ), and additionally likely increase time-to-completion, which in turn predicts doctoral attrition (de Valero, 2001 ).

Based upon our predictions, we tested the specific hypotheses that attendance behaviours and attrition intention would be predicted by mental health symptoms (depression, anxiety, suicidality), and then by the following factors:

demographic; age, gender, ethnicity, UK residency, disability and lifetime mental health problem prevalence,

occupational; fulltime status, funding, year of study, fieldwork, time spent in occupational activity,

psychological; impostor thoughts, perfectionistic standards and discrepancy,

social; loneliness and multiple group memberships, and

relational; supervisory relationship communion and agency.

Materials and methods

Participants and procedure.

Data were obtained from a national online self-report survey (U-DOC) conducted in the UK between 2018 and 2019. The survey was designed to contain a battery of self-report survey assessments and qualitative data pertaining to PGR mental health symptoms, and multiple factors considered to be potential correlates of these symptoms and associated behaviours. Participants were a convenience sample of 3352 current PGRs who provided informed consent and then completed questionnaire measures and qualitative free-text questions. The participant inclusion criteria were that participants were aged 18 years or over and were currently studying for their PhD at a UK University. Participants were recruited by contacting all UK doctoral schools ( N  = 162) and asking for them to promote the study, via email, institutional communications and through social media advertising (e.g. Twitter, Facebook). The research team additionally promoted the study via social media platforms. The study received research ethics approval from the University of Sussex Sciences and Technology Cross-Schools Research Ethics Committee (Reference: ER/CH283/9). Additional methodological and sample details are reported elsewhere (Authors, 2021).

Absenteeism and presenteeism

Absenteeism and presenteeism data were collected using items from the Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iMTA PCQ) – Presenteeism Scale (Bouwmans et al., 2015 ). For the present study, binary variables were used to indicate absenteeism (no absenteeism 0, absenteeism 1) or presenteeism (no presenteeism 0, presenteeism 1) specifically regarding PhD study in the past month, excluding planned annual leave or holidays. Absenteeism referred to days absent and presenteeism referred to “days in which you worked but during this time were bothered by physical or psychological problems”. Additional information about the measure of absenteeism and presenteeism has been published previously (Berry et al., 2021a ).

Mental health-related intermission and attrition intention

Respondents indicated if they had had to take a break from their PhD studies for mental health-related reasons (mental health-related intermission), and if they had considered terminating their PhD studies for mental health-related reasons (mental health-related attrition intention). In both cases, respondents indicated whether statements were ‘true’ or ‘false’; coded as ‘1’ or ‘0’, respectively. A third option ‘not sure’ was also coded as ‘0’.

Mental health symptoms

The 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9 (Kroenke et al., 2001 )) was used to capture depression symptoms, the 7-item (GAD-7 (Spitzer et al., 2006 ) to capture anxiety symptoms, and the 4-item Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire – Revised (SBQ-R (Linehan & Nielsen, 1981 )) to capture suicidality.

Demographic characteristics

Participants self-reported age in years, gender (coded for this study as female versus male/another identity), ethnicity (coded as White versus non-White), UK citizenship ( versus non-UK citizenship), disability status (not including mental health problems), and lifetime prevalence of mental health problems (coded as pre-existing mental health problems up to and including during undergraduate studies versus onset during postgraduate study).

Occupational characteristics

Participants were asked to self-report their PhD study mode (fulltime versus part-time), funding (full, partial or self-funded), year of study, and past or planned fieldwork ( versus none). Participants estimated how many hours per week on average they spent engaged in PhD study, teaching activities, and any other employment. These were summed to create weekly average of hours spent in occupational activity.

Psychological factors

Impostor thoughts were measured using the 20-item Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS (Clance, 1985 )), and perfectionistic standards ( i.e. high expectations for oneself) and discrepancy ( i.e. the degree to which one thinks they fail to meet these expectations) using the 8-item Short Almost Perfect Scale (SAPS (Rice et al., 2014 )).

Social factors

The social variables captured were loneliness ( i.e. the subjective sense of deficiency in one’s social relationships), and multiple group memberships ( i.e. the degree to which one perceives they have ties and relationships with multiple social groups). Loneliness was measured using the 20-item UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell et al., 1978 ). Multiple group memberships was captured using a 4-item self-report scale derived from the Exeter Identity Transition Scale (Haslam et al., 2008 ).

Relational factors

The relational qualities of the supervisory relationship were measured using the 41-item Questionnaire on Supervisor–Doctoral student Interaction (QSDI (Mainhard et al., 2009 )). Two dimensional scores were used; agency (influence and leadership) and communion (proximity and cooperativeness).

All analysis was conducted in SPSS (version 26.0). Bivariate associations between putative predictor variables, attendance behaviours and attrition intention were examined using t-test and chi-square models. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to test predictors of attendance behaviours and attrition intention in four separate models. Attendance behaviours and attrition intention were specified as binary categorical dependent variables in these models. Mental health symptom scores were added as predictors first, before then entering the demographic, occupational, psychological, social and relational factors in turn as separate blocks. Variables not showing bivariate associations with attendance behaviours and attrition intention were not entered. Hochberg’s correction was applied for multiple testing in the final models (Menyhart et al., 2021 ). These models met the requisite assumptions of the independence of errors and absence of significant multicollinearity. Moreover, with the exception of two standardised residuals in the presenteeism model and one in the attrition intention model, all standardised residuals were under 2.5. Cook’s distances and DFbetas all under 1, suggesting, showed no significant impact of unusual cases on any model. The Box-Tidwell test was used to confirm that the relationship between the logit (log-odds) of the outcome and each continuous predictor was linear. All interactions between the predictors and their logits were non-significant, with the exception of depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), and supervisory agency and communion (QSDI) in one model respectively. However, these interactions were not highly significant (p ≥ 0.03) and the sample size is large, therefore, we considered the assumption of non-linearity to be satisfied (Wuensch, 2021 ).

Sample characteristics

Respondents were aged on average 30.74 (SD 8.82) years and 2205 (65.8%) were female. Overall, 1749 (52.2%) respondents identified as White British and 2114 (63.2%) as UK residents. In total, 1059 (31.8%) respondents reported having been given a diagnosis of a mental health disorder during their lifetime, and another 919 (27.6%) reported experiencing mental health problems with no formal diagnosis. The majority of students were fulltime ( n  = 2536, 81.4%) and had full ( n  = 2036, 65.4%) or partial funding ( n  = 413, 13.3%). Eight-hundred and thirty-four PGRs were in their first year (26.9%), 846 (27.3%) in their second, 756 (24.4%) in their third, 422 (13.6%) fourth, and 144 (4.6%) in the fifth year of PhD studies. A significant minority of students reported past ( n  = 767, 24.8%) or planned ( n  = 303, 9.8%) fieldwork. In total, 1069 (31.9%) PGRs reported taking non-planned/holiday absence in the past month and 1697 (50.6%) taking no absences. Overall, 1694 (50.5%) PGRs reported presenteeism in the past month, and 1201 (35.8%) reported none. In addition, 455 (13.6%) of PGRs had taken mental health-related intermission and 2604 (77.7%) had not ( i.e . had rated this statement as false or not sure). Finally, 1097 (32.7%) of PGRs had considered ending their PhD studies for mental health-related reasons and 1963 (58.5%) had responded false or not sure. Ninety-seven PGRs (3.1%) in current continuation were removed from the dataset before analysis, for attendance behaviours and attrition intention were thought not to be equivalent in this context.

Bivariate associations

Bivariate associations (Tables 1 and 2 ) demonstrated that past month absenteeism and presenteeism, having taken mental health-related intermission, and reporting mental health-related attrition intention, were all significantly associated with having a disability (Table 1 ), and with significantly greater depression, anxiety, suicidality, impostor thoughts, perfectionistic discrepancy, loneliness, and reduced supervisory communion (Table 2 ). Past month absence and intermission were associated with significantly reduced weekly occupational activity hours, whereas past month presenteeism and attrition intention were associated with more hours (Table 2 ). Absenteeism and presenteeism, and attrition intention, but not intermission, were significantly associated with younger age (Table 2 ) and being female (Table 1 ). Only absenteeism was associated with reduced perfectionistic standards, and only presenteeism and attrition intention were associated with higher standards (Table 2 ). Presenteeism, intermission and attrition intention were associated with being White (Table 1 ) and reduced perception of multiple group memberships (Table 2 ). Absenteeism was more likely for non-White and non-UK citizens (Table 1 ). Taking intermission and reporting attrition intention were more likely for UK citizens and people with more recent-onset mental health problems (Table 1 ). Presenteeism did not differ according to UK citizenship or pre-existing mental health problems (Table 1 ). Absenteeism, intermission and attrition intention, but not presenteeism, were associated with past or planned fieldwork (Table 1 ), and with reduced supervisory agency (Table 2 ). Full-time PGRs were more likely to report absenteeism and presenteeism, whereas a part-time mode was associated with taking intermission, with no association between study mode and attrition intention (Table 1 ). Absenteeism and presenteeism, and attrition intention, were more likely for fully funded PGRs and less likely for self-funded students (Table 1 ). Taking intermission was less likely for fully funded PGRs, and more likely in partial or self-funded modes (Table 1 ).

Multivariate predictors of attendance behaviours and attrition intention

The hierarchical logistic regression models (Table 3 ) showed that the predictor blocks explained significant variance in attendance behaviours and attrition intention, with some exceptions. First, social factors did not explain significant variance in any model, although this was marginal for the intermission model, in which loneliness was a significant predictor of intermission likelihood. Secondly, psychological and relational predictors did not explain significant variance in presenteeism or intermission. With respect to significant individual predictors when all blocks had been entered, past month absence (Table 3 , model A) was significantly predicted by greater depression, younger age, non-female gender, White ethnicity, UK citizenship, not having a disability, not being self-funded, reduced weekly occupational hours, no fieldwork, and reduced supervisory agency. Past month presenteeism (Table 3 , model B) was significantly predicted by greater depression and anxiety, being non-female and non-disabled, not being fully-funded, greater occupational weekly hours, and greater perfectionist standards. Having taken mental health-related intermission (Table 3 , model C) was significantly predicted by greater anxiety, pre-existing mental health problems, more years of PhD study, reduced impostor thoughts, and greater perfectionistic discrepancy and loneliness. Mental health-related attrition intention (Table 3 , model D) was predicted by greater depression and suicidality, being non-White, pre-existing mental health problems, more years of PhD study, reduced communion in the supervisory relationship, and not taking mental health related-intermission. All odds ratios reflected small size effects. The majority of individual predictors were significant at the respective Hochberg corrected alpha level (Table 3 ).

This study aimed to test mental health symptoms, and demographic, occupational, psychological, social and relational factors as predictors of PGR attendance behaviours (absenteeism, presenteeism, mental health-related intermission) and attrition intention. Our study, using cross-sectional data, shows that demographic and occupational factors are significant predictors of PGR attendance behaviours (absenteeism, presenteeism, mental-heath-related intermission) and attrition intention. This was evident across all models (bivariate and multivariate), though specific demographic and occupational factors differed in their patterns of prediction. Psychological, social and relational factors had less predictive validity, but made significant contributions to some models. The largest effects according to individual odds ratios were for demographic and supervisory relationship characteristics, and additionally for mental health-related intermission as a predictor of attrition intention.

With respect to demographic and occupational characteristics, absenteeism was predicted in the multivariate model by being White and a UK citizen. One interpretation of this is that ethnically diverse and international students take fewer absences because they feel under greater pressure to be present and to succeed in their PhD research (Litalien & Guay, 2015 ); pressure that may be both socio-cultural and bureaucratic as related to visa status. Not taking absences may in turn contribute to distress, for non-White and non-UK citizens were found to be more likely to consider terminating their studies early for mental health reasons. More years of PhD study predicted greater likelihood of mental health-related intermission and attrition intention, even when controlling for current symptoms. Current findings suggest that demographic factors play a greater role in predicting attendance behaviours and attrition intention, compared to their seemingly smaller role in predicting PGR mental health symptoms versus psychological, social and relational factors (Berry et al., 2021b ). It may be that demographic vulnerabilities have especially profound influence on behavioural outcomes. For example, socio-demographic characteristics influence the extent to which people experience stigma and discriminatory behaviours within academic institutions (Berry et al., 2021a );, factors that in turn influence academic disengagement (Casad et al., 2019 ). The associations with having a non-mental health disability were surprising. In the multivariate models, being disabled predicted reduced absenteeism and presenteeism, whereas in the bivariate associations, people with a disability reported greater presenteeism. This may reflect that the degree of flexibility provided by doctoral study, for example in working hours and locations, allows people with disabilities to work when best suits them, which reduces their absenteeism. With respect to presenteeism, mental health symptoms may be an additional explanatory factor. It might be that people with a disability report greater presenteeism mainly due to elevated mental health symptoms, and once these symptoms are covaried, this association reverses because this group can flexibly arrange their PhD study time around other health issues. This fits with the finding that PGRs feel less able to take absences for mental health compared to physical health reasons (Berry et al., 2021a ).

Overall, mental health symptoms predicted greater absenteeism, presenteeism, intermission and attrition intention. Depression consistently predicted all outcomes except intermission, with anxiety predicting greater likelihood of presenteeism and intermission, and suicidality predicting greater likelihood of presenteeism and attrition intention. These findings support previous studies demonstrating that mental health problems result in greater absenteeism and presenteeism (Berry et al., 2021a ), intermission (González-Betancor & Dorta-González, 2020 ), and intention to discontinue doctoral study (Castelló et al., 2017 ; Hunter & Devine, 2016 ). The predictive validity of depression is consistent with evidence that it predicts poor attendance and educational engagement, more so than anxiety and especially when persistent (Abu Ruz et al., 2018 ). That all symptoms predict presenteeism is intuitive, because presenteeism is defined as working when bothered by physical or psychological problems (Bouwmans et al., 2015 ). Regarding attrition intention, it seems likely that the co-influence of depression and suicidality here is related to hopelessness being implicated in both these problems (Beck et al., 2006 ; Labelle et al., 2013 ), and presumably in considering discontinuing PhD studies, especially in the absence of anticipated success. This aligns with qualitative data from the present sample that suggests suicidal ideation can occur in the context of PhD failure concerns, with suicide considered by some PGRs as potentially a more favourable hypothesised outcome than not completing their PhD (Authors, 2021). A previous study found that only the unique symptoms of anxiety, excluding those shared with depression, predicted educational attrition (Gorman et al., 2020 ). In the present study, this relationship was not observable for attrition intention, but anxiety alone uniquely predicted taking mental health-related intermission. It could be that anxious avoidance is the best predictor of taking intermission, with little independent role for symptoms of depression or suicidality. Alternatively, as current data are cross-sectional, the directionality of associations is not clear and it is possible that PGRs who have previously taken mental health-related intermission are then more anxious.

Whilst social factors were bivariately associated with attendance behaviours and attrition intention, loneliness and multiple group memberships contributed little to the prediction of attendance behaviours, with the exception of loneliness predicting mental health-related intermission. This is difficult to reconcile with prior research that suggests important roles for social and relational factors, albeit non-synonymous yet overlapping with those measured here. For example, it has been suggested that doctoral persistence is largely shaped by social interactions with peers and supervisors (Bean & Tinto, 1988 ; Litalien & Guay, 2015 ). Research evidence has additionally found that sense of belonging reduces attrition intention (van Rooij et al., 2019 ), and that the perceived institutional climate predicts time spent in absenteeism and presenteeism, and presenteeism severity (Berry et al., 2021a ). It could be that social factors indirectly influence behavioural outcomes and attrition intention via symptomatology. If this is the case, social interventions should still reduce absenteeism, presenteeism, and mental health-related intermission and attrition intention, through improving symptoms. This is in keeping with the resilience protection model of doctoral completion (McCray & Joseph-Richard, 2020 ), which suggests that complex inter-relations between personal, environmental, professional and institutional factors influence successful completion.

Psychological factors showed little predictive validity for attendance behaviours and attrition intention, other than that PGRs with higher perfectionistic standards were more likely to engage in presenteeism. This contradicts a previous study which found perceived competence to be the central factor in explaining PhD attrition (Litalien & Guay, 2015 ). However, this previous study did not control for mental health symptoms. It could be that associations between psychological factors and attendance behaviours and attrition intention are again indirect via associations with mental health symptoms. Lower supervisory agency and communion respectively predicted greater absenteeism and mental health-related attrition intention, which is in keeping with evidence that supervision quality is associated with intent to discontinue PhD studies (van Rooij et al., 2019 ). Our findings therefore caution against the seemingly prevailing view that PGR wellbeing and success are determined by students’ individual competencies, with more limited roles for supervisory and institutional characteristics and actions (Sverdlik et al., 2018 ). Indeed, supervisors with PGRs who discontinue early due to mental health problems might benefit from specific attention as to the sense of communion characterising their supervisory relationships, and training and initiatives to help enhance this where necessary.

Finally, absenteeism and presenteeism were not predictive of attrition intention, yet mental health-related intermission did appear to be significantly protective. It could be that an intermission period enables PGRs to put into place supports to help scaffold their mental wellbeing, which helps them to feel able to continue their doctorate to completion. It may also be that PGRs who have not taken intermission reflect those who feel unable or unwilling to take a period of intermission, and are perhaps then more likely to consider discontinuing their studies completely. It is clear that in workplaces there are variable ‘absence cultures’, which encourage or discourage presenteeism (Ruhle & Süß, 2019 ). PGRs too endorse the existence of different absence cultures, enacted in individual supervisory relationships and at wider lab or department levels; influencing the extent to which PGRs feel able to take absences (Berry et al., 2021a ). The current findings would suggest that absence cultures that create or reinforce reticence to take mental health-related intermission may actually increase attrition intention. It is important to consider, nonetheless, that intermission typically results in loss of income for fully-funded students, whereas absenteeism and presenteeism usually do not. Moreover, we acknowledge that current participants do not include PGRs who have discontinued their studies. Consequently, we do not know the nature of the association between having taken mental health-related intermission and later attrition. Nonetheless, intention to leave is considered one of the strongest predictors of attrition (Ertem & Gokalp, 2019 ), making it is plausible that mental health-related intermission protects against mental health-related attrition.

Limitations and future directions

There are important limitations to note. The data used are cross-sectional. Therefore, regression analyses test whether associations modelled between variables are consistent with theorised directions of effects, and do not test the directionality or causality of these associations. Moreover, models tested include a large number of variables, which makes the unique contribution of individual covariates difficult to interpret (Kraha et al., 2012 ). In addition, the metric of the predictor variable influences the size of the odds ratios presented, for the odds ratio reflects the change in odds associated with a one-unit increase in the exposure (Szumilas, 2010 ). Therefore, odds ratios may be closer to one for symptoms, and psychological and social factors, because the unit of measurement is small compared to the size of any meaningful change. Whilst the Box-Tidwell test results for continuous predictor linearity were acceptable (Wuensch, 2021 ), it is possible that there was a slight degree of non-linearity that may have caused underestimation of effects of these predictors (Long, 2008 ). The risk of this with respect to depression and anxiety seems low, as these variables were significant in most models, yet it could be the case that the supervisory relationship is an even more powerful predictor of attendance behaviours than observed here.

The sample from which current data were derived is a self-selecting sample of UK PGRs and therefore, the generalisability of findings is constrained. This is a common challenge to research on PGRs, for their representation in epidemiological research is poor and they are often undifferentiated from other populations of students. We note that, overall, the sample is predominantly female, White, identified as UK citizens, and had full PhD funding in place. Efforts to engage male PhD students, those from minority ethnic backgrounds and those not of UK citizenship, without full funding, should be made to ensure greater representativeness of these groups. More specifically, the current sample reflects only current PGRs and not those who have discontinued their studies. Therefore, attrition intention and predictors thereof may actually correspond to PGRs who are less likely to actually terminate their PhD studies early. Future research should test longitudinal predictors of attendance, intermission, and attrition intention, and attrition itself. Finally, we have tested the specified predictors in these models independently, however, it seems likely that they interact. We would anticipate that psychological and social factors are mediated by their association with mental health symptoms, and that social and relational factors in addition are mediated by psychological factors, for example, supervisory relationships likely impact on PGRs’ perceived competence (Litalien & Guay, 2015 ).

There are several clear policy recommendations of the current study. Policy should mandate supervisor training regarding mental health disclosures and supporting students with the enablement of reasonable adjustments to mitigate the impact of mental health problems on their PhD engagement and attendance; supporting them with mental health-related intermission when necessary. Such training should additionally support supervisors to form effective relationships with PGRs, in which there is appropriate guidance, direction, proximity and support; whilst scaffolding the PGR to develop a sense of their own self-agency as an emerging researcher. Finally, institutions should be asked to ensure access to interventions for mental health symptoms, which are appropriate for and accessible to PGRs, and that help mitigate the impact of perfectionistic thinking. Moreover, institutions should be expected to examine their structures and processes and consider how these may promote connectedness, with the provision of social initiatives to increase social support and reduce loneliness.

Conclusions

This study has identified a number of risk factors for absenteeism, presenteeism, and mental health-related intermission and attrition intention among UK PGRs. The most consistent predictive associations were that sociodemographic factors and mental health problems predicted attendance problems, intermission and attrition intention. Psychological and social factors made smaller and less robust contributions to the prediction of attendance and attrition intention, yet there appeared a role for perfectionism and loneliness in greater chance of presenteeism and taking intermission. Supervisory relationship quality appeared to reduce the likelihood of absenteeism and considering PhD attrition. Current findings emphasise the need to provide appropriate prevention and intervention initiatives for PGRs with mental health problems, including enhancement of social connectedness and supervisory relationship quality. Such initiatives should have dual benefits of reducing PGR mental health problems and scaffolding positive PhD attendance and completion intention.

Data Availability

The dataset related to this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abu Ruz, M. E., Al-Akash, H. Y., & Jarrah, S. (2018). Persistent anxiety and depression affected academic achievement and absenteeism in nursing students. The Open Nursing Journal, 12 (1), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874434601812010171

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Amerio, A., Lugo, A., Stival, C., Fanucchi, T., Gorini, G., Pacifici, R., Odone, A., Serafini, G., & Gallus, S. (2021). COVID-19 lockdown impact on mental health in a large representative sample of Italian adults. Journal of Affective Disorders, 292 , 398–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAD.2021.05.117

Bean, J. P., & Tinto, V. (1988). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. The Journal of Higher Education, 59 (6), 708. https://doi.org/10.2307/1982243

Article   Google Scholar  

Beck, A. T., Wenzel, A., Riskind, J. H., Brown, G., & Steer, R. A. (2006). Specificity of hopelessness about resolving life problems: Another test of the cognitive model of depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 30 (6), 773–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-006-9081-2

Berry, C., Valeix, S., Niven, J. E., Chapman, L., Roberts, P. E., & Hazell, C. M. (2020). Hanging in the balance: Conceptualising doctoral researcher mental health as a dynamic balance across key tensions characterising the PhD experience. International Journal of Educational Research, 102 , 101575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101575

Berry, C., Niven, J. E., Chapman, L. A., Valeix, S., Roberts, P. E., & Hazell, C. M. (2021a). A mixed-methods investigation of mental health stigma, absenteeism and presenteeism among UK postgraduate researchers. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 12 (1), 145–170. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-06-2020-0034

Berry, C., Niven, J., & Hazell, C. (2021b). Personal, social and relational predictors of UK postgraduate researcher mental health problems. BJPsych Open, 7 (6), E205. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.1041

Boswell, W. R., Run Ren, L., & Hinrichs, A. T. (2008). Voluntary employee turnover: Determinants, processes, and future directions. In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Behavior: Volume One: Micro Approaches (pp. 196–216). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200448.n12

Bouwmans, C., Krol, M., Severens, H., Koopmanschap, M., Brouwer, W., & Van Roijen, L. H. (2015). The iMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire: A standardized instrument for measuring and valuing health-related productivity losses. Value in Health, 18 (6), 753–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.05.009

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Byrom, N. C. (2020). The challenges of lockdown for early-career researchers. eLife, 9 , 1–3. https://doi.org/10.7554/ELIFE.59634

Casad, B. J., Petzel, Z. W., & Ingalls, E. A. (2019). A model of threatening academic environments predicts women STEM majors’ self-esteem and engagement in STEM. Sex Roles, 80 (7–8), 469–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0942-4

Castelló, M., Pardo, M., Sala-Bubaré, A., & Suñe-Soler, N. (2017). Why do students consider dropping out of doctoral degrees? Institutional and personal factors. Higher Education, 74 (6), 1053–1068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0106-9

Clance, P. R. (1985). The impostor phenomenon: When success makes you feel like a fake . Bantam Books.

de Valero, Y. F. (2001). Departmental Factors Affecting Time-to-Degree and Completion Rates of Doctoral Students at One Land-Grant Research Institution. The Journal of Higher Education, 72 (3), 341. https://doi.org/10.2307/2649335

DeRoma, V. M., Leach, J. B., & Leverett, J. P. (2009). The relationship between depression and college academic performance. College Student Journal , 43 (2), 325–335.

Ertem, H. Y., & Gokalp, G. (2022). Role of personal and organizational factors on student attrition from graduate education: A mixed-model research. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 23 (4), 903–928. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025119881391

Gardner, S. K. (2010). Contrasting the socialization experiences of doctoral students in high- and low-completing departments: A qualitative analysis of disciplinary contexts at one institution. The Journal of Higher Education, 81 (1), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2010.11778970

Geven, K., Skopek, J., & Triventi, M. (2017). How to increase PhD completion rates? An impact evaluation of two reforms in a selective graduate school, 1976–2012. Research in Higher Education 2017 59:5 , 59 (5), 529–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11162-017-9481-Z

González-Betancor, S. M., & Dorta-González, P. (2020). Risk of interruption of doctoral studies and mental health in phd students. Mathematics, 8 (10), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8101695

Gorman, E. L., Burke, H. H., Rubino, L. G., Vargas, I., & Ph, G. (2020). Teasing apart the effect of depression specific and anxiety specific symptoms on academic outcomes. Clinical Psychology and Special Education , 9 (3), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.17759/cpse.2020090307

The Guardian. (2017). Number of university dropouts due to mental health problems trebles. In The Guardian . https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/23/number-university-dropouts-due-to-mental-health-problems-trebles

Haslam, C., Holme, A., Haslam, S. A., Iyer, A., Jetten, J., & Williams, W. H. (2008). Maintaining group memberships: Social identity continuity predicts well-being after stroke. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 18 (5–6), 671–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602010701643449

Hazell, C. M., Chapman, L., Valeix, S. F., Roberts, P., Niven, J. E., & Berry, C. (2020). Understanding the mental health of doctoral researchers: A mixed methods systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Systematic Reviews, 9 (1), 197. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01443-1

Hazell, C. M., Niven, J. E., Chapman, L., Roberts, P. E., Cartwright-Hatton, S., Valeix, S., & Berry, C. (2021). Nationwide assessment of the mental health of UK Doctoral Researchers. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8 (1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00983-8

Hunter, K. H., & Devine, K. (2016). Doctoral students’ emotional exhaustion and intentions to leave academia. In International Journal of Doctoral Studies (Vol. 11). http://ijds.org/Volume11/IJDSv11p035 -

Jaksztat, S., Neugebauer, M., & Brandt, G. (2021). Back out or hang on? An event history analysis of withdrawal from doctoral education in Germany. Higher Education, 2021 , 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10734-021-00683-X

Johns, G. (2010). Presenteeism in the workplace: A review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31 (4), 519–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.630

Kraha, A., Turner, H., Nimon, K., Zientek, L. R., & Henson, R. K. (2012). Tools to support interpreting multiple regression in the face of multicollinearity. Frontiers in Psychology , 3 (MAR), 44. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00044

Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16 (9), 606–613. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x

Labelle, R., Breton, J.-J., Pouliot, L., Dufresne, M.-J., & Berthiaume, C. (2013). Cognitive correlates of serious suicidal ideation in a community sample of adolescents. Journal of Affective Disorders, 145 (3), 370–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.08.027

Lesko, A. C., & Corpus, J. H. (2006). Discounting the difficult: How high math-identified women respond to stereotype threat. Sex Roles , 54 (1), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11199-005-8873-2

Levecque, K., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., Van der Heyden, J., & Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy, 46 (4), 868–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2017.02.008

Linehan, M. M., & Nielsen, S. L. (1981). Assessment of suicide ideation and parasuicide: Hopelessness and social desirability. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49 (5), 773–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.49.5.773

Litalien, D., & Guay, F. (2015). Dropout intentions in PhD studies: A comprehensive model based on interpersonal relationships and motivational resources. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41 , 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.004

Long, R. G. (2008). The crux of the method: Assumptions in ordinary least squares and logistic regression. Psychological Reports, 103 (2), 431–434. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.103.2.431-434

Maher, M. A., Wofford, A. M., Roksa, J., & Feldon, D. F. (2017). Exploring early exits: Doctoral attrition in the biomedical sciences. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 152102511773687 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025117736871

Mainhard, T., van der Rijst, R., van Tartwijk, J., & Wubbels, T. (2009). A model for the supervisor–doctoral student relationship. Higher Education, 58 (3), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9199-8

McCray, J., & Joseph-Richard, P. (2020). Towards a model of resilience protection: Factors influencing doctoral completion. Higher Education, 80 (4), 679–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00507-4

Menyhart, O., Weltz, B., & Győrffy, B. (2021). MultipleTesting.com: A tool for life science researchers for multiple hypothesis testing correction. PLOS ONE , 16 (6), e0245824. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245824

Moore, H. A., & Keith, B. (1992). Human capital, social integration, and tournaments: A test of graduate student success models. The American Sociologist, 23 (2), 52–71.

Odone, A., Lugo, A., Amerio, A., Borroni, E., Bosetti, C., Carreras, G., D’oro, L. C., Colombo, P., Fanucchi, T., Ghislandi, S., Gorini, G., Iacoviello, L., Pacifici, R., Santucci, C., Serafini, G., Signorelli, C., Stival, C., Stuckler, D., Tersalvi, C. A., & Gallus, S. (2020). COVID-19 lockdown impact on lifestyle habits of Italian adults. Acta Bio Medica: Atenei Parmensis , 91 (9-S), 87. https://doi.org/10.23750/ABM.V91I9-S.10122

Okajima, K., Yamanaka, G., Oinuma, S., Kikichi, T., Yamanaka, T., Otsuka, K., & Cornelissen, G. (2015). Even mild depression is associated with among-day blood pressure variability, including masked non-dipping assessed by 7-d/24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Clinical and Experimental Hypertension, 37 (5), 426–432. https://doi.org/10.3109/10641963.2015.1013114

Rice, K. G., Richardson, C. M. E., & Tueller, S. (2014). The short form of the revised almost perfect scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96 (3), 368–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.838172

Ruhle, S. A., & Süß, S. (2019). Presenteeism and absenteeism at work—an analysis of archetypes of sickness attendance cultures. Journal of Business and Psychology 2019 35:2 , 35 (2), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10869-019-09615-0

Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Ferguson, M. L. (1978). Developing a measure of loneliness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42 (3), 290–294. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4203_11

Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., Löwe, B., & K, K., & W, H. (2006). A brief measure for assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166 (10), 1092. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092

Sverdlik, A., Hall, N. C., McAlpine, L., & Hubbard, K. (2018). The PhD experience: A review of the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and well-being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies , 13 , 361–388. https://doi.org/10.28945/4113

Szumilas, M. (2010). Explaining odds ratios. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 19 (3), 227–229. http://www.csm-oxford.org.uk/ . Accessed 30th June 2021

Tinto, V. (2016). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8 (1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2190/4YNU-4TMB-22DJ-AN4W

van Rooij, E., Fokkens-Bruinsma, M., & Jansen, E. (2019). Factors that influence PhD candidates’ success: The importance of PhD project characteristics. Studies in Continuing Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2019.1652158

Visentin, S., Massaro, L., Viel, G., Cecchetto, G., & Montisci, M. (2019). Suicide identification during on-site inspection. Proposal and application of an interpretative method for death scene investigation. Forensic Science International, 297 , 148–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORSCIINT.2019.01.029

Volkert, D., Candela, L., & Bernacki, M. (2018). Student motivation, stressors, and intent to leave nursing doctoral study: A national study using path analysis. Nurse Education Today, 61 , 210–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.11.033

Wuensch, K. (2021). Binary logistic regression with SPSS . http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/SPSS/Logistic.sav . Accessed 20 Oct 2022

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Watson Building, Falmer, BN1 9PH, UK

School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, UK

Jeremy E. Niven

School of Psychology, University of Westminster, London, UK

Cassie M. Hazell

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clio Berry .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest.

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Berry, C., Niven, J.E. & Hazell, C.M. Predictors of UK postgraduate researcher attendance behaviours and mental health-related attrition intention. Curr Psychol 42 , 30521–30534 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04055-1

Download citation

Accepted : 17 November 2022

Published : 08 December 2022

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04055-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Doctoral student
• Mental health
• Perfectionism
• Supervision
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Map Options

PhD Percentage by Country / Number of Doctorate Degrees per Country 2024

1. slovenia.

Slovenia is the highest-ranking country in the number of Ph.D. degrees earned by adults between the ages of 25 and 64. 5% of the entire population in Slovenia has a Ph.D. The distribution between Ph.D. adults in Slovenia finds more female doctorates than males. About 4.5% of adult females have a Ph.D., compared to about 3% of adult males in Slovenia.

2. Switzerland

Switzerland has the second-highest rate of Ph.Ds. globally, with nearly 3% of the adult population holding this advanced degree. In Switzerland, men are more likely to hold a Ph.D., representing 4% of the total doctorate population, compared to about 2.5% for female doctorates.

3. Luxembourg

In Luxembourg, 2% of the total population holds a Ph.D. There are several countries tied for 2% of the population with a Ph.D., and almost all of the highly educated countries are in Europe . In Luxembourg, 2.5% of Ph.D. holders are male, compared to 2% female.

4. United States

The United States is tied with European countries when it comes to being a highly educated population. About 2% of the U.S. population holds a Ph.D. Men are more likely than women to have a Ph.D. in the United States, with 2.5% of the Ph.D. candidates male and about 2% female.

Like other countries on our list, Sweden is tied with 2% of the total population holding a doctorate degree. In this country, males and females are just about equal when it comes to this advanced degree. Around 2.5% of males have a Ph.D., while 2.2% of females hold a Ph.D. in Sweden.

6. The United Kingdom

Rounding out our list of highly educated countries with the most Ph.Ds., the United Kingdom has about 2% of the population holding a Ph.D. In the United Kingdom, males and females are pretty close to equal in higher education. Males account for more Ph.D. degrees, with about 2.5%, while females are close behind with nearly 2.3% Ph.Ds.

Another European country on our list of the most Ph.Ds., Germany, has about 2% of its population with a Ph.D. This country sees a more significant discrepancy between males and females when it comes to higher education. About 1.75% of males account for Ph.Ds. awarded, while only about 1% of females have their Ph.D. in Germany.

8. Australia

Breaking up the stranglehold at the top of our list between Europe and the United States, Australia makes the list with the 8th most Ph.D. citizens per capita. In Australia, 2% of the population holds a doctorate degree. Males and females are almost identical regarding Ph.Ds., with males just slightly earning a Ph.D. more frequently. Males account for 1.1% of Ph.Ds. in the country, while females account for 1.0% of the Ph.Ds. awarded in Australia.

Download Table Data

Enter your email below, and you'll receive this table's data in your inbox momentarily.

What country has the highest percentage of PhDs?

Frequently asked questions.

• What are the characteristics and outcomes of doctoral graduates? - OECD
• These countries have the most doctoral graduates - World Economic Forum
• List of countries by number of doctorates awarded - Wiki