The challenges of maintaining a professional identity as a Ph.D. student
As my (British) Ph.D. is, finally,
luckily, coming to its end, I was reminded the other day of a conversion with a colleague
about one particular challenge as a (development studies) Ph.D. student which often
has a significant impact on your academic, professional and personal
development: When you sign-up for a Ph.D. in most cases you are for all
practical and technical purposes a ‘student’ again. Most institutions don’t
really know what to do with your professional life before the Ph.D. and that
often leads to finding validation elsewhere – with the potential negative side
effect that the Ph.D. process takes longer and becomes more tiresome.
The nature of development
studies attracts many mid-career professionals. I had colleagues who were
professors/teachers at universities, directors of NGOs, country representatives of
INGOs and worked in ministries, multilateral organisations or Think Tanks - one even was a MP in his home country – in
short: they had a professional identity, institutional affiliation, a work plan, an office of sorts
and sometimes tedious meetings about minor institutional issues to attend.
There’s an argument that one of the reason for ‘going back to school’ is about
getting away from the stress, the routines, short-term-ness of the work or
even dangerous countries they worked/lived in. Students enjoy no longer having a
demanding boss, not having to attend weekly meetings and not being responsible
for a project/budget etc. But that’s a minority and the feeling of relief and
freedom rarely lasts for the 3-5 years that you will have to engage with the
Ph.D. Although I was relatively lucky that institutions like IDS include their
Ph.D. students in their research teams, within the broader context of the higher
education student experience you are pretty much on the same level as a first
year undergrad. You are not part of formal decision-making and nobody is likely to
approach you to ask ‘aren’t you that expert on [country]/[topic]?’. Even if you
can ‘upgrade’ to a teaching or research assistant, you are still unlikely to
engage with the institution beyond your class or literature overview. Many proposals
don’t include space/funding for Ph.Ds., decisions are made without prior
consultation and interesting meetings take place without you – because you
don’t work in the institute/department/university. Universities would
probably argue that there is a governance system for consultations and feedback
in place, but they also know full well that students, especially those who
conduct field research, will ‘disappear’ after a year or so. That outspoken and
critical student representative will last for an academic year and then s/he is
off to her fieldwork and upon return mounting pressure, changing personal
circumstances and new academic interests will deter him/her for getting
involved in university politics. In short, there is no risk for universities
for not taking advantage of their students’ potential and previous experiences.
Students are supposed to pay fees and want to get done with their thesis.
‘Your proposal sounds so interesting’ – the dangers of shallow academic
validation
One of the biggest challenges
is that after the first enthusiasm and two conferences where people approached
you and said ‘your proposal sounds so interesting and I look forward to reading
your articles’ there is little to no validation as part of the academic
experience. Engaging with students is great – but the routines of marking
papers and the ridiculously low pay make it difficult to get positive feedback
and self-esteem from the process. In all fairness, teaching often has more to
do with the fact of who came forward and was willing to do it, rather than a
selection process where academics other than your supervisor(s) looked at your
CV and said ‘we really want this person to teach this tedious “introduction to [something]”
class that everybody hates’. In short, there are very few incentives for
universities to engage with mid-career, professional students. But the question
is whether this is a good strategy. As (British) universities come under more
and more pressure to present the ‘right’ statistics of completion, student
satisfaction and academic outputs, Ph.D. students should become better
integrated into ‘the system’ - because otherwise they will seek validation
elsewhere. It’s part of human nature to seek approval and appreciation and the
Ph.D.- and university-experience offers little of that. That’s when a
consultancy, a trip to a distant conference venue or speaking at another
university become attractive alternatives even if they add little to the
overall progress and professional development of the student. I’m aware that
one key element of the supervisor’s job is to keep you on track with the
thesis, but that doesn’t solve issues around validation of expertise and
experiences. However, universities are unlikely to change anytime soon. They
are not losing anything by excluding professional, and potentially critical,
knowledge from their institution. Student numbers are high and growing and getting
a degree is the main purpose of the exercise anyway.
Future Ph.D. students: Be prepared to be sidelined - regardless of your non-student
identity
So I guess this is also a
cautious warning to potential Ph.D. students: Be prepared that your journey may
not be built on your previous career, professional experience and personal
insights. You will be a ‘student’, getting discounts at the swimming pool and
being eligible for a UK Railcard.
But you either have to work hard to be recognised as ‘colleague’ on the same level as formally employed colleagues or you disengage from institutional politics which seems difficult in a ‘politicised’, applied field like development studies. Participation, power analysis and good governance are well-known development buzzwords – but they often do not apply in your immediate context of ‘studying for a Ph.D.’.
But you either have to work hard to be recognised as ‘colleague’ on the same level as formally employed colleagues or you disengage from institutional politics which seems difficult in a ‘politicised’, applied field like development studies. Participation, power analysis and good governance are well-known development buzzwords – but they often do not apply in your immediate context of ‘studying for a Ph.D.’.
But this is only my experience and I wonder if some of my wise readers have different experiences or tips they want to share on how to manage the identity challenge?
As always, any feedback is most welcome and much appreciated!
P.S.: In case you are contemplating to embark on your own PhD journey, I can recommend my 'classic' post
Should I consider a PhD in International Development Studies?
As always, any feedback is most welcome and much appreciated!
P.S.: In case you are contemplating to embark on your own PhD journey, I can recommend my 'classic' post
Should I consider a PhD in International Development Studies?
I was happy enough to be treated as a student when I did my (Australian) PhD, but I'd only really had one year of full-time work after completing my undergrad -- though I had worked in the field of my studies during my undergrad too.
ReplyDeleteBut I have colleagues who are in the other boat: working as lecturers in the same organisation where they are studying for their PhD. I have the impression that they'd like to be students sometimes and not have to deal with the demands of their full-time job or have to meet the obligations that come with being regarded as a competent professional.
Africanus
ReplyDeleteMy experience as a doctoral student in law at US university is very similar to yours. Because it is a US doctoral program the first few years require coursework. Being a student again in that sense is great, its very stimulating to be on the other side of lecture. But it seems to reinforce the perception that one is somehow pre-professional.