Caught in between: The ambiguous status of PhD researchers

This blog was kindly authored by Dr Charlotte Fawcett, Research Associate at the University of Leicester and current HEPI Intern.

It is well established that PhD researchers in the UK often find themselves straddling the line between staff and students. In some ways, they are treated as students – for example through an exemption from paying council tax and access to a student ID card for discounts. The commonly used terminology of ‘PhD students’ also implies this student identity, despite the importance of their roles in contributing to global research. Yet in other ways, PhD researchers are treated as university staff. This occurs through the professionalisation of their roles, including probation periods, annual leave and designated office spaces. PhD researchers, therefore, fall into both student and staff groups in a situation-dependent manner.

This confusion around the status of PhD researchers leads to many difficulties when it comes to clarifying responsibilities. It can also cause issues with administrative services. Most concerningly, this ‘grey area’ between staff and students can mean that the voices of PhD students are not heard in either capacity.

The ambiguity can also confuse researchers themselves. A 2025 survey of Belgian PhD researchers found that 51% indicated that they saw themselves as employees, 17% as students and the remaining respondents as somewhere in between.

When it comes to financial matters, such as mortgages, PhD researchers are often treated as students. They are often the recipients of a tax-free stipend rather than a salary. The treatment of a stipend can vary widely across mortgage providers.

Some lenders will allow the use of 100% of the stipend when calculating affordability, while some only consider a percentage, reducing the amount which can be borrowed. For lenders who do consider the stipend, PhD researchers typically need at least 12 months left to be considered. Other lenders do not accept stipend income at all. This is usually because the stipend is considered temporary short-term income, with no evidence of long-term stability. This narrows the pool of options for PhD researchers when making decisions around house purchases, as they do not have the full range of lenders and the different products and rates available to them. Income assessments can also become confused when PhD researchers are receiving multiple sources of income (for example, a stipend, research grants and potential additional income from teaching and other commitments). Teaching is often a zero-hours contract, so it is often required to show long-term consistency in payments – something that can be difficult for PhD researchers with teaching responsibilities restricted to specific modules. Without regular teaching opportunities, they are unable to show the required consistency.

Many PhD researchers looking to purchase a home with a partner who has a regular income can overcome these obstacles. Others with part-time jobs, for example in teaching, may use this as their primary income on applications, with the stipend instead being considered secondary income. Alternatively, some find it easier to apply for a mortgage as they come to the end of their PhD and have a confirmed job lined up for afterwards.

To tackle this issue, some mortgage brokers have specialised in offering services for PhD researchers, understanding the challenges which can arise from their non-traditional income. However, as illustrated above, complexities remain within the system.

The situation with mortgages is just one example that shows, despite many of the professional responsibilities of PhD researchers in the teaching of undergraduate students and conducting world-class research, confusion over their status as students or staff can have real-world (and real-life) implications.

Another way in which PhD researchers are affected by their current status is that they also do not receive employer pension contributions. For some people, early-career contributions can have a significant impact on the growth of their pension funds and can influence their ability to retire. For PhD researchers who are not receiving employer pension contributions for 3+ years, this could have a long-term impact. While some students may be able to contribute to pensions through teaching contracts which consider them employees, these opportunities are not available to all PhD researchers.

Although the student status of PhD researchers can have some advantages in that their stipends are tax-free and they are exempt from council tax and National Insurance, PhD researchers are adults, some of whom have spent many years working before returning to education. The PhD model has also changed, with changes to the motivations and ages of PhD researchers. Paying taxes has been a regular part of life for many. PhD researchers are building their lives during their PhD: buying houses, getting married and having children. Doing all of this whilst living under the umbrella of student limits their ability to access services available to other adults.

This therefore raises an important question. Should PhD researchers be instead treated as staff and paid a salary, with access to a wide range of mortgage lenders and pension contributions, rather than navigating this confusing in-between state?

Some PhD researchers themselves have argued to be included as staff, believing that it may address current structural issues around workloads and financial considerations. Opponents, however, have highlighted other potential financial impacts, including to international PhD researchers studying on Tier 4 visas and a possible loss of access to student networks. The picture, even from PhD researchers, is unclear, demonstrating a clear need for further engagement in this area from PhD researchers, universities, funders and policy makers.

Making PhD researchers staff and paying them a salary rather than a stipend may solve these issues regarding mortgages and pensions, but will introduce new challenges. What is clear, though, is that certainty is required and the ambiguous status of PhD researchers needs to end.