Beyond the thesis: how PhD training is changing — and where it still needs to improve

This blog was kindly authored by Charlotte Fawcett, PhD Student in Genomic Epidemiology and Public Health Genomics at the University of Leicester and current HEPI Intern.

Over the last couple of decades, doing a PhD has significantly changed. While the core idea is still the same – carrying out original research under supervision – the experience of being a PhD student now looks very different from 20 years ago. One of the biggest shifts has been the growing emphasis on training alongside research.

There are a few reasons for this change. Firstly, there are simply more PhD students than ever before. As doctoral education has expanded, universities and funders have felt a stronger need to define what a PhD should include and what support students should receive. Training has become a key component of that conversation.

Secondly, there is now widespread recognition that most PhD graduates will not stay in academia. Many go on to careers in industry, policy, communications, education, or entirely different sectors. This has brought transferable skills – such as communication, project management, collaboration and problem solving – to the forefront. A PhD is no longer seen as preparation for a single career path, but as training for a wide range of futures.

Against this backdrop, a survey of 35 Wellcome Trust-funded PhD students and 10 PhD programme administrators, explored how PhD students experience training and where gaps might exist. While the study was limited in size, it offers a useful snapshot of how students and programme staff think about PhD training today.

What kinds of training were studied?

The survey looked at eight broad areas of training commonly offered to PhD students:

• Professional development, such as writing or presentation workshops.
• Wellbeing and support, including mental health resources.
• Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) training.
• Engagement and outreach, including science communication.
• Personal development and management, including time management and research integrity.
• Career development.
• Cohort-specific training, designed to bring students together.
• Technical training, which includes learning specialist software or lab techniques.

The role of programme administrators

When surveyed, administrators painted a picture of training as highly variable. While some areas – like technical, professional development, and wellbeing training – sometimes used external providers, most training was delivered in-house. Formats ranged from workshops and seminars to online modules and partnerships with other organisations.

Even though all PhD students surveyed were on programmes funded by the same organisation, the type, timing and consistency of training differed widely. This lack of standardisation means that two students on similar programmes could have very different training experiences.

The strengths

Overall, students said that training was both useful and important. Two areas stood out clearly: technical training and cohort-specific training. Almost all students agreed that technical training was valuable, regardless of their year of study. This makes sense – learning the tools and techniques needed for research is essential to making progress and building confidence. Cohort-specific training refers to training where Wellcome-Trust funded PhD students are trained together, at the same university, at the same time, using a training programme designed to meet to meet the requirements of PhD projects under a shared theme. This helps to strengthen the bonds between members of the cohort for peer support.

When students were asked to rank training by helpfulness, technical training came out on top, followed closely by professional development. In contrast, EDI training and wellbeing training were more often ranked near the bottom.

That does not necessarily mean students think these areas are unimportant. Instead, it may reflect how training is currently delivered. Some students may feel that wellbeing or inclusion support would be more effective if offered in different ways – for example, through access to counselling or clearer signposting to support services, rather than formal training sessions.

Encouragingly, most students felt positive about the bigger picture. Nearly 90 per cent believed their training would help them become good researchers, and three-quarters felt it would prepare them for careers outside academia.

The gaps

Despite these positives, students consistently highlighted areas where they wanted more support, including project management and personal development. Many PhD students find themselves juggling experiments, deadlines, teaching, and life outside research, often with little formal guidance on how to manage it all.

When invited to suggest future training topics, students mentioned careers advice, ethics, finances, grant writing, professional skills, and – once again – project management. These are practical concerns that directly affect day-to-day PhD life and long-term career prospects.

What can we learn from this?

The study had a small sample size and was limited by not having a pilot study. It captures only a narrow slice of PhD experiences, and more research – including the perspectives of supervisors – would help build a fuller picture. It also focuses on PhD students in the life sciences and it is unclear how these findings may translate to other fields of study.

That said, the findings point to some sensible recommendations including:

• Continue investing in high-quality technical training. Technical training is ranked the most highly rated training type and is important to student’s specific research.
• Rethink how wellbeing support is provided. Wellbeing support such as mental health resources were often ranked the least helpful of the eight categories, whilst being an area that students felt ill-equipped to manage, suggesting that a re-consideration of wellbeing support is required.
• Expand training in project management and personal development. Project management is an area highlighted where students wanted both more support and further training.
• Consider standardising core training across programmes. Surveying both students and programme administrators showed significant variation across different programmes, which influences students perceptions of training.

Taken together, these steps could help ensure that PhD training better reflects the realities of modern doctoral study – supporting students not just as researchers, but as people preparing for diverse and meaningful careers.