Conference Agenda

See information part 1

Doctoral employability has become a pressing concern as academic labour markets tighten and doctorates are increasingly positioned for careers beyond academia, yet many interventions still assume a broadly uniform doctoral experience and a generic “skills” gap (Holmes, 2013; Shin, Kehm & Jones, 2018). This paper argues instead that career preparation during the PhD is a stratified process of capital formation, shaped by unequal access to social, cultural, and institutional resources (Bourdieu, 1986; Tomlinson, 2017). Focusing on a Russell Group university in Southern England, the study examines how personal and contextual factors shape students’ opportunities to build and convert career-relevant capital, and how everyday academic norms can produce subtle forms of othering for those positioned as outsiders. Methodologically, the paper draws on a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design in which survey insights informed purposive sampling for qualitative interviews (Ivankova et al., 2006; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2017). It reports findings from 30 semi-structured doctoral interviews, including international and first-generation students, analysed using a six-phase thematic analysis approach with inter-coder comparison to strengthen analytic robustness (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Findings indicate three interlocking mechanisms that shape unequal career preparation. First, familial and classed resources transmit insider knowledge and networks that advantage more privileged students, while others describe heightened uncertainty and “trial-and-error” navigation (Bourdieu, 1986; Gardner and Holley, 2011). Second, supervision operates as a key conduit, or constraint, on opportunity: access to networks, encouragement, and “permission” to engage in career development varies across students and is experienced as particularly consequential by many international candidates (Tomlinson, 2017). Third, disciplinary and departmental resource differences privilege some pathways (especially STEM-linked opportunities) and restrict comparable capital-building options elsewhere. The paper concludes that doctoral career preparation should be treated as an equity and resource-distribution issue, not merely an individualised employability problem, with implications for culturally sensitive supervision, transparent resourcing, and targeted provision that widens access to career-building opportunities (Holmes, 2013; Tomlinson, 2017).

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Gardner, S., & Holley, K. (2011). “Those invisible barriers are real”: First-generation students through doctoral education. Equity & Excellence in Education. Holmes, L. (2013). Competing perspectives on graduate employability: possession, position or process? Studies in Higher Education. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Sequential explanatory mixed-methods design. Field Methods. Shin, J. C., Kehm, B. M., & Jones, G. A. (2018). Doctoral Education for the Knowledge Society. Tomlinson, M. (2017). Forms of graduate capital and graduate employability. Education + Training.

Introduction Doctoral education is increasingly scrutinised for its capacity to support inclusive and sustainable academic futures. Despite policy discourses emphasising meritocracy and excellence, doctoral systems often remain organised around implicit norms that privilege uninterrupted productivity, temporal flexibility, and disembodied academic subjectivities. This paper contributes to debates on the inclusiveness and future of the doctoral system by examining how gendered and classed inequalities are lived, negotiated and reproduced within doctoral trajectories. Background Drawing on feminist and sociological scholarship, the paper situates doctoral education within broader discussions on gender, class and academic identity formation. Concepts such as imagined futures, imposter syndrome, emotional labour, and care responsibilities are used to interrogate how doctoral systems continue to privilege particular life courses and academic subjectivities, while marginalising others (Ball, 2006; Walkerdine, 1989). Motherhood is approached not as an exceptional or individual circumstance, but as a critical analytical lens through which gendered and classed expectations of doctoral availability, productivity and belonging become visible (Ringrose, 2007; Goode, 2019). Methodology The paper adopts a feminist autoethnographic methodology, employing reflexive self-writing as both epistemological and analytical practice (Foucault, 1997). Autoethnography is used to connect lived doctoral experience with wider structural and institutional conditions, allowing personal narrative to function as data for theorising inequality within doctoral education. The analysis reflects on doctoral experiences shaped by working-class mobility, gendered academic cultures, supervision practices, imposter syndrome and the temporal and emotional pressures associated with doctoral motherhood. Expected Analytical Insights Rather than presenting empirical findings in the conventional sense, the paper offers analytically grounded reflections emerging from critical engagement with lived doctoral experience. The analysis reflects on how meritocratic doctoral cultures obscure unequal starting points and embodied constraints, producing doctoral subjectivities marked by misrecognition, exhaustion and precarious belonging (Ball, 2006; Walkerdine, 1989). Motherhood functions as a key site where the limits of linear, productivity-driven doctoral models are exposed, revealing how care, emotional labour and relational work remain systematically undervalued within doctoral education (Ringrose, 2007; Goode, 2019). Conclusion The paper argues for a re-envisioning of doctoral education that recognises diverse life histories, values emotional and care labour, and challenges narrow constructions of the “ideal” doctoral researcher, contributing to more inclusive doctoral systems and futures

Ball, S. J. (2006). Education policy and social class. London: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1997). Ethics: Subjectivity and truth. New York: The New Press. Goode, J. (Ed.). (2019). Clever girls: Autoethnographies of class, gender and ethnicity. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Ringrose, J. (2007). Successful girls? Complicating post-feminist, neoliberal discourses of educational achievement and gender equality. Gender and Education, 19(4), 471–489. Walkerdine, V. (1989). Counting girls out. London: Virago

There is increasing concern regarding doctoral researchers’ well-being, as levels of stress and anxiety have risen markedly across doctoral education systems (Levecque et al., 2017; Pervez et al., 2020; Woolston, 2019). Structural pressures associated with publish-or-perish academic cultures (Alvarez et al., 2014), particularly under conditions of economic and political instability, further exacerbate these challenges and constitute key factors contributing to heightened stress and anxiety among doctoral researchers (Müller, 2014; Pereira, 2016). In addition to systemic performance pressures, doctoral researchers often face isolation, precarity, and uneven supervisory support, which collectively intensify emotional and academic strain (Becerra et al., 2021). Responding to these structural conditions, peer groups increasingly emerge as informal yet significant sites of support alongside formal doctoral training structures (Flores-Scott, & Nerad, 2012; McAlpine & Amundsen, 2011; Nokkala et al., 2022). Rather than treating well-being as an individual responsibility, this perspective foregrounds collective, relational, and contextual dimensions of doctoral experiences, aligning with broader debates on inclusive doctoral education and diversified academic trajectories (Doody et al., 2017; Wibisono et al., 2024). Against this backdrop, this study examines how and under what conditions peer-led communities function as relational infrastructures within contemporary doctoral systems. The study employs a qualitative phenomenological methodology based on in-depth interviews with a total of 24 researchers participating in three peer-led groups: (1) a study-oriented peer group from Turkey, (2) an informal social support “tea” group from Scotland, and (3) a peer-support group including international doctoral students from Azerbaijan. The analysis focuses on participants’ lived experiences of peer support, meaning-making processes, and perceived impacts on their academic, emotional, and relational trajectories. Preliminary findings indicate that peer-led groups provide critical spaces for epistemic safety, mutual recognition, and vulnerability, particularly for researchers navigating uncertainty, marginalisation, or transnational academic contexts. These groups function as stabilising structures that compensate for gaps in formal doctoral provision, offering emotional containment, practical knowledge exchange, and collective sense-making. Beyond academic support, participants emphasise the importance of being recognised as ‘human,’ noting that peer spaces allow for the sharing of personal life experiences alongside research-related concerns, thereby humanising the doctoral experience. The study concludes that peer-led relational ecosystems should be understood not as supplementary or informal add-ons, but as integral components of inclusive doctoral systems. Recognising and supporting such collective structures has implications for rethinking researcher well-being policies, and the future sustainability of doctoral training.

Alvarez, B., Bonnet, J. L. & Kahn, M., (2014). Publish, not perish: Supporting graduate students as aspiring authors. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1141 Becerra, M., Wong, E., Jenkins, B. N., & Pressman, S. D. (2021). Does a good advisor a day keep the doctor away? How advisor-advisee relationships are associated with psychological and physical well-being among graduate students. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 4(4), 505–524. Doody, S., McDonnell, M., Reid, E., & Marshall, S. C. (2017). Doctoral peer writing groups as a means of promoting well-being. LEARNing Landscapes, 10(2), 145-157. https://doi.org/10.36510/learnland.v10i2.807 Flores-Scott, E. M., & Nerad, M. (2012). Peers in doctoral education: Unrecognized learning partners. New Directions for Higher Education, (157), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20007 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 McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2011). Doctoral education: Research-based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors and administrators. Springer. Müller, R. (2014). Racing for What? Anticipation and acceleration in the work and career practices of academic life science postdocs. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-15.3.2245 and more