Aim/PurposeThis study investigates how PhD candidates experience autonomy (i.e., self-governance and the capacity to make meaningful, self-directed choices) in their doctoral trajectory. It examines their expectations regarding autonomy, the various forms of autonomy they encounter during their doctoral trajectory, and the dynamics that make autonomy challenging.

BackgroundPhD candidates, akin to the academic world at large, navigate a tension between exercising autonomy and conforming to standardization and regulatory frameworks. Within this context, this study explores how PhD candidates manage to balance autonomy and freedom and strive to meet the high and rigorous standards of obtaining a doctoral degree. The theoretical framework for this study consists of Berlin’s (1969) Two concepts of liberty and self-determination theory.

MethodologyWe use qualitative data from nine focus groups and three one-on-one interviews with PhD candidates (n=42). Data are analyzed using thematic content analysis.

ContributionPrevious research highlighted the importance of autonomy in the doctoral trajectory and showed that autonomy can have different dimensions and characteristics. However, research on PhD candidates’ expectations regarding autonomy and how autonomy manifests itself in their trajectory is lacking, considering different dimensions of autonomy. This study contributes by exploring the expectations and experiences of autonomy among PhD candidates and variations herein across disciplines (i.e., life sciences and medicine, natural sciences and bioscience, engineering, and human sciences) and types of appointments (i.e., teaching assistants, personal mandate, or project funding). Literature also shows that autonomy in the work environment is not, by default, beneficial. A second contribution of this study is the identification of challenges and potential pitfalls associated with autonomy in the doctoral context.

FindingsFirst, PhD candidates deem autonomy essential for their research, as it requires creating new knowledge, being able to adapt to unforeseen events, and learning how to become an independent scholar. PhD candidates mainly expect autonomy in their control over time, freedom to develop themselves, and a sense of ownership over the project. However, their experiences predominantly reflect operational autonomy (i.e., autonomy regarding the conduct and organization of research) rather than strategic autonomy (i.e., autonomy regarding the research agenda and content). Second, there are explicit challenges and pitfalls associated with autonomy. PhD candidates mainly encounter “negative freedom,” and often experience autonomy as chaos, citing a lack of clear expectations, lack of control, lack of interaction, and lack of supervisory support as significant pitfalls. Two key dynamics contributing to these issues are the specific supervisor-supervisee relationship and conflicting role perceptions. Additionally, the study identified systematic differences in these matters across and within disciplines. These insights provide a nuanced understanding of the autonomy experienced by PhD candidates and highlight the need for institutions to rethink how they support PhD candidates in managing autonomy.

Recommendations for PractitionersThese findings indicate that institutions and supervisors should cultivate an environment wherein autonomy is experienced as positive freedom. Achieving this involves balancing academic freedom with accountability measures (such as training supervisors and co-supervisorship and providing regular feedback) to enhance the quality of supervision. Supervisors, in turn, can promote autonomy for PhD candidates by facilitating regular interactions, providing constructive feedback, and ensuring expertise alignment.

Impact on SocietyThe “publish or perish” culture, characterized by standardization and decision-making based on fixed performance measures, diminishes strategic autonomy for PhD candidates. Excessive operational autonomy can be perceived as chaos, challenging equitable opportunities and outcomes among PhD candidates. Furthermore, it exacerbates feelings of self-doubt and contributes to the development of imposter syndrome.

Future ResearchFuture research should explore how autonomy emerges from the dialogue between supervisors and PhD candidates. It should also investigate the support mechanisms supervisors require to be supportive of autonomy and examine how supervisors tailor their autonomy support to accommodate the heterogeneous group of PhD candidates. Furthermore, future research could focus on identifying and elaborating on additional dynamics that complicate dealing with autonomy within the doctoral context.