Australian PhD students are being ¡°set up to fail¡± by a funding system that maximises enrolments while overlooking ¡°modest¡± employment prospects and ¡°questionable¡± research practices, according to a new paper.

An article in the journal argues that early career researchers (ECRs) tolerate bullying, harassment and job insecurity because there are simply too many of them.

¡°An oversupply of PhD graduates means tough competition for jobs, and that when ECRs are worn out they will be quickly replaced,¡± says the article, by researchers from Queensland University of Technology and Federation University Australia. ¡°Training many PhD graduates and ECRs for careers that do not exist is irrational.¡±

Australia graduates more doctoral students than most developed countries despite its below-average investment in research and development, with PhD numbers growing far more quickly than the number of academic jobs. The authors blame the formula used to award some A$2 billion (?1.1 billion) of annual block grants that support researcher training and indirect costs such as laboratories, consumables and technicians¡¯ salaries.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

Half this funding is allocated according to institutional PhD completion figures, the authors note, with block grant settings ¡°and access to cheap labour¡± encouraging Australian universities to maximise PhD enrolments. ¡°Only a PhD completion yields a dividend, potentially incentivising institutes to overlook candidate quality¡­to capture the completion dividend.¡±

The authors say that while R&D funding should be increased ¡°where feasible¡±, the formula for allocating block grants should be based on graduates¡¯ employment rates rather than their completions.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

¡°Programmes might be adapted to include broader training if graduate employment were a fundable metric,¡± the authors suggest. ¡°This approach might also function to reduce Australian PhD intake in fields in which employment is challenging.

¡°It may be better for both individuals and the nation to simply increase the barrier for entry into some PhD programmes ¨C instead of the current barrier, which is a limited capacity for research employment following PhD graduation.¡±

The trio of researchers penned the article after their?survey of more than 500 ECRs uncovered soaring workloads, plunging job satisfaction and ¡°worryingly common¡± research malpractice. Co-author Kate Christian, of Queensland University of Technology, said that while PhD students ¡°wouldn¡¯t necessarily agree¡± with any move to curtail their numbers, ¡°a decent stipend and a slower, more rounded education¡± would be in their long-term interests.

¡°Science at large would be better off if we had fewer students [and] a greater investment of time and money,¡± Dr Christian said.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

She said PhD students were ¡°launched into the world unprepared¡±, with expertise in highly defined specialties but lacking ¡°the rounded education they need to prepare them for life. The university needs them out the door and new ones in, and the supervisors don¡¯t have supervision [time] properly allocated. They too are too busy trying to be on the publication and grant treadmill.¡±

The paper calls for about one-fifth of research funding to be ¡°allocated to replication studies¡±, with a ¡°lottery¡± determining which research will be replicated. Authors of the original studies would be expected to ¡°cooperate and assist¡±. ?

¡°Many authors would be enthusiastic to see their results validated,¡± the paper says. ¡°Most authors would want to avoid replication failure and¡­this would motivate greater care in the evaluation and publication of datasets.¡±

The paper says it is ¡°irrational¡± for the global research community to spend ¡°billions¡± on science that is not being validated. ¡°Academic research requires an audit process.¡±

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com