Uppsala University Political science C Bachelor thesis Autumn semester 2014

The Road Towards a Dissertation

A comparative study of working regulations for PhD students in Sweden and the United

Kingdom

Author: Ella Brodin Supervisor: Christina Bergqvist

  2  

Type of paper: Bachelor thesis, 15 credits

Pages: 41 including list of references and two appendixes

Title: The road towards a dissertation – a comparative study of working

regulations for PhD students in Sweden and the United Kingdom

Author: Ella Brodin

Supervisor: Christina Bergqvist

Date: October 2, 2014

Abstract: The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the differences between the working regulations for doctoral students at British and Swedish universities. Through a policy analysis of university and policy documents, laws and other regulations, the main differences are mapped out. The study reveals that there are major differences in the working conditions in the two countries, with the British doctoral students having significantly fewer rights and a high level of financial insecurity. The thesis demonstrates how the differences affect doctoral students differently depending on gender, and how this correlates to the social democratic and liberal welfare regimes.

Keywords: Higher education, PhD students, labour law, gender studies, doctoral studies, political science, policy analysis, Sweden, United Kingdom, welfare regime, social democracy

  3  

Table of contents Translations, phrases and abbreviations 4  Introduction 5  Purpose 6  Background 7

The  Swedish  Situation  for  Doctoral  Students   7    Theory 9  

Introduction   9  Comparing  Sweden’s  Social  Democratic  Welfare  Model  with  the  United  Kingdom’s  Liberal  Regime   9  Gender,  Welfare  Models,  and  the  University  Setting   11  

 Method 14  

Aims,  Special  Considerations,  and  Overview   14  University  Rankings  and  Sample  Selection   14  Policy  Analysis  at  National  and  Institutional  Levels   16  

 Results 18  

Overview  of  the  Regulations  for  Doctoral  Students  in  the  United  Kingdom  and  Sweden   18  Viewing  the  Doctoral  Candidate  as  a  Student  or  an  Employee   19  The  Doctoral  Students’  Roles  as  Teachers  or  Researchers   20  Financial  Security   20  Gender  and  The  Right  to  Parental  Leave   21  

 Analysis and conclusions 23  

General  Discussion   23  Analysing  the  Impact  of  Differences  in  Social  Rights  for  Doctoral  Students  in  Sweden  and  the  United  Kingdom   23  Exploring  Gendered  Dimensions  to  Regulatory  Discrepancies  and  their   25  Impacts   25  Exploring  Policy  Divergences  in  Relation  to  Welfare  Models   26  

 References 28  Appendix 1 34  

The  Universities’  Rights  to  Terminate  Doctorate  Studies   34  The  Research  Councils’  Policies  on  Terminating  Funding   37  Paternity  Leave  Regulations  of  Different  Research  Councils   38  Overview  of  Policies  Regarding  Parental  Leave  at  Specific  Universities  in  the  United  Kingdom   39  

Appendix 2 42  

  4  

Translations, phrases and abbreviations Statistics Sweden = Statistiska centralbyrån, SCB The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education = Högskoleverket, HSV Swedish Higher Education Authority = Universitetskanslersämbetet, UKÄ Försäkringskassan = Swedish Social Insurance Agency Postgraduate programme, doctoral programme and PhD programme are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Doctoral student, doctoral candidate and PhD student are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. The Swedish word högskolan, often used by Statistics Sweden, is in this text translated to higher education and should be understood as all universities and university colleges in Sweden. The six research councils that fund doctoral studies in the United Kingdom can be abbreviated in the following ways: Arts and Humanities Research Council, AHRC Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council, BBSRC Medical Research Council, MRC Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, EPSRC Natural Environment Research Council, NERC Science and Technology Facilities Council, STFC The European Higher Education Area, EHEA

  5  

Introduction Society has gone through a significant transition towards a knowledge-based economy, and the educational system has transformed together with it. Research and education are becoming more essential parts of everyday life in society. Sweden is at a historic peak in regards to the number of students enrolled in our universities1, and today, approximately 45% of Swedish youth enrol in universities within three years after finishing their upper secondary education2. In the time period between 1982 and 2002, the number of PhD students in Sweden more than doubled.3 It is not necessary to look far into the past in order to find tremendous differences in the regulations and conditions surrounding university studies. Up until 1982 all Swedish students holding an undergraduate degree were allowed to pursue doctoral studies, and it was not until the end of the 1980s that the universities had a responsibility to provide acceptable conditions in regards to supervision and general study conditions.4 Since 1998, students can only be accepted to PhD programmes in Sweden if funding for living expenses is provided throughout the period of their studies. 5 With more people involved in the educational system, it is becoming more important and relevant to have a broad and open understanding of the educational system and university policies. The Swedish government states that working with gender equality is a matter of quality assurance—that using and adapting to the competences, values, experiences and general situations in life of both genders is vital for meeting society’s need for high quality research.6 With the current regulations and funding situation for doctoral students, is it fair to say that the universities in the European Union are open and equal? This is a central question to this thesis that I am trying to answer. The Bologna Process is a series of agreements between European countries designed to ensure comparability and quality of higher education qualifications. From this process stems the fundamental view that the segmentation of the European higher education sector is out-dated and harmful for educational and research quality.7 Are policy makers in Europe working towards a more coherent system in how and why PhD students are accepted into universities? Some of the explicit goals of the Bologna Process are to work towards equal access and to broaden participation in higher education including increased flexibility in the academic programmes.8 Looking at the PhD programmes in Europe, are those goals being reached? With the Bologna Process in mind, I want to investigate how different the regulations for doctoral students are and in what way, using Sweden and the United Kingdom as examples.                                                                                                                1The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education. Trots smärre minskning – fortsatt historiskt många studenter på högskolan [Despite minor decrease – still historic amount of stents at university]. 2011. 2 Statistics Sweden, Övergång från gymnasieskola till högskola 2010/2011 [Transition from upper secondary school to higher education 2010/2011], 2012 3 Statistics Sweden. (2005) Universitet och högskolor - Forskarutbildning [Universities – Postgraduate education]. Utbildningsstatistisk årsbok 2005, p. 284 4 Swedish Higher Education Authority, Högre utbildning och forskning 1945-2005 – en översikt, 2006, p 33 5 Swedish Higher Education Authority, ibid, p. 36 6 Jacobsson and Gillström, Kvinnor och män i högskolan [Women and men in higher education], The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education, 2008, p. 7 7The European Higher Education Area, History, http://www.ehea.info/article-details.aspx?ArticleId=3, (Retrieved 2014-09-04) 8 an Haack, Braun et al, Mapping the goals of the Process, Aachen University, 2013, p. 6477 [p. 6]

  6  

Purpose The purpose of this bachelor thesis is to investigate the differences that exist between the regulations for doctoral students at British and Swedish universities. With my contribution to the research about higher education, the goal is to illustrate the effect that the national welfare system and labour market policies have on the working conditions for doctoral students. My contribution also has the goal to increase the understanding of the two educational systems’ similarities and differences. In this thesis, with the Bologna Process and discussions about streamlining the educational systems in mind, I have tried to find out if the doctoral students, as a group, have more in common with each other, regardless of which EU country they are active in, or if their working conditions are more related to the country in which they are active with their research. With this thesis, I also hope to raise questions regarding who are welcome to do research at European universities and for what purpose. The questions I am investigating are the following:

1. Which differences exist between Swedish and British doctoral students in regards to which social rights they have?

2. In what ways do the two systems treat their students equally or unequally based on gender?

3. How can these differences be explained? Through the use of policy analysis, I will, in this thesis, present the laws and regulations that control the working conditions and social rights for doctoral students at the universities in the two countries.

  7  

Background Throughout the last few years, heavy criticism has been directed towards the treatment of postgraduate students in the United Kingdom, as many students have been taken advantage of for unpaid work. The doctoral students are in a very vulnerable situation, as they often work under short-term employment contracts, and are to a large extent expected to work without pay. The students who do get paid for tutoring and teaching rarely get paid for the work they do preparing to teach, which leads to very low actual hourly wages.9 A study done by University and College Union, published in UCU Survival Guide for hourly-paid staff, reveals that the teaching salary for doctoral students averages less than £5 per hour, compared to the British minimum wage of £7.20 per hour.10 Jenny Thatcher, a PhD student at University of East London, is highly critical towards the system, and claims it only benefits the research students who are privileged enough to be able to work for free. She also is of the opinion that it disadvantages women, as many women tend to work part-time due to domestic responsibilities and are less able to work for free.11

The notion that female doctoral students in the United Kingdom are especially vulnerable is confirmed by research being conducted within the field. In the article “Understanding the experiences of female doctoral students”, Brown and Watson conclude that female researchers often feel marginalised and excluded within academia, which has led to high levels of stress and low confidence.12 Motherhood has a great influence on the doctoral studies in the United Kingdom. This is mainly due to two reasons: First, because the time for studying is dictated by the demands of the household, and secondly because balancing academic life and domestic life has led to further stress and worry.13 Women in the United Kingdom are significantly more likely to conduct their research on a part-time basis and are older than men when enrolling in PhD programmes. Due to the late start of their studies, women have fewer years overall as employees within academia.14 Similar research done in the United States shows that women with a child under age 6 are 22% less likely to obtain a tenure-track position after graduating with a PhD.15 The Swedish Situation for Doctoral Students In Sweden, there is also a high discrepancy between the working situation for men and women. The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education’s report Doktorandspegeln 2008 reveals that women are discontent with their studies to a higher extent than men and that 25% of women have experienced that they have been treated in a negative way due to their gender. Only 6% of men have experienced the same thing.16

                                                                                                               9 Couvée. (2012-05-27). Postgraduate students are being used as 'slave labour'. The independent 10 University and College Union. (2011). UCU Survival Guide for hourly-paid staff. p. 9 11 Couvée (2012-05-27) 12 Lorraine Brown & Pamela Watson (2010) Understanding the experiences of female doctoral students, Journal of Further and Higher Education, p 387 13 Brown & Watson, p 387 14 Brown & Watson, p 392 15 Brown & Watson, p 387 16 The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education. (2008), Doktorandspegeln 2008, Rapport 2008:23 R  

  8  

Something that should be noted about Sweden’s doctoral education is that a large majority of the PhD students are satisfied with their education. 80% of the PhD students in The Swedish National Agency of Education’s survey, where more than 6,000 students from Swedish universities participated, gave their doctoral education the grade good or very good. The proportion of satisfied students was higher among international students, which could be interpreted that the Swedish regulations and working conditions are better than expected given the academic environment that the doctoral students previously have studied in.17 Men feel accepted by the research community to a higher extent than women do. Regarding doctoral studies in combination with parenthood, the following can be read:

“Approximately seven out of ten are married or co-habiting with a partner – 74% of the women and 72% of the men. Four out of ten doctoral students states that they have children under the age of 18 living with them (42% of the women and 38% of the men). On the question “To what extent do you perceive that parental leave is generally accepted within your doctoral education?” nearly two-thirds answer “to a high extent” or “to a very high extent”. There are, however, doctoral students who don’t experience that parental leave is generally accepted – 3% answer “to a very small extent/not at all” and 12% “to a small extent”. 21% answers “don’t know”. There are no large differences between the genders, but among men 35% answered “to a very high extent”, compared to women’s 31%, while there are more women who answered “to a small extent”, 13% of the women compared to 10% of the men.”18

In Sweden, the female doctoral students are typically older than men, but the difference in age is smaller in Sweden compared to the United Kingdom. The median age for female doctoral students in Sweden is 34, while the median age for men is 32. Stress levels do not seem to be correlated with how their studies are financed in Sweden. The exceptions are the few PhD students with assistant employment (“assistenttjänst”) or studiemedel (from CSN), who in a higher extent experience stress.19 A report published at Uppsala University shows that female doctoral students are expected to do more uncompensated administrative work than their male colleagues, something that contributes to stress. International doctoral students at Uppsala University are surprised by the possibilities that exist that would allow them to have children during their studies, something that would not have been possible in their home countries.20

                                                                                                               17  The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education. (2008), Doktorandspegeln 2008, Rapport 2008:23 R  18 The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education. (2008), Doktorandspegeln 2008, Rapport 2008:23 R 19  The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education. (2008), Doktorandspegeln 2008, Rapport 2008:23 R 20 Appel, Monika. (2008). Arbetsförhållanden för doktorander som är kvinnor: En intervjustudie, Uppsala: Enheten för kvalitet och utvärdering. Uppsala universitet, p 13-15  

  9  

Theory Introduction Undertaking this exploration requires either the invocation or development of robust, empirically validated, theoretical frameworks. This task is somewhat more challenging than it might appear at first glance: because it is the aim of the thesis to make a novel research contribution with respect to variations in students’ experiences in graduate school, and the analysis must necessarily take on something of a multidisciplinary character. After all, it is not only politics, policy, and legislation that shape these experiences, but, indeed, market forces informed by a range of micro-and-macro-economic factors appear to play a determining role as well, particularly with respect to work, competition, and (of course) compensation. Yet another layer is added when gender is considered as a central variable. Thus, it is not unreasonable to question whether, and how, this array of narrative threads can by synthesised into a rigorous analysis that is, if not totally comprehensive, at least meaningful. In order to address this difficulty, the current thesis employs a unique approach, grounding its analysis in theoretical frameworks derived from the study of welfare states. After all, the disparate experiences of doctoral students in the United Kingdom and Sweden can be conceptualised as derivative effects of social spending paradigms. The theoretical discussion begins with background and contextualisation in the form of an exploration into the respective welfare models of the United Kingdom and Sweden, using the welfare state typologies of Esping-Andersen (1990). Next, a comparative critical analysis of these two welfare regimes is undertaken. Invoking Diane Sainsbury’s groundbreaking work brings the topic into a surprisingly crisp focus by adding a gendered dimension to the discussion. Drawing upon her 1996 Gender, Equality, and Welfare States (among other works), it is arguable that university dynamics—especially those related to the rights, obligations, and compensation of graduate students—reflect larger variations in state welfare models and labour markets. Comparing Sweden’s Social Democratic Welfare Model with the United Kingdom’s Liberal Regime In his book The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (1990), Esping-Andersen argues that contemporary conceptual approaches for comparative welfare state research are fundamentally lacking—particularly with respect to a nagging inability to present consistent and reliable criteria for distinguishing between different types.

“The welfare state cannot be understood just in terms of the rights it grants. We must also take into account how state activities are interlocked with the market’s and the family’s role in social provision. These are the three main principles that need to be fleshed out prior to any theoretical speciation of the welfare state.”21

                                                                                                               21 Esping-Andersen. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, p. 163

  10  

Thus, Esping-Andersen proposed a formulation of social rights, measurable by three variables: the elimination of a citizen’s dependence on the market (i.e., “a de-commodification of the status of individuals” vis-a-vis the market)22, class stratification as a function of social spending policy, and the way in which states and markets intersect. He concluded that modern capitalist nations could be broadly grouped into one of three regime types: liberal market, social democratic, or corporatist-statist. Sainsbury offers an eminently functional summary of these categories, one much more concise than Esping-Andersen himself:

“Very briefly, the liberal welfare state regime is characterized by heavy reliance on means tested programs, modest social insurance benefits, market solutions in the form of occupational welfare... and private insurance. In the conservative welfare state regime, social insurance schemes are central but they are differentiated according to class and status [and are] designed to maintain the status quo... The social democratic regime is typified by universal benefits and services covering the entire population, a weakening of the influence of the market in distribution, and a strong commitment to full employment.”23

By wide agreement, Sweden’s welfare regime is generally considered to fall under the social democratic heading. Rothstein, for instance, argues that no other Western country has been as strongly shaped by the political influence of social democracy as Sweden.24 Meanwhile, Lindbom holds pre-1980’s Sweden up as “the most highly developed welfare state,” and notes that its major attributes of “generosity, universality, and developed welfare services” showed an astounding resilience even in the wake of the budgetary crisis of the 1990’s.25

“As a consequence [of the political influence of social democracy], Sweden stands out as an extreme on many standard measures used in comparative politics, such as public spending, degree of unionization, and voting turnout. One of the more important features of [the Swedish model] was an unusually close collaboration between the state and major interest organizations in the preparation as well as in the implementation of public policies.” 26

As it turns out, this state of affairs makes for a highly coherent, organised and intelligible welfare apparatus.27The Ministry of Employment is tasked with regulating the labour market, which unabashedly seeks to achieve full employment for its citizenry by engaging active labour market measures.28 Similarly, education—notably including the public university system—falls under the purview of the Ministry of Education and Research. While each of these bodies is tasked with upholding and enhancing the well-being of the public, welfare, as colloquially defined, tends to imply specifically social welfare—health care, financial safety

                                                                                                               22 Esping-Andersen. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism, p. 163 23 Sainsbury. (1996). Gender, equality and welfare states, p. 12 24 Rothstein. (2001). Social capital in the social democratic welfare state, p. 171 25 Lindbom. (2001). Dismantling the Social Democratic Welfare Model? Has the Swedish Welfare State Lost Its Defining Characteristics?, p. 171 26 Rothstein. (2001). Social capital in the social democratic welfare state, p. 208 27 Sainsbury describes Sweden as “the comprehensive welfare state.” (Gender, equality and welfare states, p. 31) 28 Sainsbury. (1996). Gender, equality and welfare states, p. 32  

  11  

nets, and disability assistance. The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs administers these areas. Describing the organisational scheme of the Swedish regime, however, fails to demonstrate the sheer scale of these programs, which are so comprehensive and well-integrated that “medical services, education at all levels, day care, family services, and transport have largely assumed the character of public goods” in Sweden.29 In sum, the Swedish welfare system is renowned for its sheer scope - it is generous, universal, and deeply egalitarian. Like the Swedish welfare regime, that of the United Kingdom comprises labour and education in addition to direct social welfare spending as classically conceived. Indeed, the United Kingdom’s approach to these first two areas bears a surprising degree of similarity with that of Sweden’s. “With respect to services,” Sainsbury notes, “the UK and Sweden revealed similarities in the marginal role of private provision in education and the health services.” 30 Furthermore, the two systems closely resemble one another “in the extent to which state institutions have been responsible for the administration and delivery of services.”31 Despite these homologies, a closer examination reveals structural discrepancies as well. The British model relies on a sometimes-contested combination of national insurance and social assistance in order to achieve its universally available healthcare. This opens the door not only to bureaucratic red tape but for private marketplaces to occasionally intrude as well. Furthermore, rather than striving for the egalitarianism of the Swedish model, the United Kingdom employs a welfare paradigm based on the assumption that the state should act as a safety net, catching those in need, rather than actively and universally seeking to enhance the quality of life for all citizens. As a result, insurance benefits tend to provide low levels of assistance, and benefits, in kind “have generally been targeted to low income groups and the socially deprived.”32 Furthermore, the British welfare model has undergone considerable alteration since the 1980’s, with a significant shift in the direction of private and means-tested benefits, that has had a largely negative effect on national insurance benefits. (As mentioned previously, the Swedish welfare regime faced a budgetary crisis in the early 1980’s, and serious cuts in funding were made; even so, its level of benefits dwarfs that of the United Kingdom). Gender, Welfare Models, and the University Setting These structural differences take on a new salience when viewed through the lens of gender, particularly because of a growing body of literature suggesting that men and women access different types of welfare benefits at different rates. In the United States and United Kingdom, for instance, men are more likely to receive social insurance benefits than women, while women “often must rely on means-tested programmes, and frequently their claims to insurance benefits are via their husband.” 33Sweden’s profound commitment to equality and universality of access has resulted in a break in this pattern of segregation—which is to say, men and women enjoy access to benefits in a more egalitarian way. This underpins Sweden’s appeal as a subject for the current analysis.                                                                                                                29 Sainsbury. (1996). Gender, equality and welfare states, p. 32  30 Sainsbury. (1996). Gender, equality and welfare states, p. 24 31 Ibid 32 Ibid 33 Sainsbury. (1993). Dual welfare and sex segregation of access to social benefits: income maintenance policies in the UK, the US, the Netherlands and Sweden, p. 69  

  12  

There are historical as well as cultural reasons for these phenomena, of course. “In most modern Western welfare states, women have historically received benefits and provisions as wives and mothers (i.e., as unpaid workers)”.34The etiology of this state of affairs is complex, but the fact of its existence is profoundly relevant. After all, expanding access to social services draws women into the labour force and bolsters economic development.

“Increasing female enrolment in higher education... has been positively associated with each of these factors. The reason for the link is the change in attitudes toward working women that accompanies expansion of higher education, a change that goes beyond the participating women themselves” 35

At the same time, the problem must be analysed from the perspective of the individual: differential access to social services and benefits leads—perhaps unsurprisingly—to different behaviours. If gender is the variable mediating this differential access, then it is reasonable to expect that a difference in behaviour might be observable between men and women in the context of higher education. Although the connection might appear circuitous at first, it is actually fairly intuitive. Sweden’s social democratic welfare model is highly inclusive, and access is granted on the basis of citizenship, whereas the United Kingdom’s liberal model is marginally less coherent. As a function of these different approaches to social welfare (as distinct from educational policy itself), the participation rate of women in higher education in Sweden has historically exceeded that of the United Kingdom—a state of affairs that is precisely reproduced in the respective labour markets of these countries.36 The issue of the exploitation of graduate students in the United Kingdom, meanwhile, occurs at this very intersection: that between educational institutions and the labour force. Consider the use of postgraduate students as “slave labour” in the United Kingdom, which was briefly referenced in the background chapter of this thesis. Labour market dynamics limit the availability of workers in a certain category (e.g., those with terminal degrees). Universities struggle to keep costs down, but limited supply and growing demand makes employing these workers costly. Doctoral students have skills that approximate those of the employed professors, but they also constitute a vulnerable population that has invested a substantial amount of time in pursuing education rather than accruing income, and are therefore leveraged into the unenviable position of working long hours for substandard pay. The degree to which this cost-cutting strategy is effective is, of course, contingent on the willingness of doctoral candidates to participate, a function of this population’s perception of its own vulnerability—which is, in turn, influenced by the availability of social services. In review, there is a substantial body of theoretically grounded, empirical evidence indicating the that features of a given state’s welfare model can influence the participation of women in both the labour force and higher education. Doctoral students serving in poorly compensated, quasi-professorial capacities effectively constitute a labour force within higher education—a labour force whose availability is determined by the vulnerability of its members.                                                                                                                34 Fink & Clarke. (2001). Rethinking European welfare: Transformations of European social policy 35 Ruggie. (1984). The state and working women: A comparative study of Britain and Sweden, p. 31-2 36 Ibid. p. 33

  13  

Thus, a comparison of the experiences of graduate students in the United Kingdom versus those in Sweden can be used to shed light, not only on obvious factors, such as the relative strength of the educational systems themselves, but also on subtler ones. One such factor is the impact gender has on graduate students’ perception of their own vulnerability in each context, especially as a function of the welfare regimes that define and determine that vulnerability.          

   

  14  

Method Aims, Special Considerations, and Overview The interdisciplinary nature of our exploration has raised interesting issues for the development of a research methodology. At the same time, the existence of these challenges serves to highlight the importance of designing a systematic, coherent, and theoretically grounded research methodology in order to obtain results that are consistent, valid, interpretable, and, above all, meaningful. “Although the utility of comparative policy studies is generally acknowledged,” writes Leichter, “no such agreement has developed concerning the best way to approach the matter.”37 The line of inquiry relies heavily upon a mixed-method evaluation design, and, as such, owes a debt to the work of Greene, Caracelli, and Graham, which begins to develop and present possible frameworks capable of guiding mixed-method research.38 To this end, a multi-pronged research methodology was constructed, the core of which is grounded in the theory and methods of comparative policy analysis. An instant problem that occurred when trying to compare the national policies of the two countries, was the perhaps obvious realisation that the United Kingdom – being a liberal, decentralised welfare regime – has a pronounced absence of the type of national regulations that pervades the academic world in Sweden. In order to gain an understanding of which regulations actually govern the doctoral students at British universities, it became necessary to look at the policies on an institutional level. Research occurred in several distinct phases; these are described in greater detail below, but in the interest of context, an overview is provided here. First, relevant national regulations, both general regulations and those from specific research councils, were selected. Second, universities were ranked by four distinct methods; those consistently identified as high-performing institutions were selected for data collection. Next, the range of variation in regulations governing doctoral studies in the United Kingdom and Sweden was examined. At the national level, policies surrounding maternity and paternity leave, employment, funding and termination were compared. The policies regarding parental leave allowed for the introduction of the dimension of gender into the analysis. Next, a comparison was made of how, and to what extent, these policies were replicated at the institutional level, by examining individual universities’ policies. University Rankings and Sample Selection Considering the relatively high level of decentralisation that permeates British universities, it was necessary to look at specific universities for additional data collection. Rather than making a random sample of universities, it was decided that a purposeful sample would examine data from top institutions. By doing so, it ensured that the data that was obtained was from institutions of comparable calibre, as several Swedish universities (whose regulations are indirectly looked at) also qualify as “top universities” by the same definitions. Another appeal of looking specifically at top institutions is the relevance – because they are top institutions, they are more interesting for both the world of academia as well as the general public.

                                                                                                               37 Leichter. (1979). A comparative approach to policy analysis: health care policy in four nations. 38 Greene, Caracelli, and Graham. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational evaluation and policy analysis  

  15  

But how does one define a “top” university? A hybrid ranking system comprised of multiple scales was created. First, the system combined the results of three independent, private university ranking organisations: QS, the Times Higher Education, and the Shanghai Rankings. These ranking systems are reviewed briefly below; please see appendix 2 for a more comprehensive discussion of specific features of their methodologies, as well as for figures illustrating relative score category weights. QS employs both survey-based and research methodologies. Universities are scored in five weighted categories (academic reputation, employment reputation, student/faculty ratio, citations per faculty member, proportion of students that are international, and proportion of faculty that are international), which are then combined into an aggregate score. Academic reputation, for instance, is assessed based on survey responses by academics from around the world, which are asked to identify the institutions where the best research in their field is occurring. Employment reputation is also based on global survey data, where employers are asked to comment on their perceptions of the quality of graduates from various universities worldwide. With respect to assessing citations per faculty member, QS uses Web of Science Thomson Reuters, Scopus from Elsevier, and Google Scholar; self-citations are excluded. The Times Higher Education rankings employ a closely related approach. Scores are broken down into five weighted categories: teaching, research, citations, industry income, and international outlook. The broad “teaching” and “research” categories are broken down into multiple component sub-indicators, comprising survey results as well as published statistics, such as student to teacher ratio and total institutional income scaled against academic staff numbers. Industry income measures the university’s capacity to help industry with innovations, consultancy, and inventions. Shanghai Rankings break their scores into six categories: quality of faculty (awards), quality of faculty (highly cited), research output in the natural sciences, research output in the social sciences, per capita academic performance, and alumni. Unlike the two ranking scales listed above, Shanghai Rankings place an emphasis on formal accolades for achievements: the “alumni” category, for instance, gauges the number of alumni who are either Nobel Laureates or who have received field medals, while the quality of faculty (highly cited) category contains the total number of researchers across 21 subject categories who have the distinction of being the most cited in their subject. In order to further strengthen the case for universities’ relevance to academic as well as in the popular consciousness, one more data source were incorporated into the ranking scheme of the current research. First, top-performing universities that consistently appeared on lists generated by the three ranking systems discussed above (QS, Times Higher Education, and Shanghai) were ranked. Next, a Google search using these universities’ names as key words was performed. The number of hits returned again ranked the universities, and the numbers show a distinct difference between the universities that are defined as top universities by all three ranking systems and those who are not.

  16  

Name of British university Google Hits on September 3, 2014

University of Cambridge 80.3 million University of Oxford 63.8 million Imperial College London 12.5 million King's College London 16 million University of Edinburgh 39.4 million University of Sussex 1.59 million Royal Holloway 1.04 million Queen Mary University of London 5.76 million University of East Anglia 9.3 million This mixed-method design incorporates survey data with a range of quantitative performance and visibility measures. Thus, it demonstrates multiplicity, a key aspect of mixed-method research wherein the results of different but conceptually related avenues of inquiry are integrated in order to enhance the validity of results. The degree to which the design takes advantage of triangulation (“the designed use of multiple methods with offsetting or counteracting biases”39) is debatable. While the method for identifying high-profile, top-tier research universities appears to be robust and reliable, there is a possibility of minor distortion of rankings due to combining multiple measures of the same phenomenon—for instance, an institution’s size necessarily impacts its student to teacher ratio, but it also impacts the likelihood that the institution will generate a Nobel laureate. Policy Analysis at National and Institutional Levels Armed with a sample, vetted for relevance as well as academic performance, the task of comparative policy analysis bears discussion. The core of the analysis is on financial security and social mobility, with parental leave and paid leave in special focus. This facilitates the introduction of gender as a dimension along which analysis can occur. For completeness, the analysis is undertaken in two scales, comparing policies at both the national and institutional levels. The regulations for PhD candidates has been analysed along five dimensions: student or employee, teacher or researcher, financial security, gender, and finally, as a parent. This analysis examined the degree to which teaching responsibilities are contained within the curricula of a PhD programme, as well as how funding is obtained. Funding policies form the crux of the current exploration. The guidelines surrounding funding function as part of very different systems in Sweden and the United Kingdom, making comparative analysis an interesting task. The five dimensions have therefore functioned as an appropriate framework when approaching the differences. The different national research councils’ policies on parental leave were examined. Special attention was paid to divergence from each other, level of detail, and gender-based limitations of qualifications. Wide variation in the treatment this situation received at the both council and institutional level made this level analysis particularly challenging. Thus, Yanow’s important qualification with respect to a focus on hard procedures in policy analysis was kept in mind:                                                                                                                39  Greene, Caracelli, and Graham. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational evaluation and policy analysis  

  17  

“There has been a tendency in some discussions of symbolic politics to treat that concept as distinct from ‘real’ politics, as if symbols and their meanings were not ‘real’ or as if material redistributions and instrumental actions were the only ‘real’ elements of policy and policy acts. The distinction is erroneous and misleading. Policies and political actions are not either symbolic or substantive. They can be, and often are, both at once.”40

Thus, it is important to keep in mind that there is a potential for deliberate vagueness with respect to parental leave policies, allowing both universities and funding councils to demonstrate certain values symbolically without providing strict frameworks for their implementation. Because of this, the research design incorporates room for comparative critical analysis that is more verbal than quantitative as well.

                                                                                                               40 Yanow. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society, p. 244

  18  

Results Overview of the Regulations for Doctoral Students in the United Kingdom and Sweden Dimensions Sweden The United Kingdom Student or employee The majority of PhD students

are employed directly by their universities, and they have many of the same social rights as other university employees. It is very difficult for a university to get rid of a PhD student, while funding in some cases can be cut.

PhD students are never employed to do their research, and work on a short-term basis with unreliable work contracts. There are many ways for a university to get rid of or fire a PhD student, and the research councils can easily cut funding.

Teacher or researcher Teaching is an integrated part of the studies, with 20% the PhD programme dedicated towards teaching undergraduate students.

The PhD programmes are more aimed at research. Teaching is an ”added bonus”, needed for the experience for a post doc but something that most doctoral students undertake outside of their ordinary studies.

Financial security The universities are legally responsible for ensuring that the doctoral student has funding covering living expenses throughout their studies.

The universities offer both funded and unfunded PhD programmes, meaning that some students have financial security while others do not. Funding rarely cover the entire period of studies.

Gender Men and women have equal regulations regardless of gender, and equal access to paid parental leave.

Men and women have different regulations for leave and absence depending on gender. Only women have a guaranteed right to be on paid parental leave.

As a parent Both employed students and those on education grant get the same benefits as employees when it comes to parental leave. Parents are treated equally regardless of gender.

The possibility to be absent from studies varies greatly. Some fathers only have access to unpaid leave. All parents have unpaid leave if they want to care for their child longer than 6 months. Research councils are not required to extend the funding according to the length of absence.

  19  

Viewing the Doctoral Candidate as a Student or an Employee In the United Kingdom, the doctoral students are not employees. The students are doing their degree with a focus on research studies and paid work is not included in the degree programmes. Some doctoral students are even subject to paying tuition fees. 41 Most universities offer possibilities for the individual doctoral student to pursue work that is academically related, teaching undergraduate students being the most common one. Other academically related work includes supervising undergraduates, working in the university library, monitoring exams, or demonstrating in a laboratory. However, it is not a right of the doctoral student to pursue these jobs or other forms of employment. The student will often need approval from their supervisor, and does the work outside of the scope of their full-time education.42 In Sweden, many doctoral students are full-time employees of the universities. In 2013, the universities directly employed 63% of all doctoral students in Sweden.43An additional 6% are currently funded by an educational grant, which means that they will progress into employment within a year.44 Only 8% of the doctoral students are funded by scholarships, while the remaining students most commonly are funded through externally paid employment.45The employed PhD students can teach or do other administrative tasks up to 20% of their employment, while the remaining time is focused on their own education. Their employment is always a full-time position unless the student requests otherwise, and the minimum employment is 50% of full-time.46 The working regulations for doctoral students in Sweden give them many rights of a normal university employee. The salary for an employed student usually varies between SEK 23,000-26,000 (approximately £2000-2200) a month, with an annual increase as they progress in their studies. They also receive pension, paid sick leave, unemployment insurance and a minimum of 28 days of paid vacation.47Swedish doctoral students can also stay home on a temporary basis in order to care for sick children and extend their graduation date accordingly.48 The Swedish universities have very few possibilities to prematurely terminate the studies of a doctoral student. The law only allow it in cases where the student in question is mentally ill, abuse drugs, or has been convicted of a serious crime.49 In the United Kingdom there are several possibilities for the universities to let go of a PhD student that they are unsatisfied with. At British universities, a probation period for all PhD students is standard.50

                                                                                                               41 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2011). The UK doctorate: a guide for current and prospective Doctoral candidates. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/Doctorate_Guide.pdf (Retrieved online 2014-02-20) 42 University of Cambridge. (2014) Prospective Graduate Students. http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/students/gradadmissions/prospec/ 43 Swedish Higher Education Authority, Ekonomiska villkor, http://www.doktorandhandboken.nu/attdoktorera/ekonomiskavillkor.4.1f7a9c7912be2e5415380001781.html (Retrieved 2014-09-30) 44 Ibid 45 Swedish Higher Education Authority, Finansiering, http://www.doktorandhandboken.nu/finansiering.4.1f7a9c7912be2e5415380001171.html (Retrieved 2014-09-30) 46 Högskoleförordningen SFS 1993:100, Förordning (2002:139), Förordning (2014:1012) 47 Swedish Higher Education Authority, Löner och avtal, http://www.doktorandhandboken.nu/finansiering/anstallningsomdoktorand/lonerochavtal.4.3e31964212bf6bc75be80001195.html (Retrieved 2014-09-30) 48 Lund University, Föräldraledighet http://www4.lu.se/internt-biologi/personaladm-/ledighet/foeraeldraledighet (Retrieved 2014-09-30) 49 Swedish Higher Education Authority, Avskiljande http://www.doktorandhandboken.nu/rattigheterochstod/avskiljande.4.1f7a9c7912be2e5415380002421.html (Retrieved 2014-09-30) 50 See Appendix 1

  20  

The Doctoral Students’ Roles as Teachers or Researchers The view on the doctoral students’ roles as teachers or researchers correlates with their form of employment. As most of the doctoral students in Sweden are employed by their universities, teaching is a highly integrated part of their education. The national regulations of doctoral students set by up the Swedish government allocate a maximum of 20% of the students’ working hours towards teaching and other administrative tasks. It is, therefore, very common at Swedish universities that PhD students are active in undergraduate teaching.5152In the United Kingdom, many PhD students are involved in undergraduate teaching, but it varies greatly depending on institution. For some, it is only an extra-curricular activity that is encouraged by the departments. For others, it is integrated into their degree but payment varies. Unpaid teaching, as a part of the PhD programme, is not uncommon. 5354 Financial Security In Sweden, doctoral students are guaranteed funding throughout the time of their studies. If a student were to lose his or her funding, the university would be obligated to stand in and offer other forms of funding to the student.55 Doctoral students who receive their funding in the form of educational grants, utbildningsbidrag, will earn a minimum of SEK 15,500 (approximately £1300) per month, and will become employed by the university when less than three years remains of their studies.56 In comparison, the annual national minimum doctoral stipend in the United Kingdom is £13,796 (approximately SEK 161,500), which equals to £1144 per month (approximately SEK 13,460).57 In the United Kingdom, doctoral students are personally responsible for paying both their own living expenses as well as tuition fees. These fees, if existing, can vary between universities. The individual institutions are able to advise their students on different forms of funding possibilities – this includes research council funding, institution funding, charitable or private funding, collaborative funding, employer funding, and self-funding. Some students pursue PhD studies without any funding, meaning they support themselves in other ways throughout their studies. The doctoral students can work at their institutions, but the work is often limited to a maximum of 6 hours per week, in order to not interfere with their studies. As a result, working to support oneself during one’s doctoral studies is difficult.58 International overseas doctoral students are not allowed to work more than 10 hours a week according to regulations set by United Kingdom Border Agency.59 The national research councils in the United Kingdom are responsible for investing public money into research. They are governmental organisations, classified as Non-Departmental Public Bodies, which allows them more freedom than being a part of a government

                                                                                                               51 Swedish Higher Education Authority, Hur är det att doktorera? http://www.doktorandhandboken.nu/omutbildningen/hurardetattdoktorera.4.3e31964212bf6bc75be80001558.html (Retrieved online 2014-09-25) 52 Högskoleförordningen SFS (1993:100), Förordning (2014:1012) 53 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2011). The UK doctorate: a guide for current and prospective

doctoral candidates. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/Doctorate_Guide.pdf (Retrieved online 2014-02-20) 54 University of Cambridge. Guidelines on teaching experience for PhD students http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/german/courses/pgrad/tchgexp.pdf (Retrieved online 2014-09-25) 55 Högskoleförordningen SFS (1993:100), Förordning (2010:1064) 56 Förordning (1995:938) 57 Research Councils UK. (2013). Research Councils UK Doctoral Stipend Levels and Indicative Fees for 2013 58 Quality Assurance Agency For Higher Education. (2011), p. 9 59 University of Cambridge. (2014). http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/students/gradadmissions/prospec/

  21  

department.60 Most of the PhD students with funding are funded through them and they currently fund 19,000 PhD students throughout the United Kingdom.61They offer funding between three and four years62, while the majority of other studentships remain fixed at three years.63 Most doctoral students need a minimum of four years to complete their degree.64This means that most students, whether they are fully funded or not, are likely to have financial difficulties in their final year of studies.65 This period is commonly referred to as the “write-up period”, as the students are expected to be done with lab work and research and should focus their time on writing or finishing their dissertation.66 In the United Kingdom, there are several charity organisations, for example the Allan and Nesta Ferguson Trust and the Gilchrist Educational Trust, which exist for the sole purpose of helping students with the completion of their postgraduate courses.67 In Sweden, on the contrary, the students are never at risk of losing their funding if they follow their individual study plan and are guaranteed funding throughout the entire degree.68 Losing Funding During the Doctoral Programme Swedish universities are subject to strict, national regulations of how and why to remove funding, or other resources, from a doctoral student, and the students are eligible to re-qualify for the resources when sufficient academic requirements have been met.69The research councils all follow certain national regulations set up by both the Quality Assurance Agency For Higher Education and Research Councils UK, but their policies vary slightly and are less protective of students’ rights than the Swedish regulations.70 Overall, the research councils have the possibility to withdraw funding from a doctoral student at any time.71 Gender and The Right to Parental Leave When applying for parental leave in the United Kingdom, doctoral students are subject to both the regulations of their universities, and the research councils that are funding them. The research councils are, at the same time, subject to national regulations set up by Research Councils UK.72 All research councils in the United Kingdom offer paid maternal leave for up to six months and an additional 6 months of unpaid maternal leave.73The date for leaving and returning to their studies must be decided in advance. Doctoral students may lose their place in the PhD programme if they do not return within those 12 months74, and some of the research councils will demand full restitution for the funding given throughout the maternity leave if the student does not return to her studies.75

                                                                                                               60 Research Councils UK. (2014). Governance. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/about/aboutrcs/governance/ (Retrieved 2014-09-25) 61 McDonnell, S. (2011, February). PhD funding - a checklist of possible funding sources 62 EPSRC. GUIDANCE FOR EPSRC STUDENTS http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/skills/students/help/guidance/ (retrieved online 2014-09-25) 63 Blaxill and Zhou. (2013). The alternative guide to postgraduate funding, p. 49 64 Quality Assurance Agency For Higher Education, 2011, p. 3 65 Blaxill and Zhou, 2013, p. 49 66 Quality Assurance Agency For Higher Education, 2011, p. 10 67 Blaxill and Zhou, 2013, p. 49 68 Högskoleförordningen SFS (1993:100), Förordning (2010:1064) 69 Förordning (2010:1064) 6 kap. 30 § 70 Research Councils UK. Conditions of research council training grants, p 6 71 See Appendix 1 72 Research Councils UK. Conditions of research council training grants, p 2 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-prod/assets/documents/documents/TermsConditionsTrainingGrants.pdf 73 See Appendix 1 74 BBSRC, Research council maternity, adoptive, maternity support (paternity) and parental leave policy, p 9 http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/EmploymentCode/maternity-adoptive-maternity-support-and-parental-leave-policy.pdf 75 Research Councils UK. Conditions of research council training grants http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-prod/assets/documents/documents/TermsConditionsTrainingGrants.pdf

  22  

The right to paternity leave varies greatly between universities and between research councils. For some students, paid paternity leave is an entitlement, while for others it is a possibility but not a right. Most research councils will automatically extend the graduation date, while others, most notably the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, can make individual decisions on whether the graduation dates should be extended or not.76Other councils are more vague – the Arts and Humanities Research Council will “take into consideration” the maternity leave dates when calculated the estimated thesis submission date.77 All men have the right to ten days of ordinary paternity leave, which is the same right that normal employees have.78 The national regulations set up by Research Councils UK allows but does not require of individual research councils to offer additional paternity leave up to 6 months, which may be paid or unpaid depending on individual circumstances.7980 Doctoral students in Sweden always have paid parental leave for 420 days81, and the system is the same for both men and women. The employed PhD students will get their parental leave pay directly from the Swedish Social Insurance Agency (following the same regulations as all employees), while those on educational grant will keep the educational grant during the length of their parental leave.82PhD students on educational grant with recent previous employment will also quality for funding from the Swedish Social Insurance Agency.83The students funded by scholarship are covered by an external insurance.84 Extension of Funding after Returning from Parental Leave In Sweden, the doctoral students will have their graduation date and funding extended corresponding with the time of their absence.85 Many Swedish universities offer additional extension of the studies, for example an additional week of extension for every month the student was away.86While the graduation dates often are postponed according to the time absent from the British universities, the research councils in the United Kingdom can decide if an extension of funding should be given as well. As a result, it can be financially difficult for many doctoral students to extend their graduation date.87

                                                                                                               76 Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. (2014). Maternity, paternity and adoption leave http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/howtoapply/basics/researcherequalitydiversity/granttermsconditions/maternity-paternity-and-adoption-leave/ 77 Art and Humanities Research Council. (2014) Student funding guide, http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Student-Funding-Guide.pdf 78Gov.uk. Additional paternity pay and leave: employer guide. https://www.gov.uk/employers-additional-paternity-pay-leave (Retrieved online 2014-09-28)  79Research Councils UK. Conditions of research council training grants, p 14 80 The differences between the research councils are listed in Appendix 1 81 Swedish Social Insurance Agency. Om föräldrapenning http://www.forsakringskassan.se/privatpers/foralder/barnet_fott/foraldrapenning/om_foraldrapenning 82 Lund University. Föräldralediga doktorander. http://www5.lu.se/pa-online/anstaellning/ledigheter/foeraeldralediga-doktorander (Retrieved online 2014-09-29)  83 The Swedish Higher Education Authority, Det sociala skyddsnätet http://www.doktorandhandboken.nu/finansiering/detsocialaskyddsnatet.4.3e31964212bf6bc75be80003063.html (Retrieved online 2014-09-29)  84 Högskoleförordningen SFS (1993:100), Förordning (2013:525) 85  Högskoleförordningen SFS (1993:100), Förordning (2010:1064) 86 Uppsala University. Prolongation på grund av föräldraledighet. http://www.uu.se/digitalAssets/17/17307_Prolongationforaldraledighet.pdf 87 Research Councils UK. Conditions of research council training grants, p 14-15

  23  

Analysis and conclusions General Discussion Based on the data presented here, it is clear that there is a strong correlation between the working conditions for doctoral students and the type and character of the welfare system in the country they are studying in. A comparison of regulations at the national and institutional levels reveals that the university-specific regulations for doctoral students reflect the national regulations that exist for employees and students. Thus, despite the ongoing ambitions of standardisation and transferability represented by the Bologna Process in specific and European integration more generally, there remain substantial differences between these systems. While initiatives like the Bologna Process appear to have met with a measure of success in terms of achieving an impressive degree of similarity—or, at the very least, homology—in the curricular areas of content and structure for PhD programmes, these similarities are not reflected in the working conditions faced by students. This being the case, the findings raise several important questions. First, having identified a discrepancy between the social rights afforded to doctoral students in Sweden as opposed to those in the United Kingdom, it is important to examine the particular points of divergence. How might these differences impact not just the social and financial vulnerability of the students, but also their prospects for social mobility? Second, to what degree do these differences impact males differently than females? Finally, how can these differences be understood in terms of established theoretical frameworks? Analysing the Impact of Differences in Social Rights for Doctoral Students in Sweden and the United Kingdom The first and most prominent feature of the results is, of course, related to comparative vulnerability and security of the students themselves. In the United Kingdom, doctoral students rarely have employee status, whether at the university where they study or outside of it. This is not to say that they do not have responsibilities that closely resemble those of an employee in the typical sense; it is standard practice to assign teaching responsibilities to doctoral candidates in the United Kingdom. However, these responsibilities are implicit rather than explicit, occupying a relatively undefined semi-informal space: PhD programmes in the United Kingdom are generally research-oriented, and teaching typically is not a feature of the programme itself. Instead, it is an extra-curricular activity that students are encouraged to undertake in addition to their studies. While teaching is sometimes compensated, universities are not obligated to offer assistance with funding for tuition or living expenses, creating a situation in which students fortunate enough to be admitted to funded programmes enjoy a degree of financial security (albeit one that is contingent upon their performance of duties as a both a student and teacher), while others are required to place themselves in situations that are financially precarious, forgoing work with regulated hourly compensation and taking on sometimes-substantial debt in order to continue their studies.

  24  

Furthermore, institutional-level regulations governing the termination of a student’s funding are surprisingly vague. Because the ability to access financial assistance is, for many students, a prerequisite to completing their studies, revocation of funding could have a disastrous effect on a student’s investment in their postgraduate education—yet research councils often reserve the right to terminate grants at any time, so long as they provide “reasonable” notice (“reasonable” is undefined). Others suggest that termination could result from behaviour that is “unsatisfactory,” but again, this criterion lacks a formal or operational definition, let alone any kind of objective performance measure. As a general rule, then, doctoral students in the United Kingdom must carry out their studies knowing that there is a possibility—perhaps unlikely, but very real—that research councils may, at any time, withdraw funding. Astonishingly, the literature on PhD supervision in the United Kingdom is virtually non-existent, with supervisory strategies depending not only on the institution, but also on the preferences of individual faculty members.88 Considering the fact that the opinion of one’s faculty supervisor could potentially determine one’s continued access to funding, PhD students in the United Kingdom arguably face such acute vulnerability in terms of employment that they must ultimately place their faith in probability, rather than relying on any officially recognised recourse or due process.89 When compared with the regulations for PhD students in the United Kingdom, the Swedish system places a remarkable emphasis on ensuring the vocational security of its students. The most common way of becoming a PhD student in Sweden is to apply as though for a job; after all, it is a position covered by the same regulations and featuring the same benefits as any other position at the university, including everything from healthcare to standard employee protections. As employees, PhD students are required to perform a range of academic tasks, such as completing certain coursework, writing articles, and eventually producing a dissertation. In addition to these responsibilities, universities may, at their own discretion, assign other job functions to doctoral candidates; these additional "extracurricular" duties may take up to one-fifth of a student's time as an employee, but not more. Universities readily avail themselves of this right, typically assigning teaching duties to doctoral students, which allows them to maintain teachers that are available to undergraduates through their departments. The remaining four-fifths of PhD candidates’ working time is reserved for their own studies. It should be immediately apparent that PhD candidates in this system are in a substantially less vulnerable position, both from an academic perspective as well as a vocational one. By making teaching an integral part of the PhD course of study, PhD candidates do not have to struggle to the same extent to balance teaching and research priorities as do their counterparts elsewhere. For example, while PhD students in the UK often work exceptionally long hours trying to satisfy the competing demands of their work for the university and their own studies, PhD students in Sweden often have work schedules that resemble those of any other professional and that do not require sacrificing a meaningful degree of academic rigor. In short, analysing the results above reveals a simple truth: doctoral students in Sweden are afforded social rights that are much more robust than those granted to their counterparts in the United Kingdom. Students in Sweden are assured that sufficient funding will be available to                                                                                                                88 Hockey. (2006). Strategies and tactics in the supervision of UK social science PhD students 89  Notably, analysing historical data on submission of PhD theses in the United Kingdom reveals that the only reliable predictor of successful submission “was whether a student was researching a science-based or an arts-and-humanities-based subject.” (Wright & Cochrane 2010)  

  25  

complete their studies, and have a greatly increased capacity to be absent from their studies for a range of reasons without jeopardizing their degrees. They also have more financial security, legal rights, and are protected from exploitation by regulatory frameworks that treat them, in many respects, as employees. By contrast, students in the United Kingdom are financially vulnerable, experience a high degree of job insecurity, and are disproportionately subject to work intensification. These are serious issues. Stress associated with job insecurity and work intensification has been demonstrated to spill over into people’s family lives.90 Furthermore, men in particular may experience significant distress as a result of job insecurity.91 If this is the case, then it is not unreasonable to assume that elevated stress levels could have a negative impact on doctoral students’ ability to function as effective teachers. Similarly, stress and time constraints are unlikely to have an especially positive effect on the quality of these students’ research. Exploring Gendered Dimensions to Regulatory Discrepancies and their Impacts In Sweden, there is little to no identifiable discrepancy between how male and female doctoral candidates are treated from a regulatory perspective. Parental rights—and leave in particular—are articulated with a high degree of consistency in Sweden: policies governing parental leave and benefits remain virtually unchanged not only regardless of gender, but also one’s status as either an employee, and employed student, or a student on an educational grant. The exception is the small majority (8%) of doctoral students who are funded by scholarships. However, these students are not without possibility for paid parental leave. In the United Kingdom, however, this is not the case. All research councils entitle women to extended-duration (i.e., up to six months) of parental leave, as well as an additional six months of unpaid leave.92 Students who are unwilling or unable to return after this period face serious risk, however: not only do they risk losing their place in their program, but they also may be held responsible for maternity leave funding. These regulations may or may not be considered strict, but they are, at the very least, consistent. The same cannot be said for paternity leave, which is largely neglected at the national level and which exhibits an astonishing range of variation from research council to research council.93For some councils, paternity leave is nothing more than a possibility to be considered on a case-by-case basis; even if leave is granted, the same is true for the decision to extend the student’s graduation date; and even if the date is extended, whether and to what extent the student is eligible for payment during leave is still subject to councils’ discretion. Furthermore – as was the case with institutional regulations surrounding the termination or revocation of funding, the language is often extremely vague. A hypothetical scenario might best illustrate this modulation of parental leave policies as a function of gender. Imagine two doctoral students studying at the same university, one male and one female, who decide to have a child together. Depending on their gender and field of studies, these two individuals will have dramatically different experiences and sources of stress: the male will be obligated to continue pursuing his degree at the same rate as before,                                                                                                                90 Nolan. (2005). Job insecurity and work intensification 91 Witte. (2010). Job insecurity and psychological well-being: Review of the literature and exploration of some unresolved issues. 92 Notably, the return date must be decided in advance. 93 Indeed, the only paternity leave men are guaranteed in the UK is just ten days in duration.

  26  

but at the cost of being an absent parent. The female, on the other hand, will necessarily shoulder a disproportionate share of parenting responsibilities during the early months of the child’s life, because only she has the ability to access parental leave. Clearly, these states of affairs are normative in nature, serving not only to reflect stereotypes regarding gender roles, but also to reinforce them. As a matter of fact, universities in the United Kingdom today are doing surprisingly little in the way of seeking to accommodate students who have children during their studies. Contrastingly, a number of Swedish universities have explicit, formal policies designed to encourage or help students in this category. Previous research has suggested that female academics often struggle to balance the competing demands of family and academic life; as a result, some women are forced to pursue their doctoral studies on a part-time basis.94 The result is an academic economy that is chronically and persistently male-dominated. As late as 1996, males in standard full-time academic jobs were twice as likely to be at a senior level; in 1998, women accounted for less than one-third of research or PhD students, less than one-fifth of full-time permanent lecturers, and less than one-twentieth of professors. 95As late as 2008, ten-year graduate school completion rates show female graduate students lagging behind males, often by nearly 10%, in every discipline category but social science and the humanities as late.96 In Sweden, by contrast, women made up 45% of new admissions to doctoral programs in 1999. By 2012, that number had climbed to 47%, with women making up 50% of those obtaining postgraduate degrees. This trend toward gender equality has been strongly exhibited since the middle of the 1980’s.97 Exploring Policy Divergences in Relation to Welfare Models The correlation between the type and character of the national welfare system and the social rights and security of doctoral students is strongly exhibited in the results of this study. Sweden’s social democratic welfare model, with its coherent and simplified design, is mirrored in its approach to regulating graduate students. Eligibility for security and benefits is not tied to status or identity in any meaningful sense; graduate students benefit from the many of the same protections and oversight that working employees do. In the United Kingdom, the liberal welfare paradigm views social security programs as a safety net, and so it seeks to target benefits toward those most in need, rather than applying them universally. Thus, graduate students, who enjoy a degree of social status, are not considered high-risk or needy populations, and so labour protections seem to exclude them—thereby exposing them to exploitation. Similarly, parental leave policies for doctoral students grant benefits and protected leave only to those perceived as needing them most—which is to say, women. In each case, by seeking to target benefits to at-risk populations, a strange system is created and characterised differential incentives and protections issued at the cost of potentially disadvantaging other groups.

                                                                                                               94  See Background  95  Booth & Burton. (2000). The position of women in UK academic economics  96  Sowell. (2008). PhD completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline data  97 Statistics Sweden. (2014). Women and men in Sweden: fact and figures 2014

  27  

In short, by granting access to social safety nets and welfare benefits to some populations but not others, the welfare system in the United Kingdom distorts labour markets and the basic incentives that drive them. By failing to grant doctoral students the same protections against job insecurity and work intensification as other employees, the system effectively creates a vulnerable, low-cost labour force. An inversion has occurred: a population that was considered too high-status (and therefore low-risk) to warrant explicit protection finds itself, by virtue of exclusion, at increased risk of exploitation when budgets begin to tighten.

  28  

References Appel, Monika. (2008). Arbetsförhållanden För Kvinnor Som Är Doktorander - En Intervjustudie. Rapportserie/Kvalitet Och Utvärdering. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet. Art and Humanities Research Council. (2014) Student funding guide, http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Student-Funding-Guide.pdf Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. Research council maternity, adoptive, maternity support (paternity) and parental leave policy http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/EmploymentCode/maternity-adoptive-maternity-support-and-parental-leave-policy.pdf (Retrieved online 2014-09-28) Booth, A. L., Burton, J., & Mumford, K. (2000). The position of women in UK academic economics. The Economic Journal, 110(464), 312-333. Blaxill, L., & Zhou, S. (2013). The alternative guide to postgraduate funding. (5th ed.). London, Great Britain: Luke Blaxill. Brown & Watson. (2010). Understanding the experiences of female doctoral students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34:3, 385-404 DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2010.484056. Couvée, Koos. Postgraduate students are being used as 'slave labour'. The independent. 2012-05-27. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/postgraduate-students-are-being-used-as-slave-labour-7791509.html (Retrieved online 2014-02-10) The European Higher Education Area, History, http://www.ehea.info/article-details.aspx?ArticleId=3, (Retrieved online 2014-09-04) Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. GUIDANCE FOR EPSRC STUDENTS http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/skills/students/help/guidance/ (retrieved online 2014-09-25) Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. (2014). Maternity, paternity and adoption leave http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/howtoapply/basics/researcherequalitydiversity/granttermsconditions/maternity-paternity-and-adoption-leave/ (Retrieved online 2014-09-25) Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press Fink, J., Lewis, G., & Clarke, J. (Eds.). Rethinking European welfare: Transformations of European social policy. Sage, 2011. Gov.uk. (2014). Student finance. https://www.gov.uk/student-finance/extra-help (Retrieved online 2014-02-21)

  29  

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J,. & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 11(3), 255-274. DOI: 10.3102/01623737011003255 an Haack et al. (2013). Mapping out the goals for the Bologna Process, Aachen University. Proceedings of INTED2013 Conference 4th-6th March 2013, Valencia, Spain http://www.teaching-learning.eu/fileadmin/documents/Publikationen/an_Haack_et_al___2013___Mapping_the_Goals_of_the_Bologna_Process.pdf (Retrieved online 2014-09-05) Hockey, J. (1996). Strategies and tactics in the supervision of UK social science PhD students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(4), 481-500. Högskoleförordningen SFS (1993:100) Imperial College London. (2014). Code of Practice for Research Students http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/registry/proceduresandregulations/qualityassurance/codesofpractice/codeofpracticeforstudents (Retrieved online 2014-09-29) Jacobsson & Gillström. (2008). Kvinnor och män i högskolan, Högskoleverket/The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education, Rapport 2008:20 R http://www.uk-ambetet.se/download/18.1ff6bf9c146adf4b496774/1404209532011/0820R+Kvinnor+och+män+i+högskolan.pdf (Retrieved online 2014-02-14) King’s College London. (2012). Core Code of Practice for Postgraduate Research Degrees, p 9-10 http://www.kcl.ac.uk/college/policyzone/assets/files/research/Code_of_Practice_12_final_version.pdf (Retrieved online 2014-09-29) Leichter, H. M. (1979). A comparative approach to policy analysis: health care policy in four nations. CUP Archive. Lindbom, A. (2001). Dismantling the Social Democratic Welfare Model? Has the Swedish Welfare State Lost Its Defining Characteristics?. Scandinavian Political Studies, 24: 171–193. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9477.00052 Lund University. Föräldralediga doktorander. http://www5.lu.se/pa-online/anstaellning/ledigheter/foeraeldralediga-doktorander (Retrieved online 2014-09-29) Lund University. Föräldraledighet http://www4.lu.se/internt-biologi/personaladm-/ledighet/foeraeldraledighet (Retrieved 2014-09-30) McDonnell, S. (2011). PhD funding - a checklist of possible funding sources.

  30  

http://www.jobs.ac.uk/careers-advice/studentships/1534/phd-funding-a-checklist-of-possible-funding-sources (Retrieved online 2014-02-20)

NERC. Student handbook. p 4 http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/application/howtoapply/forms/studenthandbook.pdf (Retrieved online 2014-09-28) Nolan, J. (2005). The intensification of everyday life. In: Burchell, B., Ladipo, D., & Wilkinson, F. (Eds.). Job insecurity and work intensification. Routledge. QS. Methodology http://www.iu.qs.com/university-rankings/rankings-indicators/methodology-international/ (Retrieved online 2014-08-10) The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2011). The UK doctorate: a guide for

current and prospective doctoral candidates. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/Doctorate_Guide.pd

f (Retrieved online 2014-02-20) Research Councils UK, CONDITIONS OF RESEARCH COUNCIL TRAINING GRANTS, http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-

prod/assets/documents/documents/TermsConditionsTrainingGrants.pdf Research Councils UK. (2013). Research Councils UK Doctoral Stipend Levels and Indicative Fees for 2013 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/skills/postgrad/ (Retrieved online 2014-09-29) Research Councils UK. (2014). Governance. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/about/aboutrcs/governance/ (Retrieved 2014-09-25) Rothstein, B. (2001). Social capital in the social democratic welfare state. Politics Society (29), 207, p. 207-241. Ruggie, M. (1984). The state and working women: A comparative study of Britain and Sweden. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sainsbury, D. (1991). Analysing Welfare State Variations: The Merits and Limitations of Models Based on the Residual–Institutional Distinction*.Scandinavian political studies, 14(1), 1-30. Sainsbury, D. (1993). Dual welfare and sex segregation of access to social benefits: income maintenance policies in the UK, the US, the Netherlands and Sweden. Journal of Social Policy, 22(01), 69-98. Sainsbury, D. (1996). Gender, equality and welfare states. Cambridge University Press. Sainsbury, D. (2001). Gender and the making of welfare states: Norway and Sweden. Social politics: international studies in gender, state & society, 8(1), 113-143.

  31  

Sainsbury, D. (2001). Welfare state challenges and responses: institutional and ideological resilience or restructuring?. Acta Sociologica. Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 257-265 Science and Technology Facilities Council. Rules concerning the tenure of awards. https://www.stfc.ac.uk/1513.aspx (Retrieved 2014-09-28) Shanghai Ranking. Methodology. http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-

2012.html (Retrieved online 2014-08-10) Sowell, R. (2008). PhD completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline data. Washington, DC:

Council of Graduate Schools. Swedish Higher Education Authority, Avskiljande, Doktorandhandboken http://www.doktorandhandboken.nu/rattigheterochstod/avskiljande.4.1f7a9c7912be2e5415380002421.html (Retrieved online 2014-09-30) The Swedish Higher Education Authority, Det sociala skyddsnätet http://www.doktorandhandboken.nu/finansiering/detsocialaskyddsnatet.4.3e31964212bf6bc75be80003063.html (Retrieved online 2014-09-29) Swedish Higher Education Authority, Ekonomiska villkor, Doktorandhandboken http://www.doktorandhandboken.nu/attdoktorera/ekonomiskavillkor.4.1f7a9c7912be2e5415380001781.html (Retrieved online 2014-09-30) Swedish Higher Education Authority, Finansiering, Doktorandhandboken http://www.doktorandhandboken.nu/finansiering.4.1f7a9c7912be2e5415380001171.html (Retrieved online 2014-09-30) Swedish Higher Education Authority, Hur är det att doktorera? http://www.doktorandhandboken.nu/omutbildningen/hurardetattdoktorera.4.3e31964212bf6bc75be80001558.html (Retrieved online 2014-09-25) Swedish Higher Education Authority, Löner och avtal, Doktorandhandboken http://www.doktorandhandboken.nu/finansiering/anstallningsomdoktorand/lonerochavtal.4.3e31964212bf6bc75be80001195.html (Retrieved online 2014-09-30) The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education. (2006) Högre utbildning och forskning

1945-2005 – en översikt, p 33 http://www.uk-

ambetet.se/download/18.1ff6bf9c146adf4b49679d/1404210126860/0603R+Högre+utbildning+och+forskning+1945-2005+-+en+översikt.pdf

The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education. (2008), Doktorandspegeln 2008, Rapport

2008:23 R http://www.hsv.se/download/18.6923699711a25cb275a80001346/0823R.pdf

  32  

(Retrieved online 2014-02-14) The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education. (2011). Trots smärre minskning – fortsatt historiskt många studenter på högskolan [Despite minor decrease – still historic amount of students at university]. 2011. http://www.hsv.se/publikationerarkiv/pressmeddelanden/2011/trotssmarreminskningfortsatthistorisktmangastudenterpahogskolan.5.328dbf20131f69ece4480001266.html (Retrieved 2014-09-04) Swedish Social Insurance Agency. Om föräldrapenning http://www.forsakringskassan.se/privatpers/foralder/barnet_fott/foraldrapenning/om_foraldrapenning Statistics Sweden. (2005) Universitet och högskolor - Forskarutbildning [Universities – Postgraduate education]. Utbildningsstatistisk årsbok 2005, p. 284 http://www.scb.se/sv_/Hitta-statistik/Publiceringskalender/Visa-detaljerad-information/?publobjid=1929++ Statistics Sweden. (2012). Övergång från gymnasieskola till högskola läsåret 2010/2011, Statistiknyhet från SCB 2012-09-17 09:30 Nr 2012:850 http://www.scb.se/sv_/Hitta-statistik/Statistik-efter-amne/Utbildning-och-forskning/Befolkningens-utbildning/Overgang-gymnasieskola-hogskola/Aktuell-pong/322959/Behallare-for-Press/Overgang-fran-gymnasieskola-till-hogskola-lasaret-201011/ (Retrieved 2014-09-04) Statistics Sweden. (2014). Women and men in Sweden: fact and figures 2014 [På tal om kvinnor och män i Sverige – lathund om jämställdhet 2014]. In English http://www.scb.se/Statistik/_Publikationer/LE0201_2013B14_BR_X10BR1401ENG.pdf In Swedish http://www.scb.se/Statistik/_Publikationer/LE0201_2013B14_BR_X10BR1401.pdf (Retrieved online 2014-09-15) University and College Union. (2011). UCU Survival Guide for hourly-paid staff. University of Cambridge. (2014). Prospective Graduate Students.

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/students/gradadmissions/prospec/ (Retrieved online 2014-02-21) University of Cambridge. Guidelines on teaching experience for PhD students http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/german/courses/pgrad/tchgexp.pdf (Retrieved online 2014-09-25) University of Cambridge. (2012). Code of Practice - Graduate research degrees and

certificates of postgraduate studies (PhD; EngD; EdD research elements; MSc; MLitt; MPhil ‘thesis only’ courses; Certificate of Postgraduate Studies) 2013-14

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/students/studentregistry/current/graduate/policy/pdf/code_of_practice13_14.pdf

(Retrieved online 2014-09-29)

  33  

University of Edinburgh. (2014). Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/academicservices/codes/copsupervisorsresearchstudents.pdf (Retrieved online 2014-09-29) University of Oxford. (2014). General regulations: Examination regulations. http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/examregs/24-53_General_Regulations.shtml (Retrieved online 2014-09-29) University of Oxford. (2014). Living costs for dependants.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/feesandfunding/fees/livingcosts/livingcostsfordependants/ (Retrieved online 2014-02-21) Uppsala University. Prolongation på grund av föräldraledighet. http://www.uu.se/digitalAssets/17/17307_Prolongationforaldraledighet.pdf Times Higher Education. Methodology http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013-14/world-ranking/methodology (Retrieved online 2014-08-10) Witte, H. D. (1999). Job insecurity and psychological well-being: Review of the literature and exploration of some unresolved issues. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 155-177. Wright, T., & Cochrane, R. (2000). Factors influencing successful submission of PhD theses. Studies in higher education, 25(2), 181-195. Yanow, D. ”Accessing local knowledge.” in Hajer, M. A., & Wagenaar, H. (Eds.). (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press.

  34  

Appendix 1 The Universities’ Rights to Terminate Doctorate Studies University Extract from university policy University of Cambridge 5.2 Registration for the PhD Degree

“All candidates for a PhD are admitted on a probationary basis. They may be registered in the first instance for a Certificate of Postgraduate Studies, for an MPhil by research only, or may not be registered for any qualification. At the end of the first year (or second year for a part-time student), a formal assessment of progress will be made: • If the candidate has been registered for a qualification in the first year (CPGS or MPhil), the examination may form part of the assessment for continuation; candidates should be aware, however, that a pass in the examination is not in itself sufficient to guarantee continuation, as the academic requirements for continuation are invariably higher than a basic pass and include other requirements such as an acceptable research proposal and availability of a suitable Supervisor and resources to support the research; • For certain PhD students continuing after a Master’s degree or certificate, a further year of probation will be required; in which case, a further formal assessment for the purposes of registration for the PhD will take place at the end of the probationary period.”98 5.4 Permanent removal from the register “Students should be aware that Board of Graduate Studies has power to remove a student from the register if the Degree Committee have satisfied the Board: (i) that the student has not been working to their satisfaction; or (ii) that the student has not complied with the conditions laid down in his or her case; or (iii) that, in their opinion, the student is ‘not

                                                                                                               98 University of Cambridge. (2012). Code of Practice, p 28

  35  

likely to reach the standard of the qualification for which he or she might be registered as a candidate.”99

University of Oxford §2. Status of Student for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy “A board may grant a student suspension from the Register or deprive a student of his or her status; and in such cases it shall at all times follow procedures determined by the Education Committee by regulation. A board may also reinstate a student to the Register, provided that the number of terms a student has spent with the status of Student for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy shall not have exceeded twenty-one in all in the case of a full-time student, or twenty-seven terms in the case of a part-time student”100

King’s College London 9.2 Regular review of progress 9.2.1 The progress of all students will be subject to regular, formal review. The nature and management of formal progress reviews, including upgrade reviews, will be determined by Schools within the terms of this document but must involve three assessors, at least one of whom is independent of the student’s supervisory panel. 9.2.2 During their first year of study it is College policy that both full- and part-time students will have their progress formally reviewed within 3 months of initial registration and again after a period of nine months registration. Thereafter, the progress of all students will be reviewed at every six months. 9.2.3 A formal progress review will have one of three possible outcomes: (i) satisfactory progress: the student’s registration is allowed to continue unconditionally; (ii) conditional progress: there is cause for concern about the student’s progress such that continued registration is subject to completing whatever conditions are set out in writing prior to a subsequent follow-up review. This may include cases where the lack of progress is

                                                                                                               99 University of Cambridge. (2012). Code of Practice, p 31  100 University of Oxford. (2014). General regulations: Examination regulations

  36  

due to supervision problems; in such cases the assessors should ensure that steps are taken to resolve those problems as part of the conditions set down; (iii) unsatisfactory progress : the student has not made the normal academic progress expected of all students and compulsory removal proceedings will begin under section B4 10 of the College’s Regulations concerning students (B4 Academic Progress Regulations). A determination of ‘unsatisfactory progress’ and removal proceedings under the B4 Regulations shall only commence where there has been an earlier determination of ‘conditional progress’ and the follow-up review provided by paragraph 9.2.4 below determines that the student has failed to make satisfactory progress; or where the student has otherwise received prior written warning from the School in the manner specified in Regulation 1.5 of the B4 Regulations. In the event of removal under the B4 Regulations, the student has a right of appeal against their termination of studies.”101

Imperial College London 2.11 “Assessment of a student's research ability to determine whether registration for the PhD degree can continue will be determined by an Early Stage Assessment, held 9 months (18 months for part-time students) after the date of initial registration. If the College determines that the student‘s progress is such that they cannot continue, the student may be required to withdraw from College at this stage. All students are then required to undergo a Late Stage Review between 18-24 months (30-36 months for part-time students).”102

University of Edinburgh 3.2.1 Annual Progression Review “The University requires Schools and supervisors to review student progress within nine to 12 months for each year of full time or part-time study for doctoral and MPhil degrees. By this time the student will have produced an identifiable body of work that has been produced independently and that can be assessed. This will normally form the

                                                                                                               101 King’s College London. (2012). Core Code of Practice for Postgraduate Research Degrees, p 9-10 102 Imperial College London. (2014). Code of Practice for Research Students

  37  

basis for confirmation of degree registration, or to progress.” “Supervisors can recommend that a student registered for an MPhil re-register for a PhD if merited by the project and the student’s performance, or that a student registered for a PhD might re-register for an MPhil, or discontinue study.”103 3.3.7 Withdrawal of study “Candidates unable to submit the thesis by the end of the maximum period of study […] will be notified by the College Postgraduate Committee of impending withdrawal of candidature.”104 3.3.8 Discontinuation and Academic Performance “The supervisors may recommend that a student already registered for the PhD, MPhil, Masters by Research or a professional doctorate discontinue their studies.”105

The Research Councils’ Policies on Terminating Funding Arts and Humanities Research Council Regulations set up by Research Councils UK

apply: “The Research Councils reserve the right to terminate the Training Grant at any time, subject to reasonable notice and to any payment that may be necessary to cover outstanding and unavoidable commitments.”106

Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council

Regulations set up by Research Councils UK apply.

Medical Research Council Regulations set up by Research Councils UK apply.

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

“If you are not doing well and your conduct is considered unsatisfactory it is possible that you might be asked to withdraw from your studies (sometimes called termination) or perhaps you might choose to leave yourself.

                                                                                                               103 University of Edinburgh. (2014). Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students, p 20 104 University of Edinburgh. (2014). Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students, p 24 105 University of Edinburgh. (2014). Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students, p 24 106Research Councils UK http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-prod/assets/documents/documents/TermsConditionsTrainingGrants.pdf p 21

  38  

If this did happen, you should be allowed a reasonable period of notice, which may or may not include any unused leave entitlement. However, you should bear in mind that you may be asked to repay money paid to you in advance for any period after the termination of your studies”107

Natural Environment Research Council “The Research Organisation should ensure that the appropriate termination and grievance procedures have been followed before terminating a studentship. Research Organisations are expected to take reasonable steps to recover money paid to students in advance who leave or whose studentship is terminated ”108

Science and Technology Facilities Council “A studentship may be terminated or conditions varied at any time at the discretion of STFC. Students whose progress or conduct is unsatisfactory are liable to have their awards discontinued.”109

Paternity Leave Regulations of Different Research Councils Arts and Humanities Research Council All AHRC funded students are entitled to take

up to 6 months of Additional Paternity Leave on full stipend and up to a further 6 months of unpaid Additional Paternity Leave. The RO must ensure that it is aware of unauthorised absences by students, so that future payments may be stopped and those already made in advance of need can be recovered. The period of a student’s support may be extended at the RO’s discretion to offset a period of genuine absence, subject to finding the necessary funding from within the RO’s grant.

Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council

Referral to the regulations set up by Research Councils UK

Medical Research Council MRC follow the minimum regulations set up by Research Councils UK, with the following addition:

                                                                                                               107 EPSRC. Guidance for students. http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/skills/students/help/guidance/ 108 NERC. Student handbook. p 5 http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/application/howtoapply/forms/studenthandbook.pdf 109 Science and Technology Facilities Council. Rules concerning the tenure of awards. https://www.stfc.ac.uk/1513.aspx  

  39  

“Grant holders may seek approval for placing a grant on hold (in abeyance) for up to one year, for example […] where a researcher wishes to take a period of unpaid paternity leave.” Grants cannot be placed on hold where another member of staff continues to be funded through the grant.110

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

Fathers are entitled to 10 days of ordinary paternity leave on full stipend. Fathers may be entitled to up to 26 weeks of additional paternity leave, which may be paid or unpaid depending on individual circumstances.111

Natural Environment Research Council NERC students are entitled to 26 weeks paid additional paternity leave and up to 26 weeks unpaid leave. A total of ten days paternity leave may be taken at any time during a partner's pregnancy or within three months following the birth. No extra funding will be provided.112

Science and Technology Facilities Council A total of ten days paternity leave can be taken at any time during the pregnancy or within three months following the birth. All doctoral students are eligible for parental leave, and while female students have the right to six months paid leave, male students can get “up to six months” of paid leave.113 An additional six months of unpaid leave is available for both men and women.

Overview of Policies Regarding Parental Leave at Specific Universities in the United Kingdom University Maternity Leave Paternity Leave University of Cambridge

Maternity leave is classified as a “non-medical” reason for intermission from studies.

Is not regulated or mentioned for graduate/PhD students

                                                                                                               110MRC. MRC Additional terms and conditions. http://www.mrc.ac.uk/documents/pdf/mrc-additional-terms-and-conditions/ p. 3 111 Science and Technology Facilities Council. Rules concerning the tenure of awards. https://www.stfc.ac.uk/1513.aspx 112 Natural Environment Research Council, 2014, Student Handbook, p. 4 113 Science and Technology Facilities Council, ibid  

  40  

The students need to have set dates for leaving and returning. These have to be followed strictly. The students have to apply for intermission to be accepted. The university may thereafter amend the end date of the studies. If the amended date is missed, funding can be suspended or a fine may be placed.

University of Oxford

Female doctoral students are automatically entitled to up to one year of suspension. As for funding, “the University aspires to provide a limited period of funded maternity leave for holders of all studentships funded or co-funded by the University, although currently this provision is available only to holders of Clarendon Awards.”

Females in same-sex relationships, who are not the biological mother, may use paternity leave. Postgraduate research student fathers are permitted to take 2 weeks’ (10 working days) leave either at the time or within 3 months of the birth. In line with the policy adopted by the research councils, this leave is not taken as a suspension of study and the submission date is not adjusted. Students who are eligible for a further period of paternity leave from their research council or sponsor may request a matching period of leave from the University. Self-funded student fathers will be permitted to take 2 weeks’ (10 working days) leave either at the time or within 3 months of the birth of their child. This is not taken as a suspension of study and the submission date is not adjusted. In addition to this, the University will support student fathers’ requests for a further period of leave of up to 3 consecutive terms (1 year).

King’s College Students are allowed up to 12 months Students can automatically

  41  

London interruption, but in exceptional cases 24 months is possible. For maternity leave, 9 months of interruption will be automatically approved and the date of final submission will be pushed back. Students can apply for an additional 3 months of maternal leave.

take up to 10 days of paternity leave, which will not affect the date of submission). All student parents are also eligible to take up to 13 weeks parental leave within 12 months of the birth or whatever is permitted by government legislation. If the additional time is taken, the date of submission will be extended by the appropriate period.

Imperial College London

The female doctoral students can apply to suspend their studies for unpaid maternal leave up to four months, which can be extended up to a year. In addition, they can apply for funding with the goal from the university to provide 4 months of paid maternal leave.

The maximum allowed paternity leave is 4 weeks. The departments are asked to “make suitable financial provision” for students on paternity leave.

University of Edinburgh

Normal expectation is that maternity related interruptions do not exceed 6 months, even though a maximum of 12 months is available. Students who receive funding directly from the university are entitled to 4 months of maternity pay, following an unpaid period of suspension up to 8 months.

All parents – including same-sex partners and fathers – are subject to the same regulations as mothers.

  42  

Appendix 2 QS World ranking QS break down their scores in the following way114:

Academic Reputation via global survey: Academics from around the world are surveyed, and asked where the best research is happening. Should be noted academics are asked only in their field of expertise. Employment Reputation via global survey: Employers from around the world are surveyed, and asked to comment on the quality of graduates from various universities worldwide. Student:Faculty: The ratio of full-time equivalent students to full-time equivalent faculty members. Citations per Faculty: QS collect their data from three major sources – Web of Science Thomson Reuters, Scopus from Elsevier, and Google Scholar. Self-citations are excluded. International Student Ratio:                                                                                                                114QS. Methodology http://www.iu.qs.com/university-rankings/rankings-indicators/methodology-international/

Academic  reputation  ,  40%  

Employment  reputation,  10%  

Student:Faculty,  20%  

Citations  per  faculty,  20%  

International  students  ratio,  5%  

International  faculty,  5%  

  43  

Number of International Students International Faculty: Number of International Faculty Times Higher Education The Times Higher Education breaks down their scores in the following way115:

Teaching: The teaching is broken into five sub-indicators. First is a global survey with over 10,000 responses, asking for the perceived prestige of the university both in research and in teaching. These surveys are carried out by Thomson Reuters. The second is a ratio of students to teachers. The third is a ratio between bachelor and doctoral degrees awarded. The fourth is total institutional income scaled against academic staff numbers. The fifth is the ability of the university to prepare undergraduates to become academics – something that is determined by the volume of postgraduate degrees per discipline. Research: The research is broken into three sub-indicators. First is by looking at research reputation for research excellence among its peers, based on over 10,000 responses. The second looks at

                                                                                                               115 Times Higher Education. Methodology http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013-14/world-ranking/methodology

Teaching  30%  

Research  30%  

Citations  30%  

Industry  income  2,5%  

International  outlook  7,5%  

  44  

university research income, scaled against the number of employees. Thirdly is the number of academic papers indexed, and by candidates per university. Citations: The citations are counting the number of times a university’s published worked is cited by a scholar globally. Industry Income: The industry income is looking at the university’s ability to help industry with innovations, consultancy and inventions. International Outlook: The international outlook is looking at the diversity on campus, and to what degree the university collaborates with international colleagues on research projects. Shanghai Rankings The Shanghai Rankings have the following breakdown116:

Alumni: It measures the total number of alumni winning Field Medals, or being Nobel Laureates. Quality of Faculty Award: Total number of staff winning Nobel Prizes in Chemistry, Physics, Medicine, Economics, and Field Medal in Mathematics.

                                                                                                               116 Shanghai Ranking. Methodology. http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-2012.html

Alumni  10%  

Quality  of  Faculty  Award  20%  

Quality  of  Faculty  Highly  Cited  

20%  

Research  Output  Nature  Science  

20%  

Research  Output  Social  Science  

20%  

Per  Capita  Academic  

Performance  10%  

  45  

Quality of Faculty Highly Cited: Total number of highly cited researchers across 21 different subject categories. Highly Cited refers to a researcher who is the most cited in their subject. Research Output Nature Science: Number of papers published in Nature and Science from 2007 onwards. Research Output Social Science: Number of papers published in Science citation index-expanded and Social Science Citation Index in a single year. Per Capita Academic Performance: The weighted score of the above five indicators scaled against the total of full time equivalent academic staff members.