Introduction

The PhD represents a tremendous commitment of time and resources on the part of the students and universities. Studies have long held that due to the long time-to-degree while sacrificing full-time employment income make the PhD a poor return on investment (Kehm, 2006; Mertens & Röbken, 2013). At the same time, the number of PhDs conferred in the US each year has continued to increase since the early years of the Cold War (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2023) and has led to numerous discussions of the overproduction of PhDs (Brennan & Magness, 2019; Goldman & Massy, 2001; Smith, 2018). Much of the recent work has focused on career trajectories and expanding the employment pipeline beyond academia into industry (Aarnikoivu et al., 2019; Roach & Sauermann, 2017). However, little research has been done on the perceptions of human capital investment on the part of PhD alumni. While studies have considered career affirmation and regret (Budjanovcanin & Woodrow, 2022; Dyrbye et al., 2020; Schieman et al., 2005) or field of study (Mora, 2010), these studies have either focused on careers without considering degree level or the situation outside of the United States. This study features some of the first empirical exploration into whether 1) PhD graduates of US doctoral programmes affirm or regret their decision to pursue a PhD, 2) pursue a PhD in the same field, and 3) pursue a PhD at the same institution. As these three outcomes are interrelated and of interest to PhD programme coordinators, we include all three as separate analyses to provide additional nuance compared with prior studies that have only looked at describing levels of affirmation or regret in pursuing a PhD in general.

In particular, as doctoral programmes continue to expand professional development offerings to provide the knowledge, attributes, and behaviours necessary for careers across the academic, industry, government, and non-profit sectors (Denecke et al., 2017), we must examine how these efforts to increase human capital relate to alumni perceptions of their own experience. In this multi-institutional study, we measured level of affirmation and regret of 10,930 alumni who completed their PhD at least three years prior across all fields of study, drawn from 59 universities across the United States in fall 2018 and fall 2019. Participants were asked whether, given the perspective they gained since completing their PhD, how likely they would pursue a PhD, pursue a PhD in the same field and pursue a PhD at the same institution if they had to start again. To that end, we sought to answer the following research question:

What factors predict PhD alumni’s likelihood of affirming their decision to pursue a PhD, pursue a PhD in the same field, and attend the same institution?

We utilized a heterogenous choice model to examine a series of predictors on these three outcomes of PhD affirmation or regret. We were interested to see whether factors such as sociodemographics, field of study, job sector, level of relatedness between the PhD field and field of work, and time since earning the PhD were indicative of whether PhD alumni felt affirmation or regret for their PhD experience.

Literature review

Doctoral education and professional development are not without challenges. There has been widespread acknowledgement of the numerous challenges to achieve a PhD degree, including mental health (Evans et al., 2018; Levecque et al., 2017), financial (Sverdlik et al., 2018), and hostile climates for members of underrepresented racial groups (Griffin et al., 2012; Mattocks & Briscoe-Palmer, 2016; Posselt et al., 2018). These considerations, taken along with the challenges of a rigorous academic programme over several years, have yielded a success rate of about 50% (Golde, 2005; Walker et al. 2008). But for those who do complete the PhD, the question remains whether they would go through the gruelling process if given the chance and what factors influence this perception. Moreover, given the myriad of differences between fields of study, it is also necessary to understand whether these differences exist between the disciplines.

A popular discussion point among PhD holders is whether the experience and degree were worth the investment and opportunity costs of pursuing the degree. Studies have shown dissatisfaction with the PhD process (Cheng et al., 2016; McAlpine et al., 2020). In fact, numerous opinion pieces loudly proclaim that PhD alumni regret their pursuit of the PhD degree or question whether a PhD is worth it (Black, 2023; Guccione & Bryan, 2023; Stapleton, 2023). Empirical evidence, however, is mixed with some evidence suggesting that early career employment made PhD holders sour on their decision (Guccione & Bryan, 2023). For example, Nature’s 2019 survey of more than 6,800 PhD students revealed that approximately eight percent of participants would not pursue a PhD at all if able to start over (Woolston, 2019). Less is known, however, about the factors that predict feeling of affirmation or regret.

Moreover, studies have focused on the career preparation of PhD graduates who transition into faculty roles within academia (Aarnikoivu et al., 2019; Austin & McDaniels, 2006; Coso Strong & Sekayi, 2018; Golde & Dore, 2001; Morrison et al., 2011; Nyquist et al., 1999; Nyquist & Woodford, 2000). While an academic career has been the primary outcome of PhD education, careers in industry have become more commonplace, particularly among STEM PhD graduates (Etmanski, 2019; Roach & Sauermann, 2010). Fewer studies have focused on humanities PhDs, but those that do have found that those outside of academia found career planning, skills developed, and their PhD research lacking (McAlpine et al., 2020).

Theoretical framing

Given the existing literature with respect to decision-making and career preparation, this study requires a theoretical framing that encompasses the factors as to whether PhD graduates affirm or regret their decision to pursue a PhD, pursue the degree in the same field, and pursue the degree at the same institution. The decision to enroll in a doctoral programme can be examined through a theoretical lens that accounts for human capital formation. At the undergraduate level, Becker (1994) notes that higher education has significant positive effects on an individual’s income and thus is a motivation for attending college. Human capital literature also notes non-monetary outcomes such as job and career satisfaction (Gruenberg, 1980; Tonhäuser & Seeber, 2015). The same framework extends to doctoral education as individuals make a similar cost-benefit analysis prior to the decision to apply and enroll in a doctoral programme. While post-completion income is one factor in the cost-benefit analysis, research has shown human capital formation resulting from doctoral studies includes the formation of active researchers (Sinclair, Barnacle, & Cuthbert, 2014) and a wider society “brain gain” (Heitor, Horta, & Mendonça, 2014). This development of researchers encompasses several career decisions such as the choice of a field of study, post-PhD job sector, and actual employment position vis-à-vis the field in which one studied. In the present study, the doctoral educational process by which students gain important skills in research and project management is represented by participants’ perceptions of how well their programme prepared them for their current position as Becker (1994) notes this development of skills is a crucial element of human capital formation.

We supplement our understanding of human capital theory with empirical literature on educational regret that can offer additional explanation of why PhD graduates may affirm or regret their decision to account for the employment context (Kucel & Vilalta-Bufí, 2013). In the present study, we explore the elements of one’s sociodemographic background and career to determine what factors predict the level at which PhD alumni affirm or regret their decisions. Prior work has similarly tested the relationships of education and training, years of experience, and sociodemographics to predict levels of regret in physicians after medical school (Djulbegovic et al., 2015). As such, we present a more holistic view of PhD programme affirmation and regret that includes classic economic decisions and context.

Materials and methods

Participant recruitment

The data for this study were drawn from the PhD Career Pathways Project, a large study of current PhD students and alumni from across the United States. The Council of Graduate Schools served as the coordinator body with 59 US member institutions taking part in the project. Graduate school deans from PhD granting institutions were recruited to disseminate the survey to their PhD alumni. The Council of Graduate Schools as well as each of the 59 participating institutions obtained Institutional Review Board approval to recruit participants. In conjunction with participating institutions, the alumni survey was aimed at ascertaining the career pathways and decisions of early career (3 years), mid-career (8 years), and advanced stage (15 years) alumni.

In total, we recruited 17,783 participants from 59 institutions across the United States. Of the institutions represented, 50 are classified as R1 (highest research activity), 7 institutions are R2 (high research activity), and the remaining two institutions fall into other Carnegie categories. The sampling of institutions coincides with the production of PhDs in the United States, which are largely at R1 institutions (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2023). All institutions were members of the Council of Graduate Schools and elected to take part in the study.

Data collection

Data for the present study were obtained through web-based Qualtrics surveys. The data were collected annually in Fall 2018 and 2019 when partners distributed the survey to alumni who earned their PhD three, eight, and fifteen years prior.

After removing cases with missing data on all key variables and individuals who were only three years beyond their PhD, the analytical sample yielded 10,970 alumni. Most participants were male (52.4%) and domestic alumni (85.4%). The largest number of alumni came from the biological and health sciences (20.2%). A majority (65.3%) were currently working in academia and 75.8% of respondents noted that they were working in a field that was closely related to their PhD. The mean salary was $108,884.

Measures

The following measures were collected.

Affirmation of one’s decision to pursue a PhD

The primary dependent variables were to measure alumni’s level of likelihood, if they had to start again, to: 1) pursue a PhD in general, 2) pursue a PhD in the same field, and 3) pursue a PhD at the same institution. The responses were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1- Definitely Would Not, 5- Definitely Would).

Ethnoracial identity

Alumni indicated their ethnoracial identity by selecting one or more of the following: American Indian/Alaska Native, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Asian, Black/African American, White, or Hispanic. A Multiracial category was created for any individual who reported more than one race. Ethnoracial identity was dummy-coded with White as the reference group.

Gender

Alumni indicated whether they identified as Male, Female, Gender non-binary, and Another gender not listed. Gender non-binary and Another gender not listed each made up less than 0.5 percent and were excluded from the analyses.

Citizenship

Alumni indicated whether they were a U.S. citizen, permanent U.S. resident, or temporary resident (non-US citizen). These categories were dichotomized by combining the permanent U.S. resident and temporary resident categories (U.S. citizen/resident = 0, international = 1).

Perception of PhD programme’s preparation for current job

A primary independent variable was the respondents’ perceptions of their PhD programme preparation for their current employment role. The responses were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1- Very Poorly, 5-Extremely Well).

Field of study

Field of PhD studied were dummy coded into nine groups: Arts & Humanities, Biology & Health Sciences, Business, Education, Mathematics & Computer Science, Engineering, Physical Sciences, Social Sciences, and Other Fields. Engineering was selected as the reference group.

Job sector

Participants selected from a series of eight sectors that best describe their employer. All academic institutions were collapsed into one category for academia which served as the reference group. Other categories include: government, non-profit, and industry.

Job relatedness

Respondents selected from three options (Closely Related, Somewhat Related, Not at All Related) on how related their current job to their PhD study. The reference category was Closely Related.

Salary

Salary information was initially coded into 12 categories. The categories were then transformed into midpoint dollar values of the first 11 categories to approximate a continuous measure. The midpoint of the open-ended final category ($150,000 or more) was then estimated to be $210,035 using the Pareto approximation technique (Parker & Fenwick, 1983; Wolniak et al., 2008). This technique has been shown to offer better estimates for top-coded earnings information in survey data over other estimation techniques such as a fixed multiple above the highest coded data point (Armour et al., 2016).

Years since PhD

Alumni indicated the year they earned their PhD and were grouped according to their place in the Early Career (3 years), Mid-Career (8 years), or Advanced Stage (15 years) group. The reference category was Early Career.

Statistical analyses

In addition to descriptive statistics of the overall sample, we tested an ordinal regression model to measure the relationships of the key independent variables using Stata 14. A major assumption of most ordinal logistic regression models is proportional odds (test of parallel lines) that is often not met in research studies (Cohen et al., 2003; Liu & Koirala, 2012; Williams, 2016). In the present study, the test of parallel lines was statistically significant and hence the assumption violated. When this key assumption is violated, the researcher may elect to use a multinomial logistic regression, treating the outcomes as categorical but with the loss of parsimony and interpretive power (Williams, 2016). Another option is the heterogenous choice model that provides appropriate estimations while relaxing the assumption only for parameters that violate the proportional odds assumption (Williams, 2010). Unlike other alternatives such as the generalized ordered logit model (-gologit2- command in Stata), the heterogenous choice model using the -oglm- command in Stata provides a single parameter estimate for each covariate rather than four estimates for any parameter that violates the proportional odds assumption, making interpretation easier to understand in theoretical and practical settings while not sacrificing model fit (Williams, 2010). Sensitivity analyses included performing the regression with the -gologit2-, -ologit-, and -oprobit- commands in STATA to ensure that the results were not dependent on specific assumptions. Additional sensitivity analyses were performed with and without several key variables to ensure that results were robust in terms of model specification.

Results

Descriptive results

Our results indicate that alumni were generally affirming of their decision to pursue a PhD (M = 4.19 out of 5, SD = 1.07). They were slightly less affirming of choosing the same institution (M = 3.97, SD = 1.08) and pursuing a PhD in the same field (M = 3.97, SD = 1.16). These results suggest that achieving the PhD continues to be well-regarded after several years, but there may be elements of the experience that leave alumni with some regrets or desire to change their path. The multivariate results attempt to uncover the salient factors that explain levels of affirmation or regret.

Heterogenous choice model results

We present the odds ratios (OR) for statistically significant factors for each of our three models in Figs. 1–3.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Selected odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals displaying significant predictors of pursuing a PhD again if given the opportunity to start over.

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Selected odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals displaying significant predictors of pursuing a PhD again in the same field if given the opportunity to start over.

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Selected odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals displaying significant predictors of pursuing a PhD again at the same institution if given the opportunity to start over.

Full size image

The regression analysis shows that across all three outcomes (pursing a PhD in general, pursuing a PhD in the same field, and pursing a PhD at the same institution), graduates’ perception of how well their PhD prepared them for their current employment was highly predictive of their affirmation of their PhD decision (OR 1.771, OR 2.004, OR 2.497, p < 0.001), respectively. In other words, for each one-unit increase in graduates’ perception of how well their PhD programme prepared them for their currently employment, there was approximately double the likelihood of a similar increase in their affirmation of their PhD decisions. In addition, salary was also positively associated with feelings of affirmation across all three outcomes (OR 1.041, OR 1.033, OR 1.012, p < 0.01), meaning that per $1,000-increment, affirmation of the three PhD decisions was positively correlated. This study’s novel findings, however, rest in the personal, disciplinary, and employment characteristics associated with these feelings of affirmation or regret.

In pursuing a PhD in general, ethnoracial identity was particularly salient. Black PhD holders were 40% more likely to affirm their PhD decision compared with their white peers (OR 1.395 p < 0.01). Asian and Pacific Islander PhD holders, however, were nearly 14% less likely to affirm their PhD decision compared with their white peers (OR 0.866 p < 0.001). By discipline, Physical Science PhDs (OR 1.203 p < 0.05 were more likely to affirm their PhD decision than their peers in Engineering. By employment sector, PhDs in government (OR 0.667 p < 0.001), non-profits (OR 0.794 p < 0.01) and industry (OR 0.612 p < 0.001) were all statistically significantly more likely to regret their PhD decision than their colleagues who remained in academia. In terms of how related their employment is to their PhD, individuals who were in positions “somewhat related” (OR 0.788 p < 0.001) and “not related at all” (OR 0.543 p < 0.001) were statistically significantly more likely to regret their PhD decision than those who were in positions “closely related” to their PhD. Further, time appeared to have an effect with mid-career (OR 1.240, p < 0.001) and advanced stage PhD (OR 1.467, p < 0.001) holders were more likely to affirm their decision compared with early career alumni. Said differently, mid-career individuals were 24% more likely and advanced stage individuals were 47% more likely to affirm their decision to pursue the PhD compared with early career PhDs.

In predicting perceptions of affirmation or regret in pursuing a PhD in the same field, identity and disciplinary factors were less salient. Asian and Pacific Islanders were less likely to affirm their decision to pursue a PhD in the same field than their white counterparts (OR 0.731 p < 0.001). Arts & Humanities PhDs (OR 0.857 p < 0.05) were less likely to affirm and Math PhDs (OR 1.465 p < 0.001) were more likely to affirm their decision to pursue the same PhD than their Engineering peers. Employment sector was more predictive, with PhDs in government (OR 0.803 p < 0.01) and industry (OR 0.731 p < 0.001) less likely to affirm their decision to pursue the PhD in the same field than their peers in academia. Job relatedness was highly predictive, with individuals who were in positions “somewhat related” (OR 0.531 p < 0.001) and “not related at all” (OR 0.381 p < 0.001) significantly less likely to affirm their decision to pursue a PhD in the same field. Here, there were no statistically significant differences between early career and mid-career alumni, but advanced stage alumni were 22% more likely to affirm their decision to pursue a PhD in the same field (OR 1.222 p < 0.001).

For pursuing a PhD at the same institution, women were more likely than men to affirm their decision (OR 1.120 p < 0.01). Hispanic PhD holders were 26% more likely than their white peers to affirm their decision to attend the same institution (OR 1.261 p < 0.01) whereas Asian and Pacific Islander PhD holders were similarly 28% less likely to affirm their decision to attend the same institution (OR 0.717 p < 0.001). Biology and Health Sciences PhDs (OR 1.224 p < 0.01) and Education PhDs (OR 1.357 p < 0.001) were again more likely to affirm their decision to attend the PhD institution compared with Engineering PhDs. PhDs working in government (OR 0.822 p < 0.01) and industry (OR 0.851 p < 0.001) were less affirming of their decision to attend the same PhD institution. The degree of relatedness of the PhD to the current position was not statistically significantly related to their perceptions of affirmation or regret. Again, time was a factor as mid-career (OR 1.254 p < 0.001) and advanced stage (OR 1.275 p < 0.001) were more likely to affirm their decision when compared with early career PhDs with both groups about 25% and 27% more likely to affirm.

Limitations

The results above must be interpreted considering several limitations with the survey instrument and resulting dataset. First, the dependent and main independent variables are self-reported measures. Self-reported data can be problematic due to social desirability bias where respondents may inflate or exaggerate (Miller, 2011) their feelings of affirmation or regret as well as the role of their PhD preparation in their current position. These biases represent a threat to the validity of responses that this study cannot control. Second, there are several institutional factors for which we could not control, most notably institutional or PhD programme prestige. As others have noted, PhD programme reputation is associated with the first post-PhD institution at which the graduate is employed while institutional reputation is linked with research productivity and salary (Warshaw et al., 2017). Third, we were not able to control for PhD experience and programme climate which have been shown to have an effect on individuals, particularly PhDs from marginalized backgrounds (El Kurd & Hummel, 2023; Torres Acosta et al., 2023). Fourth, the sample only included individuals who completed their PhD studies. Given that many individuals who start a PhD but do not complete it, there may be some upward bias in the responses as to whether individuals affirm or regret their decisions related to their PhD experience. Fifth, the sampling method for early career (3 years), mid-career (8 years), and advanced stage (15 years) only provides a cross-section of PhD alumni and may miss the perspectives of individuals who fall between the cohorts and/or those who have had their PhDs for longer than 15 years. Sixth, there are no known documented sample weighting strategies for adjusting for the population of PhD students or alumni in the US. Together, these factors could provide additional explanation for how well the PhD prepared participants for their faculty position that were beyond the scope of this study.

Discussion

These findings extend our current understanding of the factors that are associated with whether a PhD graduate affirms or regrets their decision to pursue a PhD as well as provides novel insight into their perceptions of whether they would pursue a PhD in the same field or at the same institution. These findings build off Woolston’s (2019) large-scale descriptive analyses that found that PhD graduates largely affirm their decision to pursue a PhD. Our findings add nuance to understanding the underlying factors related to sociodemographics, the PhD experience, post-degree career path, and how far along in their career alumni were.

PhD still has return on investment

Though, some of the recent popular writings suggest diminishing values of PhD education (Cheng et al., 2016; Guccione & Bryan, 2023; McAlpine et al., 2020), our results suggest that monetary and non-monetary ROI are still robust, at least among PhD degree holders. Positive correlations of all three outcomes with both earnings (i.e., monetary returns) and job preparedness (i.e., non-monetary human capital returns) suggest that PhD holders perceive their human capital investments in PhD education to be paying off over time, enough for them to “do it all over again.” Though, however, we did not control for perceptions of PhD experience or climate. Given, the growing body of literature that speaks to challenging climate and quality of life while in PhD (El Kurd & Hummel, 2023; Torres Acosta et al., 2023), the question still remains if PhD is a “high return” investment, or one with more modest return. As PhD programmes grapple with discussions of career diversity post-PhD, faculty and programme coordinators can use this evidence when speaking with current and prospective students about the benefits of pursuing a PhD at their institution. Coupled with data on labour market outcomes in their respective fields, this information can help prospective students make better decisions.

Most students of colour affirm their PhD decisions

For choosing a PhD and institution, we found that Hispanic PhD holders were more likely to affirm their decision to attend the same institution and Black PhD holders were more likely to affirm their decision to pursue a PhD in general. These findings speak to self-validation and signalling that the credential may provide to marginalized students. There is evidence that powers of oppression such as systemic racism have resulted in students of colour feeling that they must put in more work and have a higher degree than their white colleagues to achieve success in academia and the workforce (Fox Tree & Vaid, 2022; McGee, 2021; Wilkins-Yel et al., 2022). From a human capital perspective, Tomaskovic-Devey et al. (2005) argue that race and the racialized experiences of discrimination is as much a determinant in career outcomes. While we did not control perceptions of racism or programme/workplace climate, viewing these results in conjunction with extant literature seems to indicate that structural forces may be shaping these perceptions. For PhD programme directors and faculty, these findings speak to the challenge of deconstructing long-existing racial barriers in academia that serve to populate positions across employment sectors. Recent discussions and interventions involving inclusive mentoring (Wofford, 2023) can help largely homogenous fields to expand membership in their fields, including academia and industry.

In addition, these findings can be viewed in the context of the social reproduction we observe in PhD education. Recent findings on tenure-track faculty in the US found that faculty were approximately 25 times more likely to follow in their parents’ PhD-holding footsteps (Morgan et al., 2022). For students of colour, many of whom are the first to earn a PhD in their family, the PhD is a means to social mobility. The degrees of PhD affirmation observed by graduates of colour in our study may signify a small step towards ensuring social mobility among these populations as well as diversifying the upper echelons of academia, government, non-profits, and industry. Thus, marginal returns on investment may be even higher for those who are first generation.

Later career alumni affirm their decisions

The adage of “time heals all wounds” may be relevant here. But when considering the literature of retrospective studies on the doctoral experience (González-Ocampo & Castelló, 2019; Lee et al., 2023), this finding represents the first empirical evidence that alumni look back on their PhD decisions more fondly after time. There remains the question whether the PhD process and job market in recent years has soured the experience for early career PhDs whereas PhDs who solidified their career tracks 15 years ago are in more satisfying careers. Many of these individuals have survived the tenure process in academia or have moved into senior positions in industry, government, and for-profits. Given the challenges of the job markets and issues of toxicity in programmes and fields of study, academia should not interpret this study’s findings that PhDs will eventually “get over it.” Rather, the literature on programmes and fields of study that have been hostile to members of minoritized communities have a duty to create a more welcoming environment with clear career paths beyond the PhD (Briscoe, 2024).

Institutional implications

While this study features a sample of largely Carnegie Classification Research 1 (R1 or “Very High Research”) institutions, these findings have implications for institutions and PhD programmes for a multitude of institutions. For all institutions regardless of size or classification, these findings speak to the importance of cultivating a supportive PhD student experience from a sense of belonging to career preparation for an array of professional roles (Briscoe, 2024; Council of Graduate Schools, 2020). Particularly for those who pursue careers outside of academia, the lower levels of affirmation could indicate that programmes are not adequately preparing graduates for careers in these sectors where we see more graduates choosing (Aarnikoivu et al., 2019; Roach & Sauermann, 2017). Recommendations for practitioners can include better alignment between the skills gained and the language used with students from recruitment through degree completion (Council of Graduate Schools, 2020).

For PhD programmes at smaller or less research-intensive institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other Minority Serving Institutions, these findings offer similar perspectives on how best to prepare PhD graduates given the interest in increasing research capacities across many Carnegie institutional types. Given that there is a shortage of tenure-track positions in academia (Larson et al., 2014), this study’s findings that show how well their PhD programme prepared graduates for current employment (their human capital as evidenced by their skills and knowledge) point to holistic support for preparing students to compete for scarce academic jobs but also jobs across sectors. The recent requirement for PhD student mentoring and individual development plans from the National Science Foundation (Langin, 2024) and National Institutes of Health (2021). Such mentorship, however, should be conscious of issues of power that permeate the employment market (Bettencourt et al., 2021). As smaller institutions seek to expand their research mission to break into spaces typically held by traditional research powerhouses, these institutions can carve their niche by marrying strong student support with research skill development. Programmes of all sizes can also use the measures presented in this study among their alumni for programme review and improvement purposes as a critical data point.

Conclusion

This study contributes some of the first empirical evidence linking sociodemographic and career characteristics to levels of affirmation of three important aspects of the PhD experience among a national sample of PhD alumni. The relatively high level of affirmation of PhD decisions may temper some of the fears that graduates regret their PhD decisions. This deeper analysis provides encouraging news on return on investment and affirmation based on race and ethnicity. But the questions of mental health, toxic programme climates, financial challenges, and career insecurity remain (Woolston, 2019). For academia, while these findings may provide comfort that PhD graduates have a positive feeling on their decisions related to their PhD, the findings surrounding job sector and relatedness along with the scarcity of academic jobs can inform discussions and admissions policies on the question of possible overproduction of PhDs. As PhD programmes grapple with preparing their students for a variety of post-PhD careers, these findings can serve as a call to programme coordinators and faculty to incorporate more holistic training so that graduates can find value in their degree as they venture outside of academia or their narrow field of study.

This study represents the first step in exploring the idea of affirmation and regret in the PhD decision process. This analysis only focused on those who successfully completed the PhD process and were willing to share their perspectives. Future analyses must consider additional measures for climate and wellness to understand the factors that explain whether a PhD graduate would make the same decision if they had the opportunity. Moreover, a longitudinal mixed methods approach over a 15-year period rather than a cross-section of three cohorts can provide stronger evidence of the effect of time as well as personal narratives that underpin the quantitative data. While doctoral faculty and administrators may look to these results to highlight the positives, experience and research show us that more work is needed to ensure that the PhD experience and outcomes are positive for our PhD graduates.