failed phd

• PhD Failure Rate – A Study of 26,076 PhD Candidates
• Doing a PhD

The PhD failure rate in the UK is 19.5%, with 16.2% of students leaving their PhD programme early, and 3.3% of students failing their viva. 80.5% of all students who enrol onto a PhD programme successfully complete it and are awarded a doctorate.

Introduction

One of the biggest concerns for doctoral students is the ongoing fear of failing their PhD.

After all those years of research, the long days in the lab and the endless nights in the library, it’s no surprise to find many agonising over the possibility of it all being for nothing. While this fear will always exist, it would help you to know how likely failure is, and what you can do to increase your chances of success.

Read on to learn how PhDs can be failed, what the true failure rates are based on an analysis of 26,067 PhD candidates from 14 UK universities, and what your options are if you’re unsuccessful in obtaining your PhD.

Ways You Can Fail A PhD

There are essentially two ways in which you can fail a PhD; non-completion or failing your viva (also known as your thesis defence ).

Non-completion

Non-completion is when a student leaves their PhD programme before having sat their viva examination. Since vivas take place at the end of the PhD journey, typically between the 3rd and 4th year for most full-time programmes, most failed PhDs fall within the ‘non-completion’ category because of the long duration it covers.

There are many reasons why a student may decide to leave a programme early, though these can usually be grouped into two categories:

• Motives – The individual may no longer believe undertaking a PhD is for them. This might be because it isn’t what they had imagined, or they’ve decided on an alternative path.
• Extenuating circumstances – The student may face unforeseen problems beyond their control, such as poor health, bereavement or family difficulties, preventing them from completing their research.

In both cases, a good supervisor will always try their best to help the student continue with their studies. In the former case, this may mean considering alternative research questions or, in the latter case, encouraging you to seek academic support from the university through one of their student care policies.

Besides the student deciding to end their programme early, the university can also make this decision. On these occasions, the student’s supervisor may not believe they’ve made enough progress for the time they’ve been on the project. If the problem can’t be corrected, the supervisor may ask the university to remove the student from the programme.

Failing The Viva

Assuming you make it to the end of your programme, there are still two ways you can be unsuccessful.

The first is an unsatisfactory thesis. For whatever reason, your thesis may be deemed not good enough, lacking originality, reliable data, conclusive findings, or be of poor overall quality. In such cases, your examiners may request an extensive rework of your thesis before agreeing to perform your viva examination. Although this will rarely be the case, it is possible that you may exceed the permissible length of programme registration and if you don’t have valid grounds for an extension, you may not have enough time to be able to sit your viva.

The more common scenario, while still being uncommon itself, is that you sit and fail your viva examination. The examiners may decide that your research project is severely flawed, to the point where it can’t possibly be remedied even with major revisions. This could happen for reasons such as basing your study on an incorrect fundamental assumption; this should not happen however if there is a proper supervisory support system in place.

PhD Failure Rate – UK & EU Statistics

According to 2010-11 data published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (now replaced by UK Research and Innovation ), 72.9% of students enrolled in a PhD programme in the UK or EU complete their degree within seven years. Following this, 80.5% of PhD students complete their degree within 25 years.

This means that four out of every five students who register onto a PhD programme successfully complete their doctorate.

While a failure rate of one in five students may seem a little high, most of these are those who exit their programme early as opposed to those who fail at the viva stage.

Failing Doesn’t Happen Often

Although a PhD is an independent project, you will be appointed a supervisor to support you. Each university will have its own system for how your supervisor is to support you , but regardless of this, they will all require regular communication between the two of you. This could be in the form of annual reviews, quarterly interim reviews or regular meetings. The majority of students also have a secondary academic supervisor (and in some cases a thesis committee of supervisors); the role of these can vary from having a hands-on role in regular supervision, to being another useful person to bounce ideas off of.

These frequent check-ins are designed to help you stay on track with your project. For example, if any issues are identified, you and your supervisor can discuss how to rectify them in order to refocus your research. This reduces the likelihood of a problem going undetected for several years, only for it to be unearthed after it’s too late to address.

In addition, the thesis you submit to your examiners will likely be your third or fourth iteration, with your supervisor having critiqued each earlier version. As a result, your thesis will typically only be submitted to the examiners after your supervisor approves it; many UK universities require a formal, signed document to be submitted by the primary academic supervisor at the same time as the student submits the thesis, confirming that he or she has approved the submission.

Failed Viva – Outcomes of 26,076 Students

Despite what you may have heard, the failing PhD rate amongst students who sit their viva is low.

This, combined with ongoing guidance from your supervisor, is because vivas don’t have a strict pass/fail outcome. You can find a detailed breakdown of all viva outcomes in our viva guide, but to summarise – the most common outcome will be for you to revise your thesis in accordance with the comments from your examiners and resubmit it.

This means that as long as the review of your thesis and your viva examination uncovers no significant issues, you’re almost certain to be awarded a provisional pass on the basis you make the necessary corrections to your thesis.

To give you an indication of the viva failure rate, we’ve analysed the outcomes of 26,076 PhD candidates from 14 UK universities who sat a viva between 2006 and 2017.

The analysis shows that of the 26,076 students who sat their viva, 25,063 succeeded; this is just over 96% of the total students as shown in the chart below.

Students Who Passed

The analysis shows that of the 96% of students who passed, approximately 5% required no amendments, 79% required minor amendments and the remaining 16% required major revisions. This supports our earlier discussion on how the most common outcome of a viva is a ‘pass with minor amendments’.

Students Who Failed

Of the 4% of unsuccessful students, approximately 97% were awarded an MPhil (Master of Philosophy), and 3% weren’t awarded a degree.

Note : It should be noted that while the data provides the student’s overall outcome, i.e. whether they passed or failed, they didn’t all provide the students specific outcome, i.e. whether they had to make amendments, or with a failure, whether they were awarded an MPhil. Therefore, while the breakdowns represent the current known data, the exact breakdown may differ.

Summary of Findings

By using our data in combination with the earlier statistic provided by HEFCE, we can gain an overall picture of the PhD journey as summarised in the image below.

To summarise, based on the analysis of 26,076 PhD candidates at 14 universities between 2006 and 2017, the PhD pass rate in the UK is 80.5%. Of the 19.5% of students who fail, 3.3% is attributed to students failing their viva and the remaining 16.2% is attributed to students leaving their programme early.

The above statistics indicate that while 1 in every 5 students fail their PhD, the failure rate for the viva process itself is low. Specifically, only 4% of all students who sit their viva fail; in other words, 96% of the students pass it.

What Are Your Options After an Unsuccessful PhD?

Appeal your outcome.

If you believe you had a valid case, you can try to appeal against your outcome . The appeal process will be different for each university, so ensure you consult the guidelines published by your university before taking any action.

While making an appeal may be an option, it should only be considered if you genuinely believe you have a legitimate case. Most examiners have a lot of experience in assessing PhD candidates and follow strict guidelines when making their decisions. Therefore, your claim for appeal will need to be strong if it is to stand up in front of committee members in the adjudication process.

Downgrade to MPhil

If you are unsuccessful in being awarded a PhD, an MPhil may be awarded instead. For this to happen, your work would need to be considered worthy of an MPhil, as although it is a Master’s degree, it is still an advanced postgraduate research degree.

Unfortunately, there’s a lot of stigma around MPhil degrees, with many worrying that it will be seen as a sign of a failed PhD. While not as advanced as a PhD, an MPhil is still an advanced research degree, and being awarded one shows that you’ve successfully carried out an independent research project which is an undertaking to be admired.

Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.

Additional Resources

Hopefully now knowing the overall picture your mind will feel slightly more at ease. Regardless, there are several good practices you can adopt to ensure you’re always in the best possible position. The key of these includes developing a good working relationship with your supervisor, working to a project schedule, having your thesis checked by several other academics aside from your supervisor, and thoroughly preparing for your viva examination.

We’ve developed a number of resources which should help you in the above:

• What to Expect from Your Supervisor – Find out what to look for in a Supervisor, how they will typically support you, and how often you should meet with them.
• How to Write a Research Proposal – Find an outline of how you can go about putting a project plan together.
• What is a PhD Viva? – Learn exactly what a viva is, their purpose and what you can expect on the day. We’ve also provided a full breakdown of all the possible outcomes of a viva and tips to help you prepare for your own.

Data for Statistics

• Cardiff University – 2006/07 to 2016/17
• Imperial College London – 2006/07 to 2016/17
• London School of Economics (LSE) – 2006/07 to 2015/16
• Queen Mary University of London – 2009/10 to 2015/16
• University College London (UCL) – 2006/07 to 2016/17
• University of Aberdeen – 2006/07 to 2016/17
• University of Birmingham – 2006/07 to 2015/16
• University of Bristol – 2006/07 to 2016/17
• University of Edinburgh – 2006/07 to 2016/17
• University of Nottingham – 2006/07 to 2015/16
• University of Oxford – 2007/08 to 2016/17
• University of York – 2009/10 to 2016/17
• University of Manchester – 2008/09 to 2017/18
• University of Sheffield – 2006/07 to 2016/17

Note : The data used for this analysis was obtained from the above universities under the Freedom of Information Act. As per the Act, the information was provided in such a way that no specific individual can be identified from the data.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

• Career Advice

How to Avoid Failing Your Ph.D. Dissertation

By  Daniel Sokol

You have / 5 articles left. Sign up for a free account or log in.

Istock.com/erhui1979

I am a barrister in London who specializes in helping doctoral students who have failed their Ph.D.s. Few people will have had the dubious privilege of seeing as many unsuccessful Ph.D. dissertations and reading as many scathing reports by examination committees. Here are common reasons why students who submit their Ph.D.s fail, with advice on how to avoid such pitfalls. The lessons apply to the United States and the United Kingdom.

Lack of critical reflection. Probably the most common reason for failing a Ph.D. dissertation is a lack of critical analysis. A typical observation of the examination committee is, “The thesis is generally descriptive and a more analytical approach is required.”

For doctoral work, students must engage critically with the subject matter, not just set out what other scholars have said or done. If not, the thesis will not be original. It will not add anything of substance to the field and will fail.

Doctoral students should adopt a reflexive approach to their work. Why have I chosen this methodology? What are the flaws or limitations of this or that author’s argument? Can I make interesting comparisons between this and something else? Those who struggle with this aspect should ask their supervisors for advice on how to inject some analytic sophistication to their thesis.

Lack of coherence. Other common observations are of the type: “The argument running through the thesis needs to be more coherent” or “The thesis is poorly organized and put together without any apparent logic.”

The thesis should be seen as one coherent whole. It cannot be a series of self-contained chapters stitched together haphazardly. Students should spend considerable time at the outset of their dissertation thinking about structure, both at the macro level of the entire thesis and the micro level of the chapter. It is a good idea to look at other Ph.D. theses and monographs to get a sense of what constitutes a logical structure.

Poor presentation. The majority of failed Ph.D. dissertations are sloppily presented. They contain typos, grammatical mistakes, referencing errors and inconsistencies in presentation. Looking at some committee reports randomly, I note the following comments:

• “The thesis is poorly written.”
• “That previous section is long, badly written and lacks structure.”
• “The author cannot formulate his thoughts or explain his reasons. It is very hard to understand a good part of the thesis.”
• “Ensure that the standard of written English is consistent with the standard expected of a Ph.D. thesis.”
• “The language used is simplistic and does not reflect the standard of writing expected at Ph.D. level.”

For committee members, who are paid a fixed and pitiful sum to examine the work, few things are as off-putting as a poorly written dissertation. Errors of language slow the reading speed and can frustrate or irritate committee members. At worst, they can lead them to miss or misinterpret an argument.

Students should consider using a professional proofreader to read the thesis, if permitted by the university’s regulations. But that still is no guarantee of an error-free thesis. Even after the proofreader has returned the manuscript, students should read and reread the work in its entirety.

When I was completing my Ph.D., I read my dissertation so often that the mere sight of it made me nauseous. Each time, I would spot a typo or tweak a sentence, removing a superfluous word or clarifying an ambiguous passage. My meticulous approach was rewarded when one committee member said in the oral examination that it was the best-written dissertation he had ever read. This was nothing to do with skill or an innate writing ability but tedious, repetitive revision.

Failure to make required changes. It is rare for students to fail to obtain their Ph.D. outright at the oral examination. Usually, the student is granted an opportunity to resubmit their dissertation after making corrections.

Students often submit their revised thesis together with a document explaining how they implemented the committee’s recommendations. And they often believe, wrongly, that this document is proof that they have incorporated the requisite changes and that they should be awarded a Ph.D.

In fact, the committee may feel that the changes do not go far enough or that they reveal further misunderstandings or deficiencies. Here are some real observations by dissertation committees:

• “The added discussion section is confusing. The only thing that has improved is the attempt to provide a little more analysis of the experimental data.”
• “The author has tried to address the issues identified by the committee, but there is little improvement in the thesis.”

In short, students who fail their Ph.D. dissertations make changes that are superficial or misconceived. Some revised theses end up worse than the original submission.

Students must incorporate changes in the way that the committee members had in mind. If what is required is unclear, students can usually seek clarification through their supervisors.

In the nine years I have spent helping Ph.D. students with their appeals, I have found that whatever the subject matter of the thesis, the above criticisms appear time and time again in committee reports. They are signs of a poor Ph.D.

Wise students should ask themselves these questions prior to submission of the dissertation:

• Is the work sufficiently critical/analytical, or is it mainly descriptive?
• Is it coherent and well structured?
• Does the thesis look good and read well?
• If a resubmission, have I made the changes that the examination committee had in mind?

Once students are satisfied that the answer to each question is yes, they should ask their supervisors the same questions.

Talladega College Leaders Respond to Financial Tumult

The historically Black college has suffered from enrollment declines and mounting debts.

Share This Article

More from career advice.

How to Mitigate Bias and Hire the Best People

Patrick Arens shares an approach to reviewing candidates that helps you select those most suited to do the job rather

The Warning Signs of Academic Layoffs

Ryan Anderson advises on how to tell if your institution is gearing up for them and how you can prepare and protect y

Legislation Isn’t All That Negatively Impacts DEI Practitioners

Many experience incivility, bullying, belittling and a disregard for their views and feelings on their own campuses,

• Become a Member
• Sign up for Newsletters
• Learning & Assessment
• Diversity & Equity
• Career Development
• Labor & Unionization
• Shared Governance
• Academic Freedom
• Books & Publishing
• Financial Aid
• Residential Life
• Free Speech
• Physical & Mental Health
• Race & Ethnicity
• Sex & Gender
• Socioeconomics
• Traditional-Age
• Adult & Post-Traditional
• Teaching & Learning
• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Publishing
• Data Analytics
• Administrative Tech
• Alternative Credentials
• Financial Health
• Cost-Cutting
• Revenue Strategies
• Academic Programs
• Physical Campuses
• Mergers & Collaboration
• Fundraising
• Research Universities
• Regional Public Universities
• Community Colleges
• Private Nonprofit Colleges
• Minority-Serving Institutions
• Religious Colleges
• Women's Colleges
• Specialized Colleges
• For-Profit Colleges
• Executive Leadership
• Trustees & Regents
• State Oversight
• Accreditation
• Politics & Elections
• Supreme Court
• Student Aid Policy
• Science & Research Policy
• State Policy
• Colleges & Localities
• Employee Satisfaction
• Remote & Flexible Work
• Staff Issues
• Study Abroad
• International Students in U.S.
• U.S. Colleges in the World
• Intellectual Affairs
• Seeking a Faculty Job
• Advancing in the Faculty
• Seeking an Administrative Job
• Advancing as an Administrator
• Beyond Transfer
• Call to Action
• Confessions of a Community College Dean
• Higher Ed Gamma
• Higher Ed Policy
• Just Explain It to Me!
• Just Visiting
• Law, Policy—and IT?
• Leadership & StratEDgy
• Leadership in Higher Education
• Learning Innovation
• Online: Trending Now
• Resident Scholar
• University of Venus
• Student Voice
• Academic Life
• Health & Wellness
• The College Experience
• Life After College
• Academic Minute
• Weekly Wisdom
• Reports & Data
• Quick Takes
• Advertising & Marketing
• Consulting Services
• Data & Insights
• Hiring & Jobs
• Event Partnerships

4 /5 Articles remaining this month.

Sign up for a free account or log in.

• Sign Up, It’s FREE

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 13 July 2022

How to bounce back from a PhD-project failure

• Nikki Forrester 0

Nikki Forrester is a science journalist based in West Virginia.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Failure is an integral part of science. Research projects get scooped, protocols prove unsuccessful or funding limitations restrict data collection, delaying progress and sending scientists back to the drawing board. These setbacks plague researchers of all career stages, but they can feel particularly acute for PhD candidates who are racing against time to earn their degrees. Nature talked to five scientists about the hurdles they faced in their PhD research, how they successfully switched projects midway through and what advice they have for others in a similar situation.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 607 , 407-409 (2022)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01900-y

These interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Related Articles

Massive Attack’s science-led drive to lower music’s carbon footprint

Career Feature 04 SEP 24

Tales of a migratory marine biologist

Career Feature 28 AUG 24

Nail your tech-industry interviews with these six techniques

Career Column 28 AUG 24

Guide, don’t hide: reprogramming learning in the wake of AI

Career Guide 04 SEP 24

What I learnt from running a coding bootcamp

Career Column 21 AUG 24

The Taliban said women could study — three years on they still can’t

News 14 AUG 24

How can I publish open access when I can’t afford the fees?

Career Feature 02 SEP 24

Postdoctoral Associate- Genetic Epidemiology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

NOMIS Foundation ETH Postdoctoral Fellowship

The NOMIS Foundation ETH Fellowship Programme supports postdoctoral researchers at ETH Zurich within the Centre for Origin and Prevalence of Life ...

Zurich, Canton of Zürich (CH)

Centre for Origin and Prevalence of Life at ETH Zurich

13 PhD Positions at Heidelberg University

GRK2727/1 – InCheck Innate Immune Checkpoints in Cancer and Tissue Damage

Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg (DE) and Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg (DE)

Medical Faculties Mannheim & Heidelberg and DKFZ, Germany

Postdoctoral Associate- Environmental Epidemiology

Open faculty positions at the state key laboratory of brain cognition & brain-inspired intelligence.

The laboratory focuses on understanding the mechanisms of brain intelligence and developing the theory and techniques of brain-inspired intelligence.

Shanghai, China

CAS Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology (CEBSIT)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Failed PhD: how scientists have bounced back from doctoral setbacks

• PMID: 37604999
• DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-02603-8

Keywords: Careers; Education; Lab life; Scientific community.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Strategies and Resources for Increasing the PhD Pipeline and Producing Independent Nurse Scientists. Stanfill AG, Aycock D, Dionne-Odom JN, Rosa WE. Stanfill AG, et al. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2019 Nov;51(6):717-726. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12524. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2019. PMID: 31697044
• From vision to action: Next steps in designing PhD programs of the future. Villarruel AM, Trautman D, Fairman JA. Villarruel AM, et al. J Prof Nurs. 2021 Jan-Feb;37(1):216-220. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2020.09.008. Epub 2020 Sep 19. J Prof Nurs. 2021. PMID: 33674098
• Doctoral students' well-being: a literature review. Schmidt M, Hansson E. Schmidt M, et al. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2018 Dec;13(1):1508171. doi: 10.1080/17482631.2018.1508171. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2018. PMID: 30102142 Free PMC article. Review.
• A theoretical framework to promote minority PhD and DNP student success in nursing education. Avery-Desmarais SL, Hunter Revell SM, McCurry MK. Avery-Desmarais SL, et al. J Prof Nurs. 2021 Nov-Dec;37(6):1149-1153. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2021.10.002. Epub 2021 Oct 22. J Prof Nurs. 2021. PMID: 34887033
• A profile of U.S. nursing faculty in research- and practice-focused doctoral education. Smeltzer SC, Sharts-Hopko NC, Cantrell MA, Heverly MA, Nthenge S, Jenkinson A. Smeltzer SC, et al. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2015 Mar;47(2):178-85. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12123. Epub 2015 Jan 30. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2015. PMID: 25641233 Review.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Nature Publishing Group

Miscellaneous

• NCI CPTAC Assay Portal

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

10 easy ways to fail a Ph.D.

The attrition rate in Ph.D. school is high.

Anywhere from a third to half will fail.

In fact, there's a disturbing consistency to grad school failure.

I'm supervising a lot of new grad students this semester, so for their sake, I'm cataloging the common reasons for failure.

Read on for the top ten reasons students fail out of Ph.D. school.

Focus on grades or coursework

No one cares about grades in grad school.

There's a simple formula for the optimal GPA in grad school:

Anything higher implies time that could have been spent on research was wasted on classes. Advisors might even raise an eyebrow at a 4.0

During the first two years, students need to find an advisor, pick a research area, read a lot of papers and try small, exploratory research projects. Spending too much time on coursework distracts from these objectives.

Learn too much

Some students go to Ph.D. school because they want to learn.

Let there be no mistake: Ph.D. school involves a lot of learning.

But, it requires focused learning directed toward an eventual thesis.

Taking (or sitting in on) non-required classes outside one's focus is almost always a waste of time, and it's always unnecessary.

By the end of the third year, a typical Ph.D. student needs to have read about 50 to 150 papers to defend the novelty of a proposed thesis.

Of course, some students go too far with the related work search, reading so much about their intended area of research that they never start that research.

Advisors will lose patience with "eternal" students that aren't focused on the goal--making a small but significant contribution to human knowledge.

In the interest of personal disclosure, I suffered from the "want to learn everything" bug when I got to Ph.D. school.

I took classes all over campus for my first two years: Arabic, linguistics, economics, physics, math and even philosophy. In computer science, I took lots of classes in areas that had nothing to do with my research.

The price of all this "enlightenment" was an extra year on my Ph.D.

I only got away with this detour because while I was doing all that, I was a TA, which meant I wasn't wasting my advisor's grant funding.

Expect perfection

Perfectionism is a tragic affliction in academia, since it tends to hit the brightest the hardest.

Perfection cannot be attained. It is approached in the limit.

Students that polish a research paper well past the point of diminishing returns, expecting to hit perfection, will never stop polishing.

Students that can't begin to write until they have the perfect structure of the paper mapped out will never get started.

For students with problems starting on a paper or dissertation, my advice is that writing a paper should be an iterative process: start with an outline and some rough notes; take a pass over the paper and improve it a little; rinse; repeat. When the paper changes little with each pass, it's at diminishing returns. One or two more passes over the paper are all it needs at that point.

"Good enough" is better than "perfect."

Procrastinate

Chronic perfectionists also tend to be procrastinators.

So do eternal students with a drive to learn instead of research.

Ph.D. school seems to be a magnet for every kind of procrastinator.

Unfortunately, it is also a sieve that weeds out the unproductive.

Procrastinators should check out my tips for boosting productivity .

Go rogue too soon/too late

The advisor-advisee dynamic needs to shift over the course of a degree.

Early on, the advisor should be hands on, doling out specific topics and helping to craft early papers.

Toward the end, the student should know more than the advisor about her topic. Once the inversion happens, she needs to "go rogue" and start choosing the topics to investigate and initiating the paper write-ups. She needs to do so even if her advisor is insisting she do something else.

The trick is getting the timing right.

Going rogue before the student knows how to choose good topics and write well will end in wasted paper submissions and a grumpy advisor.

On the other hand, continuing to act only when ordered to act past a certain point will strain an advisor that expects to start seeing a "return" on an investment of time and hard-won grant money.

Advisors expect near-terminal Ph.D. students to be proto-professors with intimate knowledge of the challenges in their field. They should be capable of selecting and attacking research problems of appropriate size and scope.

Treat Ph.D. school like school or work

Ph.D. school is neither school nor work.

Ph.D. school is a monastic experience. And, a jealous hobby.

Solving problems and writing up papers well enough to pass peer review demands contemplative labor on days, nights and weekends.

Reading through all of the related work takes biblical levels of devotion.

Ph.D. school even comes with built-in vows of poverty and obedience.

The end brings an ecclesiastical robe and a clerical hood.

Students that treat Ph.D. school like a 9-5 endeavor are the ones that take 7+ years to finish, or end up ABD.

Ignore the committee

Some Ph.D. students forget that a committee has to sign off on their Ph.D.

It's important for students to maintain contact with committee members in the latter years of a Ph.D. They need to know what a student is doing.

It's also easy to forget advice from a committee member since they're not an everyday presence like an advisor.

Committee members, however, rarely forget the advice they give.

It doesn't usually happen, but I've seen a shouting match between a committee member and a defender where they disagreed over the metrics used for evaluation of an experiment. This committee member warned the student at his proposal about his choice of metrics.

He ignored that warning.

He was lucky: it added only one more semester to his Ph.D.

Another student I knew in grad school was told not to defend, based on the draft of his dissertation. He overruled his committee's advice, and failed his defense. He was told to scrap his entire dissertaton and start over. It took him over ten years to finish his Ph.D.

Aim too low

Some students look at the weakest student to get a Ph.D. in their department and aim for that.

This attitude guarantees that no professorship will be waiting for them.

And, it all but promises failure.

The weakest Ph.D. to escape was probably repeatedly unlucky with research topics, and had to settle for a contingency plan.

Aiming low leaves no room for uncertainty.

And, research is always uncertain.

Aim too high

A Ph.D. seems like a major undertaking from the perspective of the student.

But, it is not the final undertaking. It's the start of a scientific career.

A Ph.D. does not have to cure cancer or enable cold fusion.

At best a handful of chemists remember what Einstein's Ph.D. was in.

Einstein's Ph.D. dissertation was a principled calculation meant to estimate Avogadro's number. He got it wrong. By a factor of 3.

He still got a Ph.D.

A Ph.D. is a small but significant contribution to human knowledge.

Impact is something students should aim for over a lifetime of research.

Making a big impact with a Ph.D. is about as likely as hitting a bullseye the very first time you've fired a gun.

Once you know how to shoot, you can keep shooting until you hit it.

Plus, with a Ph.D., you get a lifetime supply of ammo.

Some advisors can give you a list of potential research topics. If they can, pick the topic that's easiest to do but which still retains your interest.

It does not matter at all what you get your Ph.D. in.

All that matters is that you get one.

It's the training that counts--not the topic.

Miss the real milestones

Most schools require coursework, qualifiers, thesis proposal, thesis defense and dissertation. These are the requirements on paper.

In practice, the real milestones are three good publications connected by a (perhaps loosely) unified theme.

Coursework and qualifiers are meant to undo admissions mistakes. A student that has published by the time she takes her qualifiers is not a mistake.

Once a student has two good publications, if she convinces her committee that she can extrapolate a third, she has a thesis proposal.

Once a student has three publications, she has defended, with reasonable confidence, that she can repeatedly conduct research of sufficient quality to meet the standards of peer review. If she draws a unifying theme, she has a thesis, and if she staples her publications together, she has a dissertation.

I fantasize about buying an industrial-grade stapler capable of punching through three journal papers and calling it The Dissertator .

Of course, three publications is nowhere near enough to get a professorship--even at a crappy school. But, it's about enough to get a Ph.D.

Related posts

• Recommended reading for grad students .
• The illustrated guide to a Ph.D.
• How to get into grad school .
• Advice for thesis proposals .
• Productivity tips for academics .
• Academic job hunt advice .
• Successful Ph.D. students: Perseverance, tenacity and cogency .
• The CRAPL: An open source license for academics .

After horrible 5.5 years completely failed PhD (not even any degree awarded)

Hi, I started my PhD in 2012, on my first day I already got warned to be careful with my supervisor. Having had quite bad supervisors in the past (the ‘fat girls are stupid’ kind and the ‘you aren’t my favourite so I do not help you’ kind) I figured at this stage I’m fine I was well used to it. Now, 1 car crash, bullying, address to the lab withdrawn then lack of results blamed on being stupid, almost 6 years later I suffer from depression, have ongoing nightmares and not even any kind of participation badge for all the time in the lab and- frankly, therapy. I agree that the thesis was bad but I do find it an odd coincidence that I was told I was going to pass, until I filed an academic and dignity complaint against my supervisors (with evidence) and now I am supposed to get more experimental results (without lab access) and am supposed to improve my bad writing... I know I am not stupid but I feel bad I been given the materials, the access and the support that was advertised and had they listened when Initially discussed the lack of biological relevance and scientific depth when I requested a switch from topic- i feel I would have at least gotten an MPhil. After refusing a switch in topic or supervisors because ‘there is no time to get enough results with only 3 years left’ they then switched my topic with only little under 2 years left, which suddenly was more than enough time. At the same time I was told I was useless unless I went part-time but worked on the thesis full-time and came in every weekend (while blocking my out of hours access???) The thesis was bad and I said it from the beginning but was always told I was doing Phantastin with a paper on the way (until the complaint...when oddly suddenly I failed and had tons of obstacles thrown my way) How do I get over this?

You are supposed to get more results, or they have failed you outright? Has this been through the board of examiners? There are still steps you can take to rectify this is you want to. You can appeal the decision, if you have grounds do so, e.g. if there was "material irregularity in the decision making process", such as they didn't follow the procedures properly, or there were errors made, if your performance was affected by something you haven't disclosed or they failed to take account of it properly (maybe the latter in your case?). Seek advice from the Students' Union If you just want to forget it about it, then I suggest getting a change of scene, go on holiday, or go and stay with friends/family somewhere. Time and distance will give you some perspective. Failing that, try some counselling. It does sound like you have had a raw deal here and this should be a lesson to anyone that is thinking about registering a complaint about supervisors - it generally does not have a good outcome and is best left until your certificate is safely in your hand.

Hi, Just finished crying and reading through the notes. I was failed outright (no viva) but was given the option to resubmit in 1 year with a mandatory viva (perfectly fair enough) but they want more data. How can I possibly get more data without access to the laboratory? They blocked my access long before submission, I didn‘t even have library access. Thanks for the student union tip, I have raised that the internal examiner is one of my supervisors closest friends but I am am still shattered. How is one supposed to get good data without laboratory access, out of hour access revoked almost 1 year before writing period started and no access to materials needed for cloning without arguing for weeks? Such a long time, such a long gap in my CV and so much bad treatment all for nothing :(

Hi, Tigernore, You have my sympathy. Working under a bullly supervisor is awful and you have not been given fair treatment. As Tree of Life has advised, seek the Students Union. In fact, see if your Students Union provide legal services. You have nothing to lose anyway, and talking to a lawyer will help you determine if any rules have been broken incl the right access to lab support and material as a student. It will also put pressure on the university as they normally do not want anything that may damage their reputation, especially if they are in the wrong. You may even be able to fight for lab access again and another fair examination of your thesis. Dry your tears. Now is the time for desperate actions and strategy. You must stay strong. What your supervisor and examiners want to do is to force you to give up and walk away, painting you as a bad student. You must not let them win. I speak from my personal experience as I too launched a complain towards my supervisor and the amount of backlash and soft threats (veiled as advice to maintain good relationship with supervisor as I need his letter of support) were terrible. I represented myself at institute level -failed, faculty level -failed and finally University level -success with a detailed portfolio of evidence and cover letter provided with strong support from a lawyer from Students Union. In my case, I had very strong evidence and was advised by my lawyer that if I failed again at university level, I could go to court. Luckily I didn't have to but the experience was traumatic. Every case is different, and I wish you the very best as you fight for yours. Don give up without trying to fight.

I would echo what tru has said as well. This is not over yet if you don't want it to be. They have to give you lab access if they are asking for more results. Cutting your access to things doesn't seem fair - you should check if this happens to all students in your department - if doesn't, you have a massive case for mistreatment because they have been setting you up to fail. Who has signed off on this decision? Examiners? Head of postgrads? Head of School? Faculty Dean? Take up to a higher level if needed. Don't cry about this, get angry instead. Channel that anger into getting the access and then the results you need to get this PhD.

Hi, I know of multiple students having had ...let's say issues in my department. Including sexual harrassment and when filed being threatened with losing the degree, having no right to holidays and having the same issue I have of being told to go part-time (including part-time stipend) but working full-time in the lab-which most cannot afford. I just can't seem to get heard, everyone is just saying, well let it go they have the power etc. And without access to labs like you agree I can't get anywhere and I don't even have a supervisor / academic tutor at this point. I am filing my appeal over this week and requesting await of the complaint process and readjustment of my access. It is impossible to salvage this into a PhD with what happened but at least an MPhil would have been nice. Thanks for your messages!!!

Quote From Tigernore: Hi, I know of multiple students having had ...let's say issues in my department. Including sexual harrassment and when filed being threatened with losing the degree, having no right to holidays and having the same issue I have of being told to go part-time (including part-time stipend) but working full-time in the lab-which most cannot afford. I just can't seem to get heard, everyone is just saying, well let it go they have the power etc. And without access to labs like you agree I can't get anywhere and I don't even have a supervisor / academic tutor at this point. I am filing my appeal over this week and requesting await of the complaint process and readjustment of my access. It is impossible to salvage this into a PhD with what happened but at least an MPhil would have been nice. Thanks for your messages!!! Ah, the usual discouragement.. "Let go because you can't win.. Why bother since your supervisors have power..." Haven't we all heard of that before... This is the phsycological game to break the student's spirit and rid "troublemakers".. Don't give in. Tigernore, steel yourself. You have not been given a fair fighting chance, and you know it. Instead of talking to nonsense people who are out to discourage you (probably other academics who may or may not have ties with your uni and supervisor), talk to your Student Union who is supposed to defend you. Talk to a legal representative from your Student Union. Fight for your PhD... All is not lost unless you give up on yourself. All the best in your appeal, and don't walk away without exhausting all avenues.

I agree with Tru, I am going through a fight of my own at the moment and experienced the psychological games. I am very much on my own and have been working without supervision for 6 months now, I am almost 12 months in. Having no supervision is better than the situation I was in, but it can't continue for long this way, so I am hoping for a resolution soon. Dragging things out seems to be another way of trying to get rid of any student who speaks out. I have a strong case and its sounds like you have also, so as Tru also says don't give in. My SU haven't been any help, they often don't respond and don't seem to know processes well. Your SU may be better so I advise speaking to them. I struggled getting heard also, my department seemingly didn't want to know, so it had to go formal. I also have/had a supervisor you have to be careful with and my project was changed after I started. So I sympathise with your situation. I see many similarities on this forum among experiences students have concerning supervisor issues and how Universities respond to such cases.

Post your reply

Postgraduate Forum

Masters Degrees

PhD Opportunities

Postgraduate Forum Copyright ©2024 All rights reserved

PostgraduateForum Is a trading name of FindAUniversity Ltd FindAUniversity Ltd, 77 Sidney St, Sheffield, S1 4RG, UK. Tel +44 (0) 114 268 4940 Fax: +44 (0) 114 268 5766

Welcome to the world's leading Postgraduate Forum

An active and supportive community.

Support and advice from your peers.

Your postgraduate questions answered.

Use your experience to help others.

Sign Up to Postgraduate Forum

Enter your email address below to get started with your forum account

Login to your account

Enter your username below to login to your account

Reset password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password

An email has been sent to your email account along with instructions on how to reset your password. If you do not recieve your email, or have any futher problems accessing your account, then please contact our customer support.

or continue as guest

Postgrad Forum uses cookies to create a better experience for you

To ensure all features on our website work properly, your computer, tablet or mobile needs to accept cookies. Our cookies don’t store your personal information, but provide us with anonymous information about use of the website and help us recognise you so we can offer you services more relevant to you. For more information please read our privacy policy

Mick Cooper Training and Consultancy

How to (almost) Fail a PhD: A Personal Account

The year, 1996, didn’t start well. My then-partner and I went to Spain, with three friends, for a Christmas break. For some reason we thought it would be shining hot. As it turned out, we spent a week in a wet, damp bungalow in the middle of nowhere. The main thing I remember were the Spanish tortillas on the few days we got out—wet and damp as well, with burnt soggy potatoes at the bottom.

My PhD viva was on Friday the 6th Jan—25 years from the publication of this post (more details on what a PhD viva is are available here ). I’d read through my thesis a few times and felt fairly well-prepared. It was a somewhat unusual topic, Facilitating the expression of subpersonalities through the use of masks: An exploratory study . Basically, during my undergraduate studies I’d gone to a mask workshop run by a friend of mine at Oxford University and been amazed at the power of masks to bring out different ‘sides’ of my self (or ‘subpersonalities’). I researched it further for an undergraduate paper and then, in the early 1990s, applied to Sussex University to do a PhD on the topic. Basically, I wasn’t sure what I wanted to do as a career—either media (TV, journalism) or academia—and, as I couldn’t find a way in to media work, I thought I’d do the latter, particularly when I was awarded a grant from Sussex University to support me. That’s when I also started counselling training: I thought I better to do something practical alongside the PhD.

The internal examiner for the viva was a tutor of mine from my undergraduate days and someone who I knew fairly well. The external examiner was an academic in humanistic psychology I didn’t know much about, but had read a couple of her books and they seemed interesting. The three of us sat that Friday in the internal examiner’s office: dark and small, with his bike leaning against the bookshelves.

I remember more about after the viva than the viva itself. But the questions came quickly and they felt pretty intense from the start. ‘Why was I writing about subpersonalities?’ ‘What evidence was there for them?’ ‘What made me think they were a legitimate basis for a PhD?’ ‘Why was I so dependent on the work of John Rowan, what about my own thoughts?’ I answered the questions as best I could, wondering if that was how vivas were supposed to be—anxious that, perhaps, this was more critical than normal. After about 90 minutes I was asked to leave and sat in the Department common room—somewhere I’d spent many hours as an undergraduate socialising and relaxing in. I felt a rising anxiety from the pit of my stomach. I’d done my best, but something felt wrong. One of my other undergraduate tutors passed by and asked me how things had gone. He said he was sure it would all be fine: no one got failed for their viva. I wasn’t so sure.

Called back in the darkened room, like a death sentence. They had, indeed, decided to fail the thesis. Well, not quite fail it, but they were proposing that I resubmit for an MPhil: the next to lowest outcome. The main thing I remember was crying. I think it was an armchair I was sitting in, in a corner of the room. Sobbing away. Couldn’t believe it, even though I’d felt it coming. I went to see my supervisor and told him the news. Then I walked and walked and walked to a nearby village. Bought some cigarettes for the first time in years, rang my closest friend from a red call box and just smoked and smoked. There was nothing else I could do.

I came back to campus and went to see my supervisor again. He said that the examiners had decided that, in fact, I could have another chance to resubmit for a PhD: one outcome higher. But it would require a complete rewrite—four years’ work down the drain!

I met my partner at our house near Brighton station. Then we went to the pub. A few pints and I felt better, but I knew it was just temporary. Back home, as the alcohol wore off, the reality of the situation smashed back in my face. And so many questions: ‘Why had I failed?’ ‘Why had my supervisor said to me, just the day before the viva, that the work was “excellent”?’ ‘Were they ever likely to pass it even if I did spend the next three years rewriting?’ More than anything, I just didn’t understand what was wrong with the work, why they had failed it. The examiners obviously, clearly, really didn’t like it. But why?

That weekend was probably the worst of my life. I hardly slept the Friday night, just terrible feelings of anxiety and worry. Thinking over and over again what had gone wrong. A few hours sleep, then pub the next day and again some temporary relief. Then walking, walking, walking with my partner—along Brighton seafront—trying to make sense of things and work out ways forward. A game of pool in a pub in Hove. Slow walk back along the Western Road. I bought some aftershave at a chemist in Seven Dials that was my favourite for many years. Back home in the silence and the pain of it all. Moments alone were the worst, when my partner went to sleep. Several serious suicide attempts over the next few days. I won’t go into details, but suffice to say that it was just the terror of the pain, and the thought of having—and meeting my—children in the future, that held me back.

It wasn’t just failing my thesis. It was where I was in life. Basically, I was 30, had been struggling for years to work out what I wanted to do. Had been watching so many family members and friends succeed in their careers. I felt like I was going nowhere. The one thing I had was this PhD and the possibility of being an academic, and now even that was in tatters. It was the last closed door in a series of closed doors. The last possibilities I’d been hanging out for.

One of the worst things was that I had to run seminars for the psychology undergraduate students the next week. I felt so totally and utterly ashamed: surely everyone would know about my failure, and then how could they possibly take anything I said seriously? I drove in that Wednesday, facilitated the class as best I could. It didn’t help that the internal examiner was the module coordinator. I spoke to him as well on the phone on the Monday. He was sorry to hear I was feeling so awful. He tried to explain what had happened but it just didn’t make any sense. More questions, not less.

I was teaching psychology at Brighton University as well at that time, and was so grateful that the programme coordinator there didn’t seem to flinch when she heard the news. She still trusted me, let me continue my teaching. In fact, that summer, when she moved on, I was offered her job, and started in a more permanent position at Brighton University.

Something had already seemed to turn, though, before that time. I felt a bit better by April. I had a new supervisor now (one of the conditions for me being allowed to resubmit): a professor from my undergraduate years that I really trusted. He was down-to-earth, grounded, gave me hope. But it was a whole new thesis, and three more years before I finally completed .

What Went Wrong?

So why had things gone so badly wrong? Had my supervisor let me down, was it that the examiners had been unfair, or had I just done a really poor piece of work? It took me months, maybe even years, to work out. But now I’d understand it something like this: When I started the work, I was doing it in the field of cultural studies. It was about masks, and with a fairly relaxed design: I was drawing on literature, ethnography, drama therapy. There was no stringent method, but that seemed fine for that field of study and others who wrote a thesis in a similar way had done fine. But then, about halfway through my programme, we’d shifted my registration to Psychology. My supervisor, I think rightly, wanted me to come out with a doctorate in psychology so that I could use that if I wanted to go into psychology as a profession—for teaching or clinically. But the problem was, the focus or content of my thesis hadn’t really changed. So my examiners, who were fairly classical psychologists, thought the whole thing was just off the wall. Far too a-methodological, no real use of systematic methods or analysis. As a psychology thesis yes, they were right, it didn’t meet expected standards. But I had no idea what those standards were. And somehow my supervisor had never seen that coming. And I guess I hadn’t too. There were warning signs. For instance, I presented at my psychology department’s seminar series and I could see that they weren’t too taken by being asked to wear masks and to move around in them, but I hadn’t wanted to see the problems. And I should have pushed harder for a second supervisor. I did ask, and it was discussed, but I let it go and thought it would all be OK.

What’s the Learning?

I guess, as with all awful things, there was a lot of learning. That experience has stayed with me throughout my life. I still go back to that pub by Brighton station every so often to sit and reflect and thank something or someone for, in the end, making things OK. And I’d do that again tonight if it wasn’t for COVID. Somehow, amazingly, within ten years of that viva I was a professor of counselling at a prestigious university in Scotland: something, sitting back there in 1996, I could never have even hoped for. When I go back to the pub, I kind of ‘talk’ to my 1996 self and tell him that things are going to be OK in the end, and to hang on in there. And it’s nice, in some ways, to have that chat with him and reflect on where things ended up. He’d have been so happy and relieved.

As a Student

One thing that I really did that was wrong was to isolate myself away from any academic community while I was working on my PhD. I never went to conference, or engaged with departmental seminars, or submitted to journals. And just the one time I did present, as above, I didn’t stay open to how people were responding. I was in my own little bubble, and that wasn’t shattered until my actual viva. I think I did that because I was scared: worried that others wouldn’t be that interested in my work or feel it was good enough. But I made the classic mistake of avoiding, rather than facing up to, the thing I was afraid of.

As a Supervisor

I really try and be straight with my students if I think there’s problems. If I don’t think the work is at the right level, I’ll do my best to say it. Much better they hear it from me than from their examiners.

And when it comes to choosing an examiner for a student, I do think about the importance of ‘alignment’. This is not about finding someone who will simply waive the thesis through; but finding someone who has some of the same basic assumptions and expectations as the student and the supervision team. Most psychologists would probably fail a cultural studies PhD if it was submitted as psychology. And, similarly, I imagine that many cultural studies academics would fail a psychology PhD for reasons—like lack of epistemological, cultural, and personal reflexivity—that traditional psychologists might never consider. So there’s a reality that, in the academic world, there’s lots of different sets of expectations and assumptions; and it seems essential to me that students are assessed in terms of what they are trying—and supported—to do.

These days, most universities (certainly Roehampton) have a minimum of two supervisors for doctoral work, and that’s absolutely key to ensuring that it’s not dependent on just one academic’s views. We do our best, but our blind spots are, by definition, blind spots. Really getting an honest second opinion on student’s work—triangulation—makes it much less likely that things will go off track.

As an Examiner

I’m still angry at my examiners. Fair enough, they didn’t like the work and didn’t think it was at doctoral standards. But, they were so critical, so personal about the problems in the thesis. The external examiner, in particular, felt just ‘mean’ at times. When my new supervisor and I wrote to her, while I was revising, just to check I was along the right lines, she wrote a response that felt so demotivating and unclear. It just wasn’t needed. So when I’m a doctoral examiner now, even if I feel more work needs to be done, I try and do it supportively and warmly—with kindness, sensitivity, and empathy.

There’s also something about acknowledging the multiplicity of perspectives on things. As an examiner, I have to give my perspective on what I think is doctoral standard, I can’t ever be entirely objective; but I can acknowledge it as my perspective. You can criticise something without criticising the person behind it.

As a Person

I guess one of the best things that came out of this whole period of my life is that I’ve never taken my job for granted. I feel incredibly privileged to have had a chance to work and teach: just seeing students, writing emails—it’s amazing to have this role and this opportunity with others. I still, deep down, don’t believe that I would/will ever have it.

I guess the downside of this, which has not been so great for relationships and, perhaps, as a father, is that I’m still so focused on work. If I don’t do a set number of hours each day, I start to feel almost shaky and that I’m letting work down. I’ve worked, maybe, 55 hour per weeks for the last twenty or so years. Rarely taken my full annual leave. And that’s, in part I’m sure, because I’m still haunted by the ghost of that experience. My 1996 self still regularly tells me ‘You’ll never have a job’, ‘You’ll never be part of a work team,’ ‘You’ll always be a failure and outside of things.’

Something else at the edges of my awareness: when I look back, I realise how much I had to contribute at that time. So much passion, energy, commitment. I really wanted to make a difference. And it was so, so hard to—not just with the PhD but as a young person struggling through their 20s who didn’t quite fit into the social structures. And it makes me think about how much of that energy gets wasted in our young people: so much passion, drive, and creativity that is blocked, that doesn’t have an outlet. It’s such a burning frustration for those young people, and such a waste for our society as a whole.

Concluding Thoughts

I still feel shaky, and then some relief, reflecting on this time. I’ve never written about it before and perhaps there’s still more to process in therapy. Just that sheer, pounding, devastating sense of failure and shame. But there’s also something profoundly uplifting about it. How you can be right at the very bottom of things, utterly hopeless, but if you stick with things and keep going despite then it can get better and amazing things can happen. I’d love to say ‘trust the process’ or that, in some way, that failure led to subsequent successes; but in many ways I think I was just incredibly, incredibly lucky that things worked out ok. Part of me, maybe that 1996 part, believes (or, perhaps, knows) I could still be struggling away. And I do feel like I’ve been amazingly lucky and blessed in my career and in my life: more than anything, four beautiful, gorgeous children.

Out of the storm, chaos, and anguish of life, there’s still the possibility of some incredible things emerging. Things can change. Even when we’ve totally given up on hope, hope and possibility may still hold out for us.

Acknowledgements

I am deeply indebted to Helen Cruthers, James Sanderson, and the friends and colleagues who helped me through that time in my life.

Very special thanks to Christine Aubrey—I will always be so grateful.

Thanks also to Yannis Fronimos for feedback and encouragement on this article.

A condensed version of this article was published in the BACP publication Therapy Today and can be downloaded here . Thanks to Sally Brown for her superb editing and condensing of the post.

Elisa Granato

Microbial ecology & evolution, phd tips – dealing with “failed” experiments.

“PhD tips” is an ongoing series of blog posts written by postdocs and aimed at graduate students at the University of Oxford (Department of Biology). I wrote this in April 2021.

[Update Dec 2022: this article is now published in The Microbiologist ]

Hi everyone!

I hope you are all doing well. This week, I want to talk about dealing with “failed” experiments.* I put “failed” in quotes because, as I will argue below, only a very small fraction of experiments perceived as failed have actually failed in the sense that they were completely pointless.

The first thing to realize is that the core of experimental science is an iterative process: you do a thing, it does something (or not), you think about it, you do it a little different next time. Crucially, this process works the same way whether the results made you happy or not (for whatever reason). You think about what happened, you change stuff, you do it again the same way, you do it again with a twist, or you do something else entirely. A very normal experience as a scientist is to – on average – be a little disappointed in the outcome of your experiment. See below for a list of outcomes that tend to make people unhappy. Again: this is normal and part of the process. The most “successful” projects are built on a foundation of “failed” or semi-failed attempts at doing something.**

The second thing to realize is that learning is at the core of this iterative process: a thing has to happen for us to better understand what we’re dealing with. This means that the essential goal of each experiment is to learn something, anything! And this “lesson” doesn’t usually come in the shape of a perfect plot that’s publication-ready on the first try. Instead, the next learning item usually comes from a mangled mess of an experiment or dataset.

What exactly you are learning from each attempt depends of course on the details of your project, but below I am giving a few real-life examples of typical experimental outcomes that tend to make people unhappy, and some suggestions on what one could learn from them.

• Not failed at all, this is a valuable negative result.
• Outcome: solid scientific insight.
• Not failed at all, this is valuable data we can learn from.
• Potential next step: figure out if noise is biological variance or technical measurement error, or both.
• Outcome: a better understanding of your system, solid scientific insight
• Example: forgot to wash cells before treating them.
• Semi-failed, this is valuable data we can learn from. By comparing the washed cells with the unwashed cells we can learn how this step in the experiment influences the final results. Can be useful for future troubleshooting.
• Outcome: an experimental protocol where we understand better what each step does, or where we realize one step is less important than previously thought; honing of lab skills.
• Example: positive/negative control didn’t yield the expected result, even though it has always worked before and the experiment was (to the best of your knowledge) executed as usual.
• Semi-failed. An opportunity to evaluate the reliability of the protocol/equipment/material.
• Potential next steps: introduce checklists and more note-taking to ensure little details are adhered to; evaluate assumptions e.g. is the control genotype actually this genotype, is something contaminated, is the machine still working, etc.
• Outcome: a more reliable experimental protocol, honing of lab skills
• Example: algae grow over all your aquatic plants and kill them
• Semi-failed. An opportunity to evaluate “housing” conditions for your organism.
• Potential next steps: pilot experiment to optimize housing conditions before doing “actual” experiments; investigate whether the contaminant did something interesting
• Outcome: a more reliable experimental protocol; chance of a random cool discovery with the contaminant
• Example: dropped tube with the sample on the floor. Cannot be recovered.
• Close to “actually failed”, but still an opportunity to introduce better safety measures / risk assessment.
• Potential next steps: introduce safety procedures to ensure better sample preservation, labelling etc.
• Outcome: a more reliable experimental protocol

The third thing to realize is that feelings of frustration, anger, sadness, fear, are all very common in the wake of a “failed” experiment, especially if it took a long time. And trying to think about the next steps while still frustrated can turn into a vicious cycle where you make mistakes because frustrated brains are bad at solving problems. So, instead, allow yourself to feel these feelings, get a good night’s sleep, and then start troubleshooting the next day with a fresh and relaxed mind.

So, to summarize: doing your PhD, and science in general, is about learning. Every experiment, no matter the outcome, can teach you something. Some of the lessons are perhaps a bit more appealing and easier to swallow than others, but they are all useful and necessary. So next time an experiment “fails”, try taking a nice little break if you can, and then list all the things you still learned about your experimental setup, or organism of interest.

Finally, I would like to share a little mental trick I developed over the years that has helped me with dealing and accepting experimental setbacks. I like to imagine that any given project will take me X hours to complete, including setbacks, trials by fire, random distractions, dead-ends etc. In science, X is usually unknown. But importantly, there is always an X. Every time I conduct an experiment that “fails”, and let’s say it took me 6 hours, I have now reduced X by 6 hours. Not bad! I am one step closer to finishing the project. It’s a bit tongue-in-cheek of course, but it still helps me see my work for what it is: I gave these 6 hours my best and the outcome doesn’t change that.

*If you work on theory you can probably replace “failed experiments” here with “theoretical approaches that didn’t work out” or something along those lines and maybe some of this might still be helpful.

**This is the science version of “The master has failed more times than the student has even tried”.

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

What are some warning signs that a PhD project will fail?

Professors looking for PhD students will often have several ongoing research thrusts that students can work on. These may correspond to different three- or five-year grant awards, for example, or they may be different directions within the same grant.

In my cursory experience, watching various labs progress over a few years, I have found that some of these thrusts are very successful, resulting in high-quality publications, interest from the community, star students, and so on; whereas some (say, one out of every three thrusts) will fail, leaving the students who worked on that thrust discouraged and stagnant, and in many cases leading to them leaving the program, switching advisors, or (in the best case) switching to a different project.

My question is: as a prospective student, choosing a research project, are there any reliable warning signs or red flags to watch out for? What makes a project risky or safe?

There are many other factors to doing a successful PhD, in particular having a supportive advisor and a healthy department culture (see e.g. here ). I'm not asking about those aspects, but rather the chance of research success of the project itself. This and this are related questions.

• research-topic

• 1 I could write a book on this one, but it would revive memories. Other things equal, pick a well-funded group and avoid groups where the PIs have short arms and low pockets. –  Ed V Commented Sep 2, 2022 at 21:42
• 4 Hmmm. If there were reliable indicators of failure up front, then there wouldn't be any failures. If you are tenured and secure then you can take on projects with no clear path to success. –  Buffy Commented Sep 2, 2022 at 22:04
• @EdV Would love to read the book! Or just an extended answer :) –  user162295 Commented Sep 2, 2022 at 22:22
• @Buffy That makes sense. But are there really no warning signs at all? There are projects with varying levels of riskiness (all worth pursuing) -- what distinguishes the more "risky" projects? –  user162295 Commented Sep 2, 2022 at 22:23
• 4 Probably both the projects that crash and burn and the projects that are very successful come from the same "high-risk" category, rather than different ones. Safer projects are more incremental and have both a low risk of "crash and burn" and a low ceiling. Ideally, advisors would not let their students fail merely because they spend some of their time on a high-risk project - other options include diversifying their work, starting on something more "sure" even if it isn't as flashy, etc. –  Bryan Krause ♦ Commented Sep 2, 2022 at 22:26

2 Answers 2

First of all, there is no such thing as a completely safe research project, at least one that is worthy to award a PhD for. The only way to know whether a research plan works is to perform it. This is simply because research by its nature explores the unknown – if we already knew the outcome of some piece of research, we wouldn’t have to do it anymore.

That being said, there are more and less risky projects (and also more and less risky fields). Usually, the more risky projects come with a higher reward if successful, while there is less or no reward for an unsuccessful project, even if done as diligently as possible. This is partially a problem of the scientific community not rewarding negative results as much as it should (see publication bias ), but also partially due to a PhD signifying that you can complete a research project, which you simply don’t learn by exploring a hundred dead ends. Mind that another risk lies in how exciting the field finds your results and you won’t usually know that either before you tried to publish the research.

Some projects are obviously risky, e.g., consider a project with the following outline:

We have a great new idea how to measure  X. We will try to implement this idea. If successful, we will investigate its performance and see whether it allows us to measure  X better than established methods.

This project is obviously somewhat risky, because the new idea could spectacularly fail or perform badly because of something nobody has thought of yet. However, most risks are only apparent to somebody with experience in the field . Taking the above example again: How would you know whether implementing the idea involves a lot of fiddling, finding the right components, or not? Or whether nobody gives a damn about measuring  X more accurately, but only more quickly or cheaply? Or whether if you are in a field which does not appreciate methods unless you find something new and exciting with it?

Now, if you are looking for a PhD position, you are likely not very experienced in the field yet. Thus, most of the times you have to rely on somebody else’s judgement, usually that of the prospective professor. And of course the professor can be overly optimistic, dishonest, or completely oblivious to the above (because none of the projects that made their career failed and they never had to think about this). So what can you do about this?

Look at the professor’s statistics of supervisee success and PhD duration. For an extreme example, if supervisees are either very successful or not at all, you clearly have somebody taking risks.

Ask senior or former members of the professor’s group: They should have an idea about how much risk their professor is entering and how aware and upfront they are about this.

Ask the professor. If they can only give a one-line answer on the risk level or contingency plans or are offended by the question, this is fishy. Mind that many funding organisations ask for a risk assessment or contingency plans nowadays, so if the position is third-party-funded, there is a good chance that they already had to thoroughly think about this. (Unfortunately, this can also mean that the professor has already trained how to sell a project as less risky than it actually is.) Mind that a good answer can also be something like: “If the project fails, we should know quickly. In this case, alternatives are available.”

In general, a third-party-funded project is safer because this usually means some peer reviewers in the field already assessed the risk. But mind that the assessment could also be ”very risky, but somebody should try it”. Also beware whether it was really your project that was assessed, not some larger scheme that includes your project. Ideally, you can get the grant application and evaluation up front.

Finally, I wish to clarify that there is nothing wrong about taking certain risks. As elaborated above, some are inevitable to research. However, I think everybody involved should know the risks they are entering.

If your research project has a predictable outcome, it is not good research. Research projects should not be without a chance of failure.

Choose something that

• Is plausibly important if it has the desired outcome.
• Will allow you to try something else afterwards.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged phd research-topic projects ..

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• Does a party have to wait 1d4 hours to start a Short Rest if no healing is available and an ally is only stabilized?
• What was Jesus' issue with Mary touching him after he'd returned to earth after His resurrection?
• Visuallizing complex vectors?
• IRF9540N P-MOSFET Heating UP
• What would be a good weapon to use with size changing spell
• Manhattan distance
• In a tabular with p-column, line spacing after multi-line cell too short with the array package
• Intersection of Frobenius subalgebra objects
• What is the optimal number of function evaluations?
• Is reading sheet music difficult?
• Is there a problem known to have no fastest algorithm, up to polynomials?
• What are the most commonly used markdown tags when doing online role playing chats?
• How to truncate text in latex?
• How do you tip cash when you don't have proper denomination or no cash at all?
• Star Trek: The Next Generation episode that talks about life and death
• How to connect 20 plus external hard drives to a computer?
• What's the benefit or drawback of being Small?
• Confusion about time dilation
• How to sum with respect to partitions
• How high does the ocean tide rise every 90 minutes due to the gravitational pull of the space station?
• Where is this railroad track as seen in Rocky II during the training montage?
• Visual assessment of scatterplots acceptable?
• Breaker trips when plugging into wall outlet(receptacle) directly, but not when using extension
• When has the SR-71 been used for civilian purposes?