European Journal of Higher Education

ISSN: 2156-8235 (Print) 2156-8243 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rehe20

How does social support contribute to engaging

post-PhD experience?

Kirsi Pyhältö, Lynn McAlpine, Jouni Peltonen & Montserrat Castello

To cite this article: Kirsi Pyhältö, Lynn McAlpine, Jouni Peltonen & Montserrat Castello (2017)
How does social support contribute to engaging post-PhD experience?, European Journal of
Higher Education, 7:4, 373-387, DOI: 10.1080/21568235.2017.1348239

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2017.1348239

Published online: 06 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 621

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 13 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rehe20
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 2017
VOL. 7, NO. 4, 373–387
https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2017.1348239

How does social support contribute to engaging post-PhD

experience?
a,b
Kirsi Pyhältö , Lynn McAlpinec,d, Jouni Peltonenb and Montserrat Castello e

a
Centre for University Teaching and Learning, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki,
Finland; bFaculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland; cDepartment of Educational and
Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; dDepartment of Education, University of
Oxford, Oxford, UK; eResearch Institute on Psychology, Learning and Development, Universitat Ramon Llull,
Barcelona, Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Social support from the supervisor and the researcher community Received 3 April 2017
has been identified as one of the determinants for successful Accepted 24 May 2017
completion of doctoral studies. Still surprisingly little is known
KEYWORDS
about the function of social support for early career Post-PhD Social support; supervision;
researchers. Even less is known about the individual variation in researcher community; post-
experienced social support among Post-PhD researchers. This doctoral students; burnout;
study explores the function of social support in terms of engagement; abandonment
experienced research engagement, burnout and abandonment
intentions among Post-PhD researchers. Altogether, 282 Post-PhD
researchers from UK and Spanish universities completed the
survey. The cluster analysis was applied. Results show that the
majority of participants experienced high levels of supervisory and
researcher community support. Researchers representing an
Adequate Support profile were less likely to experience burnout
or to consider abandonment; they also experienced a higher
degree of research engagement than their less fortunate
counterparts. Further, Post-PhD researchers working in research
groups were more likely to display the Adequate Support profile
than those working primarily on their own. Strikingly, scientists
were more likely than social scientists to be represented in the
Reduced Support profile. Interestingly, there were no statistically
significant differences between the UK and Spanish Post-PhD or
female and male researchers in support profiles.

Introduction
Life after earning a PhD is not easy. Post-PhD researchers are a highly accomplished group
of early career researchers (Boeren et al. 2015), yet they need to manage several challenges,
including a high level of competition, a fragmented career path, and even a risk of unem-
ployment due to the increased number of doctoral degree holders (Åkerlind 2005), to
establish themselves as scholars. The challenges may turn into stressors such as high
level of demands, low level of support, and poor-quality relationships, eventually
leading to career abandonment (Kinman and Court 2010). Among these resources,

CONTACT Kirsi Pyhältö [email protected] Center for University Teaching and Learning, Faculty of Edu-
cational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Siltavuorenpenger 5A, P.O. Box 9, Helsinki 00014, Finland
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
374 K. PYHÄLTÖ ET AL.

researcher community, including peers, supervisor(s) and researcher networks are

suggested to play a crucial role (Browning, Thompson, and Dawson 2011; Scaffidi and
Berman 2011; McAlpine 2016). Supervisory support has, for instance, been shown to con-
tribute to Post-PhD researcher track record and research productivity (Scaffidi and
Berman 2011), whereas strong integration into the researcher community has been
shown to contribute to Post-PhD researcher future employment (Jackson and Michelson
2015). Post-PhD researchers’ experiences of community support, and hence outcomes
associated with support may, however, differ even within the same research group,
across different disciplines, between countries or depend on gender (Laudel and Gläser
2008; Dever et al. 2008; Auriol 2010). Accordingly, Post-PhD researchers’ social resources
to cope with the challenges provided by the career phase are likely to vary across research-
ers, resulting in increased or reduced risk for negative post-doctoral experience and aban-
donment. To be able to provide useful information to Post-PhD researchers, to develop
more functional support systems for them, and to identify researchers at risk as early as
possible, we need to gain a better understanding about the kinds of experience profiles
that are associated with increased risk for negative Post-PhD experience and career aban-
donment. However, evidence about the association between post-PhD researcher social
support profiles, and increased or reduced risk for burnout and career abandonment is
still scarce (Pearson et al. 2011). This paper explores Post-PhD researchers’ social
support profiles, particularly the association with experienced burnout, research engage-
ment and abandonment intentions by applying a person centred approach. Hence,
instead of exploring association between the support variables we focus on exploring vari-
ation between the individuals in experiences supervisory and researcher community
support by utilizing profile analysis.

Supervisory and researcher community support

Social support refers to the resources both perceived to be available, and used by the Post-
PhD researcher in the social environment. This entails both formal and informal relation-
ships, both dyadic and group relationships within the researcher community, with peers,
PhD students, supervisor(s), other staff members (Vekkaila et al. 2016) as well as research
groups, international researcher networks or special interest groups, and relationships
with institutional representatives, for example funding agencies. Social support is a
meta-construct comprising emotional, informational and instrumental forms (see Cobb
1976; House 1981; Väisänen et al. 2016). Emotional support refers to empathy, trust, lis-
tening, caring and belonging to a network of researcher community with mutual obli-
gation, whereas informational support is characterized by information, such as advice,
feedback, affirmation, suggestions, and problem solving that enables a post-PhD
researcher to cope with the problems faced. Instrumental support such as time, labour
or providing funding from different sources or facilities, directly helps post-PhD research-
ers to manage their work.
High quality social support has been identified as a central determinant of optimal
Post-PhD researcher experience, and related outcomes such as productivity in terms of
number of publications (Horta 2009; Åkerlind 2005; Puljak and Sharif 2009; McAlpine
2014; Jackson and Michelson 2015; Castello, McAlpine, and Pyhältö 2017) – these
studies generally name the source of support but not the type of support. Particularly,
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 375

important for sufficient support utilization is how post-PhD researchers (a) perceive the
social resources available and (b) use them. Supervisor(s), and other members of the
post-PhD researcher’s immediate researcher community typically provide the primary
source of social support (e.g. McAlpine 2014). A nurturing research environment,
acknowledgement from the researcher community, broad researcher networks and
strong integration into the researcher community have been associated with increased
productivity, employment and overall satisfaction with post-doctoral experience (Horta
2009; Scaffidi and Berman 2011). Evidence on the function of supervisory support is
less consistent. A number of qualitative studies suggest that supervisory support can
have a positive (as well as negative) influence on Post-PhD researcher experience (e.g.
Scaffidi and Berman 2011; Chen, McAlpine, and Amundsen 2015); specifically, instru-
mental support, such as writing recommendations and providing access to institutional
resources including infrastructure or opportunities to gain teaching experience (Åkerlind
2009; Rybarczyk et al. 2011; Chen, McAlpine, and Amundsen 2015;). However, in some
quantitative studies no such association has been found (Jackson and Michelson 2015)
or is quite small (see e.g. Eby et al.’s [2008] literature review on academic and non-aca-
demic mentoring). A reason for the less consistent findings in terms of supervisory
support and positive Post-PhD researcher attributes may be that the effect of the super-
visory support may be mediated via expansion of researcher networks rather than directly.
While supervisors can be a central resource for enculturation into a new researcher com-
munity and introduce newcomers into their own professional networks, as advanced early
career researchers, post-PhD researchers also have their own researcher networks that
they can utilize as sources of support. Moreover, potential sources of social support are
not limited to the researcher community, but are often extended to close friends and
family, specifically the support and co-investment of the significant others, close family
and friends as an asset in pursuing an academic career (Chen, McAlpine, and Amundsen
2015). In turn, lack of such support is often perceived as problematic, and occasionally
leads to abandonment (McAlpine and Amundsen 2015, 2016).
The sources and needed forms of support can vary depending on individual compe-
tences, career phase and tasks at hand. There are some indicators that peers may
provide a central source of emotional support whereas supervisors and other senior
members of the researcher community are emphasised as primary sources of informa-
tional and instrumental support (Vekkaila et al. 2016). The availability of social
support is a crucial, but not in itself sufficient, determinant for positive Post-PhD experi-
ence. The perceived fit between the needed and provided support is also a central ingre-
dient in the Post-doctoral experience (Vekkaila et al. 2016). To be functional the
provided support should promote coping with the particular problem being faced
(Cohen and McKay 1984; Helgeson and Gottlieb 2000), i.e. the support being offered
should match the type of problem being faced to be effective. Also, the appropriateness
of the social support, the reciprocity of interaction and the roles of the giver and receiver
of the support are important determinants for the experience of support and related out-
comes (Cohen and Syme 1985). If the challenges faced exceed the early career research-
er’s resources to cope with them, this is likely to increase experienced stress (Pyhältö,
Vekkaila, and Keskinen 2012; Baker and Pifer 2015). In general, experiencing social
support has been associated with more engaging Post-PhD research experience
whereas lack of support, and diminishing feedback reduced experienced engagement
376 K. PYHÄLTÖ ET AL.

in academic activities (Vekkaila et al. 2016). Interestingly, reciprocal support, and par-
ticularly giving support to others was rarely reported by Post-PhD researchers (Vekkaila
et al. 2016). To sum up, prior research suggests that different sources and elements of
social support can play complementary but also sometimes even contradictory roles in
Post-PhD researcher experience. Thus, variation among Post-PhD researchers in experi-
enced social support from the supervisor and researcher community is likely to occur,
increasing the differences in post-PhD researcher ability to cope with the stressors of
this highly challenging career phase.

Interrelation between the social support research engagement and burnout

experiences among the post-PhD. researchers
Social support has been shown to buffer negative effects of prolonged stress (Chan 2002),
and promote work engagement across a wide range of occupational settings (Billett 2001;
Scaffidi and Berman 2011). There is also a growing body of evidence suggesting that suffi-
cient researcher community and supervisory support plays a central role in an engaged
Post-PhD experience characterized by experiences of vigour, dedication and absorption
(Schaufeli et al. 2002; González-Romá et al. 2006; Bakker and Demerouti 2008); Such
experiences are realised by immersion in research, a feeling of time passing quickly,
strong psychological involvement in research combined with a sense of significance,
enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and challenge, and high levels of energy, and resulting
several positive outcomes in post-PhD researcher careers (Vekkaila et al. 2016; Shing
and Jung 2014). For example, it has been shown that emotional support is associated
with experiencing dedication, motivation and joy by Post-PhD researchers in STEM dis-
ciplines, and that receiving informational and instrumental support enabled Post-PhD
researchers to meet the demands of academic work (Vekkaila et al. 2016). The findings
further imply that researcher community and supervisory support is likely to reduce
Post-PhD researcher’s risk for experiencing burnout (Maslach and Leiter 2005; Bakker
et al. 2008) resulting from long term exposure to extensive work-related stress
(Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter 2001).
Researcher community, including the supervisor(s)’, does not, however always provide
optimal support for post-PhD researchers. In fact, lack of support from researcher com-
munities has been more frequently reported than support (Cantwell and Lee 2010) To
develop burnout, the following are necessary: exhaustion, characterized by a lack of
emotional energy, and feeling strained and tired at work, and cynicism, comprising of
losing interest in one’s work and feeling that it has lost its meaning; as well as distancing
oneself from the work are necessary (Leiter 1993; Maslach 2003; Maslach and Leiter 2008).
Lack of support, mismatched or inadequate support are identified as sources of cynicism
and distress among Post-PhD researchers (Vekkaila et al. 2016).
The findings imply that social support is likely to hold significant potential for promot-
ing not only Post-PhD researcher’s career development and enhanced research engage-
ment, but also in buffering risk for experiencing burnout and prevent career
abandonment. Therefore, not only should institutions provide functional forms and
sources of social support, but also Post-PhD researchers themselves should be encouraged
to (learn how to) seek and use as well as offer social support in order to utilize this resource
in their work. This, however, means we need a greater understanding of how researchers
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 377

characterize their social support profiles, and the various positive and negative attributes
associated with the profiles.

Aim
The study aimed to gain a better understanding of the function of social support among
Post-PhD researchers and the interrelations between social support profiles, experienced
research engagement, burnout and abandonment intentions. The following hypotheses
were addressed:

(1) H1: Different kinds of social support profiles in terms of researcher community and
supervisory support can be detected among Post-PhD researchers.
(2) H2: There is variation between the profiles in terms of research group status, disciplin-
ary background and gender.
(3) H3: The social support profiles differ from each other in terms of research engage-
ment, experienced burnout, satisfaction with post-doctoral research, abandonment
intentions, and source of funding.

Methods
Participants
Altogether, 282 Post-PhD researchers from research intensive universities the UK (n = 98)
and Spain (n = 184) participated in the study (see more detail about sampling strategy in
Authors 2016). Social scientists represented 2/3 (n = 195) and scientists 1/3 (n = 87). Their
mean age was 35.9, a bit over half (53.0%) were female. The mean time for completing the
doctoral degree was 5.2 years. 81% had completed their doctoral thesis in the form of a
monograph and 19% as article compilation. The mean time since graduation was 3.5
years, with the majority of participants being less than five years from earning the doctoral
degree (56, 4%). They were typically either salaried researchers (47%) or held competitive
wards (36.5%). Only 5% were employed outside the university and 11.5% were unem-
ployed at the time of the data collection. Two-fifths reported working primarily alone
(41.5%), as did those working both alone and within a group (43.1%), whereas a much
smaller group of the participants reported working in a research group (15.4%).

Post-PhD experience –survey

The data were collected by e-mail through an online survey in winter 2014–2015. Post-
PhD experience – survey included Likert-type statements and open-ended questions. In
this study, we utilized data from the scales on supervisory and researcher community
support (9 items) entailing supervisory support (4 items), and researcher community
support (5 items) (adapted from Pyhältö, Vekkaila, and Keskinen 2015), abandonment
intentions (one item), experienced burnout (total 8 items), including cynicism (4 items)
and exhaustion (4 items), research engagement (5 items) (see more detailed information
in Castello, McAlpine, and Pyhältö 2017), satisfaction with post-doctoral work (1 item)
(see scales in Table 1) and research group status (three choices alone, group and both)
378 K. PYHÄLTÖ ET AL.

Table 1. Scales, and items.

Scale Items
Researcher community support I feel that the other members of my research community appreciate my work.
I feel accepted by my research community.
There is a good sense of collegiality among the researchers I interact with.
I receive encouragement and support from the other researchers.
My expertise is put use in the research community.
Supervisory support I feel that my supervisor(s) appreciate my work.
I feel appreciated by my supervisor(s).
I receive encouragement and personal attention from my supervisor(s).
I can openly discuss any problems related to my post-doc research with my supervisor(s).
Burnout
Cynicism I feel my post-doc work is useless.
I feel that I am losing interest in my post-doc work.
I have difficulties in finding any meaning to my post-doc work.
I used to have higher expectations of my post-doc work than I do now.
Exhaustion I feel overwhelmed by the workload of my post-doc work.
I often sleep badly because of matters related to my post-doc work.
I brood over matters related to post-doc work a lot during my free time.
The pressure of my post-doc work causes me problems in my close relationships with
others.
Research engagement When I conduct research, I feel that I am bursting with energy
When doing my research, I feel vigorous
I am enthusiastic about my research
My research inspires me
I feel happy when I start working on my research
Satisfaction with post-doctoral Are you satisfied with your post-doc work?
work

and source of funding All the scales were measured using a 7-point scale (1 = unsatisfied/
strongly disagree, 7 = completely satisfied/fully agree) (adapted from ||Pyhältö, Vekkaila,
and Keskinen 2012, 2015). The survey was available in Spanish, Catalan and English. It
was piloted before the data collection. It took 15 to 20 min to complete the survey. All
the participants received written information about the project and gave their consent
to participate according to the research ethics clearance procedures in the respective jur-
isdictions. Where data were missing for key variables, Post-PhD researchers were excluded
from the analysis.

Analysis
To explore the underlying factor structure of the supervisory and researcher community
support scale, burnout scale, and research engagement scale, a series of exploratory factor
analyses (EFA) using the ML extraction method with both varimax and direct oblimin
rotations were conducted. Subsequently, separate EFA models using the Spain and UK
sub-samples were created with the same scales to examine differences in factorial struc-
tures between nationalities. The results suggested that two factors in the supervisory
and researcher community support scales (researcher community support and supervisory
support), explaining 70.6% of the variance, should be retained. As for burnout, a bifactor-
ial solution (cynicism and exhaustion), explaining 55.9% of the variance, appeared to be
most plausible. For research engagement, unifactorial solution was clearly the best fit,
explaining 73.7% of the variance of the scale variables.
To divide the sample into meaningful subgroups according to the researcher commu-
nity support and supervisory support, K-means cluster analysis was carried out. In the K-
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 379

means cluster procedure the number of clusters is chosen by the researcher and cases are
grouped into the cluster with the closest centre. Cluster solutions with two and three clus-
ters were calculated; however, the two-cluster solution gave the most homogeneous pro-
files and was in line with the theoretical presumptions. Once clusters were identified, their
key characteristics were examined using a scatterplot and other correlational techniques.
The average scores of groups were compared using t-tests and Chi-square tests of indepen-
dence were used when comparing the groups on nominal variables.

Results
On average post-PhD researchers reported receiving high levels of researcher community
and supervisory support combined with high research engagement, satisfaction with their
post-doctoral work and low levels of cynicism. At the same time they reported suffering
average levels of exhaustion (Table 2).
There were no statistically significant differences between Spanish and UK researchers
in the variables, except for the experienced engagement in research (t(280) = 2.10, p < .05).
Spanish post-PhD. researchers (M = 5.55, SD = 1.35) experienced slightly more research
engagement than their counterparts in UK (M = 5.21, SD = 1.15).

Post-PhD researchers’ researcher community and supervisory support profiles

Two distinctive researcher community and supervisory support profiles were identified.
The first cluster culled from our analysis was Adequate Support. It was the most
common profile among the post-PhD researchers representing 80% (n = 156) share of
our sample. Post-PhD researchers displaying the adequate support profile reported high
levels of both researcher community and supervisory support (see Figure 1).
The second profile Reduced Support presented one-fifth (n = 39, 20.0%) of the post-PhD
researchers in the sample. The Reduced Support profile holders showed less supervisory
and researcher community support than their counterparts holding Adequate Support pro-
files. Moreover, the analysis indicated that when supervisory support increased, the vari-
ation in community support decreased. Accordingly, the data supported Hypothesis one.

Variation between the profiles in terms of research group status, disciplinary

background and gender
Further investigation showed that Post-PhD researchers within the Adequate Support
profile were more likely to work in research groups or both alone and in the group,

Table 2. Descriptive for supervisory support, community support, cynicism, exhaustion, experienced
engagement in post-doctoral work (N = 194–195).
Items/Scales N of items Alpha M SD Min Max
Supervisory support 4 .95 5.07 1.81 1 7
Researcher community support 5 .88 5.11 1.25 1 7
Cynicism 4 .87 3.12 1.68 1 7
Exhaustion 4 .88 3.54 1.42 1 7
Experienced engagement in post-doctoral work 5 .93 5.43 1.29 1 7
Satisfaction with post- doctoral work 1 – 4.85 1.68 1 7
380 K. PYHÄLTÖ ET AL.

Figure 1. Post-PhD researchers’ researcher community and supervisory support profiles.

than those working on their own (χ 2(1, N = 191) = 5.55, p < .05). Moreover, post-PhD
researchers in sciences were more likely to be within the reduced support profile than
their counter partners in the social sciences (χ 2(1, N = 195) = 8.03, p < .01). Both differ-
ences were statistically significant. Gender was not, however, related to cluster member-
ship (χ 2(1, N = 185) = .27, p = .606). Statistically significant differences were not detected
either in cluster memberships between Spanish and UK Post-PhD researchers (χ 2(1, N
= 195) = 1.43, p = .233). Accordingly Hypothesis 2 was only partly confirmed.

Social support profiles and research engagement, experienced burnout,

abandonment intentions and source of funding.
Post-PhD. researchers within the Adequate Support profile experienced less cynicism (t
(51.03) = −3.08, p < .01), were more engaged in their research (t(44.39) = 3.49, p < .01
and more satisfied with their post-PhD work (t(47.28) = 5.78, p < .001) than post-PhD
researchers within the Reduced Support profiles. However, no statistically significant
differences between the profiles were detected in experienced exhaustion (Figure 2).
Cluster membership was related to abandonment intentions (χ 2(1, N = 194) = 15.74, p
< .001). Those Post-PhD researchers within the Reduced Support profile (61.5%) were
more likely to consider abandoning their post doc work than researchers within the
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 381

Figure 2. Interrelations between the social support profiles and research engagement, experienced
exhaustion, cynicism and satisfaction with post-doctoral work.

adequate support profile (27.7%). There were no statistically significant associations

between the cluster membership and the source of funding. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was
only partly confirmed.

Discussion
Results in light of prior research
Although prior research has identified supervisory and researcher community support as
central determinants for post-PhD experience, this is among the first studies applying a
person-centred approach and a cross-cultural design to exploring Post-PhD researchers’
social support profiles and their association with research engagement, experienced
burnout, satisfaction with Post-PhD researcher work, abandonment intentions and
source of funding.
The results confirmed the findings of prior studies by showing that social support is a
central determinant for positive Post-PhD experience and researcher productivity (Åker-
lind 2005; Horta 2009; Puljak and Sharif 2009; Åkerlind 2009; McAlpine 2014; Jackson
and Michelson 2015; Castello, McAlpine, and Pyhältö 2017). However the findings go
further.
Two distinctive social support profiles were identified. The majority of Post-PhD
researchers displayed an Adequate Support profile whereas a minority displayed a
Reduced Support profile. Those Post-PhD researchers within the Adequate Support
profile experienced more research engagement and were more satisfied with their Post-
PhD work. They were less likely to consider abandonment and suffered less cynicism
than their counterparts within the Reduced Support profile. Further, no differences
were detected between UK and Spanish Post-PhD researcher support profiles. Spanish
researchers however, experienced slightly more engagement than their UK counterparts,
a finding whose meaning we are still exploring. Nevertheless, the finding provides one of
the first confirmations of the cross-cultural influence of social support, implying that
despite differences in Post-PhD systems and cultures in the UK and Spain, social
support is perceived similarly by the Post-PhD researchers, and is associated with positive
Post-PhD researcher experience. Further, the evidence suggests that the work stressors
remain constant across borders.
382 K. PYHÄLTÖ ET AL.

Another interesting finding was the relation between increased supervisor support and
reduced variation in community support. While further research is called for, we propose
two explanations: first of all, when supervisory support was good, individuals might have
wanted to focus on accessing and using the supervisor’s network while they could, i.e. since
the position might be a short one; another possibility is that they felt so well supported
there was no need to seek other support. Still, how these researchers interpret community
support (Are those included mostly individuals or organizations? What are the aims and
function of this support?) deserves further attention.
Further analyses showed that Post-PhD researchers who were at least partly involved in
a research group were more likely to fall within the Adequate Support profile than those
working primarily alone. A reason for this may be that working in the research group pro-
vides more opportunities for researcher collaboration and networking. However, some-
what unexpectedly the source of funding was not associated with experienced support.
A further reason might be that the source of funding does not count in terms of social
support as much as the fact that one has funding. Further, regardless of source of
funding, it would typically be for a short period so the sense of insecure income could
remain. The results imply that structures that provide opportunities for better post-
PhD researcher integration into the researcher community are likely to enhance experi-
enced supervisory and researcher community support.
Results also showed that post-PhD researchers in the social sciences were more likely to
fall within the Adequate Support profile than their counterparts in the natural sciences.
This finding is striking since prior studies of doctoral researchers in STEM disciplines
suggest they are more satisfied with their supervision, and researcher community
support, entertain higher PhD completion rates and shorter completion time than their
counter partners in the social sciences or in humanities (Wright and Cochrane 2000;
Visser, Luwel, and Moed 2007; Gardner 2009; 2010; Pyhältö, Vekkaila, and Keskinen
2015). So, perhaps changing roles, i.e. moving from institutional status as a ‘learner’ to
a ‘worker,’ changes the nature of the support on offer. Further, since post-PhD researchers
are often mobile, including internationally (McAlpine 2016), they will find themselves in
new institutions so not yet with developed local support. The finding also contradicts the
common assumption that being a scientist, whether PhD or post-PhD, includes working
in a supportive team environment (Cumming 2009), and we have some evidence that a
team environment can be toxic for both PhD and post-PhD researchers. In other
words, we cannot assume that being in a group automatically provides support.
Another reason for the discrepancy may be that prior studies have typically adopted a vari-
able-based approach in exploring disciplinary differences; however, extensive variation
between the individuals within the discipline in experienced social support is likely to
occur. This type of individual variation in experienced support does not surface in a vari-
able-based approach, but becomes observable when adopting a person-centred approach.
Experienced exhaustion was a general phenomenon confirming previous studies; interest-
ingly though it was not related to social support profiles. This suggests that social support is
not the primary determinant of experienced exhaustion, and that exhaustion is primarily
determined by other work stressors. This further, implies that post-PhD researchers may
develop exhaustion even if adequate support is provided. Accordingly, our results suggest
that cynicism towards post-PhD work experienced by Post-PhD researchers is more socially
determined than exhaustion, i.e. likely increases as a result of reduced support. There are
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 383

some indicators that workload may be a more central determinant for exhaustion; however
further studies are needed to explore this hypothesis. Moreover, we found no gender differ-
ences in the support profiles of the Post-PhD researchers, although in prior studies many
differences between female and male PhD degree holders have been detected, more often
to the benefit of males (e.g. Deem and Brehony 2000).

Methodological limitations
Because of the cross-sectional design, it is not possible to discern causal relationships. Also,
due to the small number of members in the reduced support group the power of statistical
tests is limited and only relatively clear group differences could be detected. The analysis
focused on the researcher community and have not included information on personal life
support. The structure of the scales and items of the questionnaire did not allow us to
differentiate among types of social support (emotional, instrumental or informational)
but on the sources of the support.

Implications for developing post-PhD researcher support

The results imply that experiencing supervisory and researcher community support for
post-PhD researchers promotes researcher engagement, satisfaction with post-PhD
work and reduces risk for experiencing cynicism. What does this mean for both post-
PhD researchers and the institutions in which they work? Recognizing the importance
of supervisory and researcher community support provides a grounding for developing
post-PhD education and post-PhD careers. In other words, we suggest universities con-
ceive the role of post-PhD researchers as developmental calling for a continuation of
the support offered during the PhD rather than treating them as completely independent
researchers. Although the majority of post-PhD researchers’ entertained adequate support
profiles, still a significant number experienced insufficient support. Hence, it would be
beneficial to identify researchers at risk as early as possible and assist them to develop
support strategies, to help avoid their developing cynicism and a reduced sense of research
engagement which can have severe intellectual and personal costs, and lead to abandon-
ment intentions. Such support should focus on opportunities for networking and
researcher collaboration such as co-authoring, and consortium building. However, to be
effective, this support needs to be matched to individual needs which could promote a dia-
logue with post-PhD researchers themselves.
Also post-PhD researchers themselves can learn how to actively seek as well as provide
support for each other and learn to cope and solve conflicts more independently within
their communities. A prior study showed that although early career post-PhD researchers
perceived received support as highly significant for their study progress, they provided
support for others less often than they receive it (Vekkaila et al. 2016). This implies
that opportunities and arenas to learn how and when to provide reciprocal support are
needed. This includes identifying and skilfully using the potential sources of support avail-
able (Pyhältö and Keskinen 2012). Such a perspective means starting earlier with doctoral
students: supporting their agentic behaviour in terms of social support, from the very
beginning of doctoral studies, since their ability to engage in agentic behaviours then is
likely to be highly influential for their future academic careers.
384 K. PYHÄLTÖ ET AL.

Conclusion
The results of this study suggest the value of future research using a person-centred
approach, and when possible a cross-cultural design. Further, future research should
begin to differentiate forms of support, i.e. emotional, informational and instrumental,
as well as more finely categorize sources of support beyond supervisor(s) and others.
Such an approach would enable a richer understanding of the relative influences of
social support on engagement or exhaustion, burnout and potential abandonment. We
also wonder the extent to which frequency of experience of social support plays a role.
All this suggests there remain many interesting questions for researchers to take up.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the Study was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Com-
petitiveness. Societal Challenges R+D+i programme. under [grant number FINS-RIDSS -CSO2013-
41108].

Notes on contributors
Dr. Kirsi Pyhältö is professor of educational sciences, at the University of Oulu, Finland. She also
works as a research director in the Center for University Teaching and Learning, Faculty of Edu-
cational Sciences, at the University of Helsinki. Her research interests include early career research-
ers and researcher education particularly doctoral and post- doctoral students’ engagement and
learning, well-being, supervision, and researcher communities see more homepage https://
researchondoctoraleducation.wordpress.com.
Dr. Lynn McAlpine is Professor Emerita at the University of Oxford and McGill University. Her
research examines how doctoral students and PhD graduates prepare for and navigate their
careers both in and outside the academy. She regularly draws on this research into the experiences
of PhD students, post-PhD researchers, professionals and research-teaching academics to help
inform both institutional policy and individual practice.
Dr. Jouni Peltonen is a university lecturer in the Faculty of Education, at the University of Oulu. His
research interests are in the doctoral education, theory and philosophy of education, and both
qualitative and quantitative research methods.
Dr. Montserrat Castello is Full Professor in Educational Psychology at Universitat Ramon Llull in
Barcelona, Spain. She is also a Director of the Research Institute on Applied Psychology at Univer-
sitat Ramon Llull. Her research interests focus on Academic Writing Strategies and identity of Early
Career Researchers and she is especially interested in collaborative revision of academic activity and
writing regulation in situated learning communities.

ORCID
Kirsi Pyhältö http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8766-0559
Montserrat Castello http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1757-9795
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 385

References
Åkerlind, G. 2005. “Postdoctoral Researchers: Roles, Functions and Career Prospects.” Higher
Education Research & Development 24: 21–40. doi:10.1080/0729436052000318550.
Åkerlind, G. 2009. “Postdoctoral Research Positions as Preparation for an Academic Career.”
International Journal of Research 1: 84–97. doi:10.1108/1759751X201100006.
Auriol, L. 2010. “Careers of Doctorate Holders: Employment and Mobility Patterns.” OECD
Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers. doi:10.1787/5kmh8phxvvf5-en.
Baker, V., and M. Pifer. 2015. “Antecedents and Outcomes: Theories of Fit and the Study of
Doctoral Education.” Studies in Higher Education 40: 296–310. doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.
823936.
Bakker, A. B., and E. Demerouti. 2008. “Towards a Model of Work Engagement.” Career
Development International 13: 209–223. doi:10.1108/13620430810870476.
Bakker, A. B., W. B. Schaufeli, M. P. Leiter, and T. W. Taris. 2008. “Work Engagement: An
Emerging Concept in Occupational Health Psychology.” Work and Stress 22: 187–200. doi:10.
1080/02678370802393649.
Billett, S. 2001. “Learning Through Work: Workplace Affordances and Individual Engagement.”
Journal of Workplace Learning 13: 209–214. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005548.
Boeren, E., I. Lokhtina-Antoniou, I. Sakurai, C. Herman, and L. McAlpine. 2015. “Mentoring: A
Review of Early Career Researcher Studies.” Frontline Learning Research 3 (3): 68–80.
Browning, L., K. Thompson, and D. Dawson. 2011. “Developing the Next Generation of Research
Leaders: Understanding the Path to Shaping the Future.” Acta Academica Supplementum 2: 127–
148.
Cantwell, B., and J. Lee. 2010. “Unseen Workers in the Academic Factory: Perceptions of Neoracism
among International Postdocs in the United States and the United Kingdom.” Harvard
Educational Review 80: 490–517. doi:10.17763/haer.80.4.w54750105q78p451.
Castello, M., L. McAlpine, and K. Pyhältö. 2017. “Spanish and UK post-PhD Researchers: Writing
Perceptions, Well-Being and Productivity.” Higher Education Research and Development 1–15.
doi:10.1080/07294360.2017.1296412.
Chan, D. W. 2002. “Stress, Self-Efficacy, Social Support, and Psychological Distress among
Prospective Chinese Teachers in Hong Kong.” Educational Psychology 22: 557–569. doi:10.
1080/0144341022000023635.
Chen, S., L. McAlpine, and C. Amundsen. 2015. “Postdoctoral Positions as Preparation for Desired
Careers: A Narrative Approach to Understanding Postdoctoral Experience.” Higher Education
Research & Development 34: 1083–1096. doi:10.1080/07294360.2015.1024633.
Cobb, S. 1976. “Social Support as a Moderator of Life Stress.” Psychosomatic Medicine 38 (5): 300–
314.
Cohen, S., and T. A. McKay. 1984. “Stress, Social Support, and the Buffering Hypothesis: A
Theoretical Analysis.” In Handbook of Psychology and Health, edited by A. Baum, S. E. Taylor
and J. E. Singer, 253–267. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, S., and L. Syme. 1985. “Issues in the Study and Application of Social Support.” In Social
Support and Health, edited by S. Cohen and L. Syme, 3–22. San Francisco: Academic Press.
Cumming, J. 2009. “The Doctoral Experience in Science: Challenging the Current Orthodoxy.”
British Educational Research Journal 35 (6): 877–890.
Deem, R., and K. Brehony. 2000. “Doctoral Students’ Access to Research Cultures-are Some More
Unequal Than Others?” Studies in Higher Education 25 (2): 149–165.
Dever, M., P. Boreham, M. Haynes, M. Kubler, W. Laffan, K. Behrens, and M. Western. 2008.
Gender Differences in Early Post-PhD Employment in Australian Universities: The Influence of
PhD Experience on Women’s Academic Careers (Final Report). St Lucia: University of
Queensland.
Eby, L. T., T. D. Allen, S. C. Evans, T. Ng, and D. DuBois. 2008. “Does Mentoring Matter? A
Multidisciplinary Meta-analysis Comparing Mentored and Non-mentored Individuals.”
Journal of Vocational Behavior 72: 254–267. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.005.
386 K. PYHÄLTÖ ET AL.

Gardner, S. 2009. “Student and Faculty Attributions of Attrition in High and Low Completing
Doctoral Programs in the United States.” Higher Education 58 (1): 97–112.
Gardner, S. 2010. “Contrasting the Socialization Experiences of Doctoral Students in High- and
Low- Completing Departments: A Qualitative Analysis of Disciplinary Contexts at One
Institution.” The Journal of Higher Education 81: 61–81.
González-Romá, V., W. B. Schaufeli, A. B. Bakker, and S. Lloret. 2006. “Burnout and Work
Engagement: Independent Factors or Opposite Poles?” Journal of Vocational Behavior 68:
165–174. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.01.003.
Helgeson, V., and B. Gottlieb. 2000. “Social Support Measurement and Intervention: A Guide for
Health and Social Scientists.” In Support Groups, edited by S. Cohen, L. Underwood and B.
Gottlieb, 221–245. New York: Oxford university press.
Horta, H. 2009. “Holding a Post-Doctoral Position Before Becoming a Faculty Member: Does it
Bring Benefits for the Scholarly Enterprise?” Higher Education 58: 689–721. doi:10.1007/
s10734-009-9221-1.
House, J. 1981. Work Stress and Social Support. Reading: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers
Inc.
Jackson, D., and G. Michelson. 2015. “Factors Influencing the Employment of Australian PhD
Graduates.” Studies in Higher Education 40: 1660–1678. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.899344.
Kinman, G., and S. Court. 2010. “Psychosocial Hazards in UK Universities: Adopting a Risk
Assessment Approach.” Higher Education Quarterly 64: 413–428. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.
2009.00447.x.
Laudel, G., and J. Gläser. 2008. “From Apprentice to Colleague: The Metamorphosis of Early Career
Researchers.” Higher Education 55: 387–406. doi:10.1007/s10734-007-9063-7.
Leiter, M. 1993. “Burnout as a Developmental Process: Consideration of Models.” In Professional
Burnout, edited by W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach and T. Marek, 237–250. Philadelphia, PA:
Taylor & Francis.
Maslach, C. 2003. “Job Burnout: New Directions in Research and Interventions.” Current Directions
in Psychological Science 12: 189–192. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01258.
Maslach, C., and M. P. Leiter. 2005. Banishing Burnout: Six Strategies for Improving Your
Relationship with Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Maslach, C., and M. P. Leiter. 2008. “Early Predictors of Job Burnout and Engagement.” Journal of
Applied Psychology 93: 498–512. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.498.
Maslach, C., W. Schaufeli, and P. Leiter. 2001. “Job Burnout: New Directions in Research and
Intervention.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 12: 189–192. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.
01258.
McAlpine, L. 2014. “Over Time, how do Post-Ph.D. Scientists Locate Teaching and Supervision
within Their Academic Practice?” Teaching in Higher Education 8: 835–846. doi:10.1080/
13562517.2014.934356.
McAlpine, L. 2016. “Becoming a PI: From ‘Doing’ to ‘Managing’ Research.” Teaching in Higher
Education 21: 49–63. doi:10.1080/13562517.2015.1110789.
McAlpine, L., and C. Amundsen 2015. “Early Career Researcher Challenges: Substantive and
Methods-Based Insights.” Studies in Continuing Education 37: 1–17. doi:10.1080/0158037X.
2014.967344.
McAlpine, L., and C. Amundsen 2016. Post-PhD Career Trajectories: Intentions, Decision-Making
and Life Aspirations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Pivot.
Pearson, M., J. Cumming, T. Evnas, P. Macauley, and K. Ryland. 2011. “How Shall we Know Them?
Capturing the Diversity of Difference in Australian Doctoral Candidates and Their Experiences.”
Studies in Higher Education 36: 527–542.
Puljak, L., and W. Sharif. 2009. “Postdocs’ Perceptions of Work Environment and Career Prospects
at a US Academic Institution.” Research Evaluation 18: 411–415. doi:10.3152/
095820209X483064.
Pyhältö, K., and J. Keskinen. 2012. “Doctoral Students’ Sense of Relational Agency in Their
Scholarly Communities.” International Journal of Higher Education 1: 136–149. doi:10.5430/
ijhe.v1n2p136.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 387

Pyhältö, K., M. J. Vekkaila, and J. Keskinen. 2012. “Exploring the Fit between Doctoral Students’
and Supervisors’ Perceptions of Resources and Challenges vis-à-vis the Doctoral Journey.”
International Journal of Doctoral Studies 7: 395–414.
Pyhältö, K., M. J. Vekkaila, and J. Keskinen. 2015. “Fit Matters in the Supervisory Relationship:
Doctoral Students’ and Supervisors’ Perceptions About Supervisory Activities.” Innovations in
Education and Teaching International 52: 4–16. doi:10.1080/14703297.2014.981836.
Rybarczyk, B., L. Lerea, P. K. Lund, D. Whittington, and L. Dykstra. 2011. “Postdoctoral Training
Aligned with the Academic Professoriate.” Professional Biologist 61: 699–705. doi:10.1525/bio.
2011.61.9.8.
Scaffidi, A., and J. Berman. 2011. “A Positive Postdoctoral Experience is Related to Quality
Supervision and Career Mentoring, Collaborations, Networking and a Nurturing Research
Environment.” Higher Education 62: 685–698. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9407-1.
Schaufeli, W. B., M. Salanova, V. González-Romá, and A. B. Bakker. 2002. “The Measurement of
Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach.” Journal
of Happiness Studies 3: 71–92. doi:10.1023/A:1015630930326.
Shing, J. C., and J. Jung. 2014. “Academics job Satisfaction and job Stress Across Countries in the
Changing Academic Environments.” Higher Education 67: 603–620. doi:10.1007/s10734-013-
9668-y.
Väisänen, S., J. Pietarinen, K. Pyhältö, A. Toom, and T. Soini. 2016. “Social Support as a
Contributor to Student Teachers’ Experienced Well-being.” Research Papers in Education 32:
41–55. doi:10.1080/02671522.2015.1129643.
Vekkaila, J., V. Virtanen, J. Taina, and K. Pyhältö. 2016. “The Function of Social Support in
Engaging and Disengaging Experiences among Post PhD Researchers in STEM Disciplines.”
Studies in Higher Education 5: 222–235. doi:10.5430/ijhe.v5n2p222.
Visser, S. M., M. Luwel, and F. H. Moed. 2007. “The Attainment of Doctoral Degrees at Flemish
Universities: A Survival Analysis.” Higher Education 54: 741–757. doi:10.1007/s10734-006-
9021-9.
Wright, T., and R. Cochrane. 2000. “Factors Influencing Successful Submission of PhD Theses.”
Studies in Higher Education 25: 181–195. doi:10.1080/713696139.