G ESTIÓN DEL PROGRAMA DE RENTA ACTIVA DE INSERCIÓN 9 C ONCLUSIONES

Researchers described a vast range of formative doctoral experiences. Several researchers made no mention at all of their PhD supervisors, while others talked about them being too busy or “hands-off”. Two researchers [Isabel and Zoe] had, in effect, to change supervisors; one of them because the supervisor did not have enough knowledge about the research project he had offered and the other because she felt her supervisor:

“was very unhelpful and not very…I felt it wasn’t going anywhere” but also,

“things with my normal supervisor kind of got out of hand” [Zoe]. The manner in which these two researchers chose to replace deficient supervision was an important experience in constructing their habitus.

When Isabel started her PhD, she had already experienced success in

accessing research funding. The reasons for her choice of PhD supervisor and lab had been two-fold: firstly, based on the potential offered by the supervisor and the group’s accumulated capital:

“he was very strong in his field and he had this spin-out company…his group was really strong and it was a big group” [Isabel]

and, secondly, she had a strong personal interest in the research topic. The reality of working with this supervisor did not match her expectation. He had no time for supervision, lost interest in the project, and did not have the scientific expertise needed. She had to decide whether to abandon her PhD and start again or not. She was aware that stopping would mean losing the symbolic capital of her prestigious PhD funding award. She identified an alternative solution by gaining funding to travel and access scientists with the required expertise. She finished her thesis in the UK, whilst working as a research assistant; she submitted her thesis in her home country without any input from her supervisor. This experience shaped her as a very independent researcher, without a strong bond to any particular senior academic.

Zoe described two very different experiences of PhD supervision, with an initial supervisor that she “dumped”. Her department, aware of issues with this

particular supervisor, was supportive in letting her access another academic. She described the supervisory transition as: “I basically had to adopt a PhD supervisor”. While she was still being supervised by the first one, an academic from the department had requested some input on a project requiring a set of specific skills, which she had. She made the decision to help this academic with the idea that he may then accept to be her 2nd supervisor. She became aware of the capital she held. Firstly, through having a specific set of scientific skills needed by this 2nd academic and, secondly, by being able to transfer her PhD studentship funding:

because the funding stayed with me, both for the project and for me, you can imagine that I became a very desirable student to have, so I had several approaches from several people and I got to choose the person. [Zoe]

In the end, because she enjoyed working with this other academic, she asked whether he would accept to supervise her. She was very positive about her experience in this second supervision relationship and about being given freedom to explore. Interestingly, she was not sure whether this sense of freedom had come from the supervisor, or whether she had claimed it. She described the relationship as particularly influential in having shaped her thinking about how to ask and answer research questions.

Studies concerned with doctoral researchers argue that the institutional environment (through department/ research group/ PhD supervisor) by contributing to the socialisation of researchers, influences careers post-PhD (Hottenrott & Lawson, 2015; Weidman & Stein, 2003; Weidman et al., 2001). Few participants, except Charlie, mentioned the influence of PhD supervisors on the acquisition of academic or social capital. Charlie was the researcher with the highest volume and a distributed configuration of capital. She provided numerous examples of opportunities offered by her PhD supervisor (who she described as adapting his approach to supervision, based on the career desires and aspirations of students), such as reviewing papers and discussing

reviewers’ comments with her. A particularly significant example in the approach of developing academic capital within her lab had been the organisation of a lab retreat that included many elements of developing an understanding of academic practices: grant writing practice, writing lay summaries, cover letters for paper submission and feedback on each other’s writing and proposals. Whilst running such a lab retreat does not seem

particularly innovative, retreats are in reality extremely rare in research groups. Charlie felt that spending time away from campus and the lab, being immersed and focused on elements other than the experimental side of research practice, was critical:

I think at the time I knew that was useful but looking back I realise that was phenomenally useful…like the things that you need to know as you progress through your career but you never do because there’s always an experiment to do. [Charlie]

Through this retreat, Charlie was developing an understanding of the rules of the game for academic progression, such knowledge was contributing further to her acquiring academic capital. Additionally, she had been involved in an

international research network that enabled ECRs to converse with scientists from multiple labs. The ethos within this research network had contributed to making her feel like an equal member.

As illustrated in these examples, researchers left doctoral studies with diverse habitus and volumes of capital. For some of the interviewees who hardly mentioned their PhD experience, I was able to explore their habitus further through their approach to entering the field of postdoctoral research.