For many doctoral scholars, the moment of completing a PhD is supposed to mark the beginning of professional freedom — a transition from supervised research to independent intellectual and career choices. Instead, for a growing number of PhD holders, this moment triggers a profound sense of dislocation. Trying to transition out of academia brings with it a unique frustration: after years of intense dedication, skill acquisition and responsibility, one is treated by industry recruiters as if one has no 'real' work experience at all. The message is blunt and demoralising — your years of doctoral training do not count.
This systematic disregard for doctoral studies as work experience reveals a deep misunderstanding of what a PhD actually involves. A doctoral scholar is not a student in the conventional sense. During those four to eight years, scholars design research questions, manage projects, analyse complex data, write grant proposals, publish peer-reviewed papers, mentor junior students, teach classes, and often collaborate with industry or government agencies. Even the supervisor's office work, including managing the Public Financial Management System portal, is done by the scholars. A research scholar does a multi-faceted job. In any other professional setting, this would be recognised as substantial work experience. Yet, paradoxically, once scholars step outside academia, their labour is rendered invisible. Then they work hard to secure a postdoctoral fellowship, either in India or abroad. Even after this, they struggle to get a good position.
This invisibility feeds directly into what can be called an early-career crisis after the PhD. Is this crisis inevitable? Many doctoral graduates find themselves questioning not only their career trajectory but also their values and identity. How does one navigate a career when passion and skills conflict with the narrow definitions of employability imposed by the market? Does passion for research have to be all-consuming, demanding personal sacrifice without recognition or stability? And, most important, must one choose between pursuing research and maintaining a reasonable work-life balance?
These questions are not abstract philosophical concerns. They emerge from lived experiences within doctoral training itself. In many institutions, PhD scholars occupy the lowest rung of the academic hierarchy. Despite being highly educated, sometimes more qualified than their supervisors and permanent employees, and intellectually productive, they are often denied basic respect. Supervisors and professors, consciously or unconsciously, treat scholars as subordinate beings rather than as early-career professionals in training. Their time is assumed to be endlessly available, their personal lives irrelevant. Even when the professors and lab attendants have the freedom to take leave, enjoy holidays and leave office space by stipulated hours, the scholars are not provided such a liberty. Like a slave, they are made to work 24 hours a day, throughout the year. In some labs, scholars are so pressurised that they are not even provided sufficient leave to attend their marriage or manage their health situations.
This irony is further accentuated when examining other organisational kinds, particularly governmental entities. In numerous such enterprises, class IV employees, typically possessing only a high school certificate, receive respect, job security, and defined working hours. This does not justify a lack of respect for these workers; rather, it highlights a concerning inconsistency. A PhD scholar, perhaps holding multiple postgraduate degrees, clearing national-level tests and directly contributing to national knowledge production, often experiences degraded dignity, curtailed rights, and a lack of official recognition as a worker.
In extreme cases, this imbalance degenerates into exploitation. Some supervisors operate with the mentality that PhD scholars are unpaid labourers — or worse, personal assistants. Stories of scholars being asked to perform and manage personal errands, or even take care of supervisors’ domestic responsibilities, including pets, are not rare anecdotes but recurring realities whispered in corridors. In some national laboratories, scholars are not even allowed to sit in front of supervisors. Such practices blur professional boundaries and normalise abuse under the guise of 'academic culture' or 'training'.
This culture of exploitation yields enduring repercussions. When researchers internalise the notion that their activity lacks legitimacy, they find it challenging to express their value outside of academia. Industry recruiters, consequently, perpetuate this narrative by favouring narrowly defined corporate experience over a PhD. The outcome is a detrimental cycle: scholars receive little or no compensation throughout their PhD, thereafter facing repercussions for lacking 'real' experience.
Acknowledging doctoral studies as work experience is not only a matter of equity; it is also a strategic imperative for advancing research and innovation. If people keep talking about doctoral training as a prolonged period of giving up things with little professional credibility, no one will take this career path. Many potential researchers are already hesitant by looking at the perils of their seniors because they see how emotionally drained, financially unstable, and disrespectful current PhD students are. In this case, we might lose the next generation of researchers, thinkers, and inventors.
No civilised society can afford this loss. Doctoral scholars play a vital role in shaping policy, advancing technology, promoting public health, enhancing education, and fostering cultural understanding. Their work often addresses complex societal challenges that require long-term, rigorous enquiry — precisely the kind of work that short-term corporate projects cannot replace. If we fail to recognise doctoral training as work experience, we devalue not only the scholars but also the knowledge systems that sustain societal progress.
Policy-level interventions are urgently needed. Universities should officially recognise PhD candidates as employees-in-training, providing explicit job descriptions, equitable working hours, grievance resolution processes, and social security benefits. The industry must amend employment standards to recognise PhD research as pertinent professional expertise expressly. Job descriptions should recognise skills, such as research design, data analysis, project management, and scientific communication, as transferable competencies rather than academic abstractions. Within academia and the scientific community, a drastic culture shift is needed. Supervisors in academic and scientific institutions should be provided with annual human resources-based training to maintain decorum in research, especially by fostering cordial, respectful relations with their scholars.
Doctoral students are the pillars of the scientific progress of any nation. Without them, neither innovations nor country progress would have happened. The passion and dedication of a scholar should be rewarded properly. The time they dedicated to their research should be accounted for in their jobs and salary package. Until we address this structural blind spot, the academic ecosystem will continue to bleed talent, and society will have to pay a high price for the erosion of research scholars in future.
Biju Dharmapalan is the Dean, Academic Affairs, Garden City University, Bengaluru, and adjunct faculty at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru
