Unmissable benefits: A qualitative study of the personal value of humanities doctoral education for graduates

Survey

Data was collected via an interpretivist qualitative survey. This aimed to produce rich and complex accounts of subjective experiences amongst a diverse and little-known population (Braun et al., 2021). The anonymous online survey was open between February and May 2025, using Microsoft Forms. Since a comprehensive database of graduates was unavailable, convenience sampling was used: this harnessed the author’s personal network in Languages which they developed during their PhD. The survey was shared directly with contacts, posted on social media and via mailing lists, with instructions for current researchers to forward it to eligible contacts. LinkedIn was also used. University thesis libraries show the names of those who have completed doctorates; these were searched on LinkedIn and potential participants messaged directly. While time-consuming, this helped recruit a more heterogeneous sample.

The survey collected details about respondents’ doctorates, work experiences since graduation and personal characteristics. These answers enabled assessment of the heterogeneity of the sample and of the impact of these factors on perceptions of value. Free-text questions (Appendix 1) asked participants to reflect on four domains of doctoral value: career, skills, social networks and how they see themselves (Guccione and Bryan, 2023). An additional question asked how the “actual” value of their doctorate compared to that expected. This was included because humanities graduates with academic career aspirations often struggle if they change this plan (Guerin, 2020). All elements of recruitment and survey design were reviewed and received ethical approval. Before completing the survey, participants had access to an overview of the study, a participant information sheet and a data protection statement. They provided informed consent before accessing the survey.

Participants

Participants were invited to complete the survey if they met certain conditions: they had completed their doctorate at a British or Irish university; they identified their doctorate with the field of Languages; and their main activities had ceased to be academic research within this field. 60 responses were received. The focus on Languages arose for practical reasons to support recruitment, yet it brought benefits to the study’s insights. As identified by the literature review, a tendency of earlier scholarship is to subsume humanities participants with those from other fields which elides what may distinguish their experiences. Focusing on one humanities field supports the study to be grounded in a specific context. While recognising the context-bound nature of meaning-making through an interpretivist lens, this promotes insight into the complex relationship between subject studied and graduate perceptions of value. Furthermore, characteristics of Languages make it suitable for drawing out propositions relevant to other humanities fields. Languages research brings together a range of humanities methodological approaches (Harrison and McLelland, 2023); this is reflected in the research areas identified by participants, which included Literature, Literary and cultural theory, Film/media studies, Gender and sexuality studies, History, Philosophy, religion and the history of ideas, and Socio-linguistics. In the UK, Languages departments have been at the sharp end of the funding cuts affecting humanities more widely, with provision for Languages degrees halved since 2011/12 (British Academy, 2025). The precarious working conditions for early career researchers in the field reflect issues experienced in other humanities fields (Harrison and McLelland, 2023). Languages research exemplifies the concern for specific contexts that distinguishes the humanities from other fields (Gibson and Bengtsen, 2024) because it is based on using knowledge of the language(s) spoken in a given area to study cultural and social matters relevant to that area (Institute of Languages, Cultures and Societies, nd). Participants identified their doctorates with 10 language areas, most commonly German, Italian, French, English, Russian and Hispanic. The Discussion explores the relevance of findings to other humanities fields by connecting them to wider scholarship while remaining sensitive to what may be specific to Languages.

Participants were asked to identify that their main activities had ceased to be academic research within Languages because survey distribution used networks of current researchers in the field. It was necessary to avoid an imbalance of responses from the minority of graduates who continue to paid research roles in the field. All participants answered that they had been in employment since graduation. The sectors in which they have spent most of their time reflect what is known about the wider population of humanities doctoral graduates: the largest proportions move into teaching-focused or professional roles in HE with smaller proportions embarking on careers in other sectors, such as media, policy and social care (AHRC, 2022b). Their characteristics are provided in Table 1 (Appendix 2). The median time since graduation was 8 years and the range was 40 years to 6 months. The most common salary band was £40,000–£49,999 (33%), which is higher than doctoral graduates previously studied (Guccione and Bryan, 2023). This reiterates the importance of using longer timespans to study humanities graduates (Ashton et al., 2023). 85% of participants were White and the majority women. In the theme Discussion, square brackets after participant citations contain details relevant to interpretation: doctoral research area(s); years since graduation; and work sector in which they have spent most time since graduation. Steps have been taken to reduce the risk of deductive disclosure compromising anonymity: years since graduation are provided as a 3-year range, specific language areas mentioned by participants are redacted, and a gender-neutral pronoun (they/them) is used for all.

Analysis

Under an interpretivist paradigm, analysis entails telling “stories” about data: interpreting through the researcher’s reflective and thoughtful engagement rather than finding “the truth” (Braun and Clarke, 2019: 591). This was developed by following the six phases for reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) (Braun and Clarke, 2019). This approach was appropriate due to my emic positionality. In RTA, researcher subjectivity is harnessed as a creative resource rather than potential threat to knowledge. The phases cultivate thoughtful and self-aware engagement with data, allowing time for the researcher to question their assumptions reflexively (Braun and Clarke, 2019). I completed my PhD in Italian Studies in the Languages department at a British University (St Andrews) between 2016 and 2020. I am White, non-binary, a British citizen, and have spent most of my life in the UK. After completing my PhD, I began working in researcher development, co-ordinating training and community-building for PGR cohorts. This led me to develop an interest in scholarship about doctoral education, and – through a personal and professional lens – I sensed gaps in scholarly understanding about humanities doctoral experiences. RTA supported me to harness this relevant experience while avoiding its overrepresentation.

At phase one, I familiarised myself with the data through repeated readings while taking notes to orientate myself. Phase two entailed systemic data coding: with further readings, I inductively developed codes by open-coding the data and paying attention to participant meanings. Coding took place in MS Word, using the comment function, and 49 initial codes were generated. At phase three, codes were collated to scope initial themes. At phase four, I returned to read the data to review these themes. At this point, I wrote a journal entry to evaluate the extent to which these reflected my own experience. While some were familiar (particularly “Meaningful relationships”), others felt less so (such as “Self-fulfilment”): while my experience informs my interpretation, this reassured me that it was not overrepresented. This process led to further iterations of coding to refine themes. At phase five, I defined and named themes. During phase six – writing the report – theme characteristics were further refined to create the story about the data represented in this article.

As an situated and interpretivist method, RTA is valuable for developing research about the humanities. Data generation based on quantitative and/or positivist approaches may be less equipped to produce insights that take account of its distinct mode of knowledge production (Gibson and Bengtsen, 2024). While emerging from social sciences, RTA’s situated and creative approach to meaning-making bears resemblance to that used by humanities researchers. Employing this lens is a means of interpreting the humanities in a way that aligns with the distinct nature of the field and of contributing to understanding what its distinct qualities may comprise (Gibson and Bengtsen, 2024).

“A double-edged sword”

A strong pattern across the data was the intensely ambivalent quality of personal doctoral value in the humanities. Participants associated value with all previously identified domains: career, skills, social networks and how they see themselves (Guccione and Bryan, 2023). It was common that the value they perceive their doctorate as having at the time of completing the survey was different to what they expected at the start of their PhDs. Doctoral graduates studied previously are found to be better at articulating reasons for the doctorate not being worth it than rationalising why it is still worth it despite the costs (Guccione and Bryan, 2023). It stood out that the humanities participants in this study were articulate in describing the benefits that made their doctorates worth it. These benefits co-existed with costs, spanning the four domains and entwined within individual accounts. P57 encapsulated this:

I expected the value of my PhD more linear and perhaps higher overall in a professional job context [sic]. At the same time, I did not necessarily expect it to have such high value for building international friendships and being part of a community [P57 – Comparative literature – 4–6 years – HE professional].

They went on to describe their PhD as a “double-edged sword”: even though it did not meet their academic career aspirations, they “wouldn’t want to miss” the benefits it brought. For them, unmissable benefits and career disappointment co-exist. The final free-text question asked participants to evaluate whether their doctorate was worth it overall. Responses echoed P57. Compared to personal doctoral value studied across disciplines (Guccione and Bryan, 2023), participants gave more mixed responses about whether their doctorate was worth it overall.

As P57’s words highlight (above), on one edge of the sword often lies the emotional challenge faced when PGRs who start with academic career aspirations gradually realise that these may not be tenable (Burford, 2018; Guerin, 2020; McAlpine and Austin, 2019). Several participants expressed disappointment at realising this. This sense of disappointment often lingered years after graduation and moving into employment in another field. One participant, many years after completion, wrote:

I would not be working in the field I am in now were it not for the PhD. However, there are very few posts available in academia in certain fields, and that can prove to be both a surprise and a disappointment for some PhD candidates (me among them). [P53 – Comparative literature; Gender studies – 10–12 years – Research outside of HE]

Decisions to move on from academic careers are often emotionally fraught due to deep socio-cultural and psychological attachments to academia (Burford, 2018). Earlier studies highlight the high proportion of humanities PGR who start with academic career aspirations (Guerin, 2020; McAlpine and Austin, 2019). This is reflected amongst participants of this study, as indicated by P53 who emphasised their disappointment even after finding relevant work elsewhere. Starting a doctorate with career expectations creates high stakes because perception of value often hinges on whether doctorates achieved what they set out to (Guccione and Bryan, 2023).

However, participants in this study who had unfulfilled career aspirations also highlighted the positive edge of the sword. Many responses referred to processes of gradual realisation: after a period of time they had come to see their PhD as actually more valuable than expected because of its unforeseen positive personal impacts. This is exemplified by P7: while they previously expected an academic career, they emphasized how its personal value developed in other ways.

I think the value that the PhD ended up providing for me was quite unexpected - it was the experience of doing it, in and of itself, and being in a university environment that was personally very fulfilling. I enjoyed the teaching experience I gained whilst I did my thesis. I made life-long friends and connections to my university town, even though I now live 200 miles away. I was able to pursue my special interest around others who valued it. [P7 – Gender studies; Film/media studies – 10–12 years – Pre-tertiary teaching]

Others expressed the positive edge of the sword in relation to skills gained from their doctorate, which unexpectedly transferred to other employment sectors. This is exemplified by P44 who moved into a HE professional services role.

When I first began the doctorate, I saw its value as a straightforward pathway to an academic research/teaching career in a subject I loved working in. I now see a broader value in terms of transferable and soft skills. [P44 – Literature; History – 4–6 years – HE professional]

Some, including P8, articulated the high-level abstract skills they continue to draw on in other sectors:

As a policy professional I feel I draw on the critical thinking skills I developed during my postgrad research frequently. This includes understanding how to use and weigh evidence, how to understand bias in narrative and how to construct an argument. [P8 – Literary and cultural theory; Literature – 16–18 years – Policy]

This reaffirms that humanities graduates perceive the value of their degrees to professional employment in relation to skills (Guerin, 2020; McAlpine and Austin, 2019). Participants working professionally in scholarly contexts, such as university administration or publishing, highlighted unique skills their doctorates bring to this work, such as the capacity to build trust and rapport with academics and to understand processes from the inside. Doctoral graduates often find fulfilling work in scholarly professional services and are able to bring perspectives capable of tackling the complex sticking points of the contemporary academy (Guerin, 2020).

The positive experience expressed by some of only coming to realise the value of their transferable skills after embarking on work in other sectors also has a negative edge. Participants described emotional and financial difficulties during the first years after graduation while transitioning into other roles. P40, who expressed that their PhD was worth it overall, highlighted this in the context of ambivalence.

Once I completed my studies, I went through an initial phase of submitting multiple applications with little success. This was followed by a sense of failure as I found myself working in a completely different sector. […] Despite these obstacles, I love my field of research, and I am now understanding the topic at a different pace and with a new mindset. [P40 – Philosophy, religion and/or history of ideas; literature – 7–9 years – HE professional]

The complex transitions of PGR graduates from all fields to employment beyond academia (Guerin, 2020; McAlpine and Austin, 2019; McAlpine et al., 2021) reflects strongly in the experience of humanities participants. Their responses highlighted an aspect of this complexity arising from the sense that any subsequent jobs are a let-down. As P33 exemplifies:

The hardest thing to balance for me now is that while other career paths offer more stability than academia, very few give you the space to think and work in this same way. [P33 – Literature – 1–3 years – HE teaching]

Concerningly, some participants highlighted painful hidden costs on the negative edge of the sword, in relation to mental health, finances (missing National Insurance contributions and debt) and the feeling that it delayed life choices like having children. Some expressed lasting frustration at this. Echoing P53’s long-term disappointment, many years after graduation P25 wrote:

Though I am extremely glad to have done the doctorate, the price, in terms of time and mental health, was too high. [P25 – Literature; History – 10–12 years – HE teaching]

However, they evaluated their doctorate as worth it overall, “for its own sake and for the opportunity to study a subject in depth”. Guccione and Bryan explain such seemingly contradictory responses in relation to sunk cost fallacy: doctoral graduates do not wish to admit that an endeavour in which they have invested so much was not worth it, and they use survey responses to self-affirm (2023). Sunk cost fallacy probably influenced the ambivalent responses discussed here. However, a difference amongst this study’s participants is that they were articulate about lay behind the overall high value of their doctorates, even when unfulfilled expectations and other costs were present. The following themes – “meaningful relationships”, “self-fulfilment” and “enhanced capacity to interpret the world” – unpack this edge of the sword further. As shown in the reflections discussed below, participants rated these impacts highly. To draw on P57’s words cited above, they represent benefits they would not want to “miss”.

Meaningful relationships

Participants highlighted the ongoing significance of social relationships developed during their PhDs. This reflects that graduates across disciplines connect doctoral value to the close social bonds formed with fellow PGRs and colleagues (Bryan and Guccione, 2018). It might be expected that humanities doctorates would have less impact on graduates’ social relationships. Compared with STEM, humanities research tends to be more solitary. With this in mind, it stood out that many participants highlighted the quality of friendships made during their PhD, such as “life-long” (P7 and P32), “my closest friends” (P9 and P28) and “meaningful long-lasting friendships” (P23). Several connected this quality of friendship to having been able to meet like-minded individuals with shared intellectual passions. As P7 explained:

I was able to pursue my special interest around others who valued it – now talking about it feels very alien and I don’t have many people in my current circle with whom I can discuss [Language area redacted] film. [P7 – Gender studies; Film/media studies – 10–12 years – Pre-tertiary teaching]

Researcher networking is conceptualised across two contexts: interpersonal – connections that offer emotional support and open opportunities – and intertextual – historical, epistemological and methodological relationships on which researchers build their own ideas (McAlpine and Amundsen, 2018). The way in which participants connected meaningful relationships developed during their PhD to intellectual affinities indicates the distinct nature of networking in the context of humanities researcher education. P27 exemplifies this. They described that their PhD changed them as a teacher and writer, and concluded by writing: “it was a way to meet lots of like-minded people”. They elaborated:

I have met dozens of very interesting people since I started my PhD: researchers, authors and translators who have enriched my social life. [P27 – Comparative literature – 10–12 years – Pre-tertiary teaching]

Interpersonal networking with like-minded individuals generates relationships that combine the emotional support of friendship with intellectual affinities that have not been encountered in other areas of life. Peers, colleagues and collaborators may become “personal friends” [P36 – Literature; Visual arts – 10–12 years – Publishing].

The associations that participants draw between meaningful relationships and the intellectual point to the impact of these relationships on their identities as researchers. The validation gained through talking about research in informal social settings is important to the development of researcher identities (Mantai, 2015). Advocacy for interdependence – in the sense that researcher development ought to be conceived as a collective process rather than individual endeavour – may be more needed in humanities compared to STEM (Grant, 2023). P35 alluded to this in reference to the size of their department. Humanities doctoral researchers are often part of smaller departments than peers in other fields – this may present more of an issue in departments divided into individual language areas.

I struggled to find community in modern languages, I was the only PhD student in [Language area redacted] in my year. [P35 – Environmental humanities; History – 4–6 years – Academic research outside languages]

However, the strong pattern of compelling accounts of the unique and meaningful relationships developed indicate that avenues for interdependent researcher development still exist within the humanities. They may be situated at a deeply personal level: friendships in which the emotional and intellectual entwine.

Participants also referred to the ongoing tangible benefits from relationships developed during their PhDs. Several highlighted that these led to jobs, reiterating what is already known about the positive influence networks have on opening professional opportunities (McAlpine and Amundsen, 2018). P3 expressed the entwined professional, personal and intellectual value of their doctoral network:

It has been genuinely valuable for expanding my personal and professional networks, which in turn has led to opportunities to volunteer and lead. That in turn helped shape my thinking for my next book. It’s also kept me connected to people, allowing for friendships to emerge. [P3 – Cultural studies – 10–12 years – HE teaching]

To appreciate the added-value represented by a humanities doctorate for developing meaningful relationships, it is worth highlighting that some participants expressed the value of their doctorate in relation to being first-generation students. P7 wrote:

Another value was being the first person in my family to get a PhD (and MA), which was unforeseen given my parents were both from working-class families. [P7 – Gender studies; Film/media studies – 10–12 years – Pre-tertiary teaching]

HE provides valuable opportunities for students to accrue social capital to which they may not otherwise have access (Mishra, 2020). Connecting the descriptions of meaningful relationships to the value highlighted by first-generation participants indicates that humanities doctoral education has the potential to play an important role in providing social experiences that may otherwise be inaccessible.

While most participants connect meaningful relationships to fellow PGRs, it is not clear from this study what activities fostered the development of these relationships. However, it can be assumed that friendships developed in the hidden channels of doctoral learning, whose role is not always recognised alongside official institutional support like supervisory meetings (Elliot et al., 2020). The doctoral hidden curriculum develops across extra-curricular activities whose impact can contribute to and even exceed the core doctoral curriculum: doctoral adjacent (such as attending seminars and using shared offices); side-hustles (such as teaching and work placements); and activities outside institutions (such as volunteering and hobbies) (Bryan, 2023). Since access to such activities is not equal across the board, they ought to be permanent and inclusive features of all doctoral programmes (Bryan, 2023). Given the solitary nature of humanities thesis writing, it is likely that the meaningful relationships described by participants emerged through such hidden activities. While further study in needed to explore the humanities hidden curriculum, the meaningful relationships described by participants suggest that hidden activities play an important role in promoting the overall personal value of humanities doctoral experiences.

Self-fulfilment

Graduates’ contradictory responses about the overall positive value of doctorates can be partly explained by a sunk cost fallacy; these responses may also suggest the influence of another, yet unidentified, value domain (Guccione and Bryan, 2023). Participants in the current study shed light on this. “Self-fulfilment” encapsulates a pattern across the data of participants expressing that, because of their doctorates, their subsequent lives felt more complete. In “A double-edged sword” P7 is cited: they described “the experience of doing it, in and of itself” as “personally very fulfilling”, highlighting experiences of teaching, making life-long friends and pursuing their special interest around others who valued it [P7 – Gender studies; Film/media studies – 10–12 years – Pre-tertiary teaching]. “Self-fulfilment” brings together participants’ perceptions that PhDs have played a unique role in providing the ongoing sense that their lives are more fulfilled than they would be without their doctoral experience. While this represents a strong pattern, participants perceived their doctorates as contributing to this in different ways: due to the achievement of an aspiration, the pursuit of a passion, the experience of joy, the development of intellectual abilities, and/or finding satisfying employment later in life. What makes an individual perceive an experience as fulfilling is subjective, and resistant to quantitative measurement or comparison across individuals. RTA provides a means of outlining this hard-to-articulate yet widely shared value domain.

Many described their PhD as something that they always wanted to do and would have regretted not doing. For P8, “it would have been an itch I would want to scratch” [P8 – Literary and cultural theory; Literature – 16–18 years – Policy]. P3 elaborated the existential dimension of this perspective:

There are things in life you need to do, no matter anyone else’s view on what you should be doing. We have the one life and a life well lived is one with a sense of satisfaction, and no regret at what you haven’t done with it. [P3 – Cultural studies – 10–12 years – HE teaching]

Doctoral study leads individuals to question their disciplinary identities and epistemic stances, which leads to intensive self-reflexivity and a process of existential becoming (Nuriler and Bengtsen, 2024). Humanities research where there is close affinity between knowledge sought and the person’s sense of self fosters this (Nuriler and Bengtsen, 2024). The theme “Self-fulfilment” indicates that undergoing such a process generates ongoing personal value to graduates which could not have been achieved through other activities, such as employment.

Echoing P33 (cited above), P36 described how, for them, employment cannot compare to doctoral research in terms of how “satisfying” it is: “I’ll also never have such a satisfying, ‘good’ job as being a doctoral researcher” [P36 – Literature; Visual arts – 10–12 years – Publishing]. Participants elaborated on this incomparability through using words like “joy” and “love” to describe memories of their PhD. As P4 wrote, despite unfulfilled academic career expectations, their PhD was worth it “for the sheer joy of doing it” [P4 – Linguistics; Socio-linguistics – 5 – Research outside of HE].

Individual attachments of PhD topics were important to participants’ sense of self-fulfilment. Many described that their motivation to undertake doctoral study was interest or passion in their topics. P6 described it as “the opportunity to spend 4 years studying something I am very interested in” [P6 – Literary and Cultural Theory; Gender Studies – 10–12 years – HE Professional]. P37 articulated this in relation to the fulfilment of an aspiration:

It was always something that I wanted to do. I had the immense privilege of researching a topic that I was passionate about. [P37 – Cultural Studies; Gender Studies – 1–3 years – HE Professional]

Freely selecting one’s own research topic lays the foundation for the passionate existential becoming associated with humanities doctorates (Nuriler and Bengtsen, 2024). The reflections of this study’s participants indicate that personal attachments to topics help to foster doctoral experiences that foster graduates’ self-fulfilment in the long term. Several referred to the ongoing positive impact of having had the opportunity to pursue individual passions, as exemplified by P55:

Being a PhD candidate allowed me to spend 4 years of my time doing what I love most and am able to do best […] The PhD sustained and stimulated my curiosity, and allowed me to dedicate all my time to my passions. I think I am, as a consequence, a more stable and positive person I would have been without a fully-funded doctoral experience. [P55 – Comparative literature; Environmental humanities – 4–6 years – Academic research outside languages]

They concluded by describing their PhD as “the keystone of [their] academic and personal life”. Others described increased confidence in their intellectual abilities as offering a sense of fulfilment that continued to endure years later. P5 wrote:

I feel that I have the ability to understand and produce very complex subject matter and writing. […] The skills I have gained mean that I can access material and knowledge that I find fascinating, and this is very fulfilling. [P5 – Comparative literature – 10–12 years – HE teaching]

Other participants alluded to ongoing self-fulfilment from their doctorates in relation to current jobs described, for example, as “rewarding” (P1), “satisfying” (P10), “enjoyable” (P21) and “happy” (P45), even though they were not in the sector they had expected. These four participants graduated between 5 and 10 years ago: while humanities graduates experience challenging transitions in the initial years after doctorates, many find fulfilling work beyond academia in the longer term (Guerin, 2020).

Nevertheless, self-fulfilment co-existed with negative benefits within participants’ “double-edged swords” to generate the overall intense ambivalence with which graduates evaluate their doctorates. P52, appearing to contradict themself, expressed this complexity:

I absolutely loved research and teaching, and my area of study, so in that sense I don’t regret spending the extra time with it. But the stress of precarious work, summers without pay or on very low pay, and additional unpaid work involved in the roles I carried out, ultimately significantly outweighed the joy for me. [P52 – Literature; Literary and cultural theory – 13–15 years – Civil service]

They do not regret what they loved about their doctorate – alluding to self-fulfilment –, but (like for others) conditions of financial precarity make this pathway unsustainable. Ultimately, the self-fulfilment that graduates get from humanities doctoral study must balance with their material needs, yet one cannot simply regret it for this reason. Humanities doctoral research leaves the person feeling like a different one (Nuriler and Bengtsen, 2024): this generates an unmissable sense of self-fulfilment.

Responses to one of the initial check-box questions suggest an experience that may be conducive to graduates’ perception of self-fulfilment. This asked participants about experiences prior to their doctorate: whether they started immediately following undergraduate or master’s degrees without long-term employment beforehand, or they took a break when they were employed. Those who had taken time out between earlier degrees and their doctorate were more likely to evaluate their doctorate as worth it overall compared to those who started immediately after earlier degrees. Given the importance of personal attachments to research topics to participants’ experiences of self-fulfilment, this suggests that time outside academia prior to doctoral study may support aspiring PGR to make more informed decisions about whether doctoral education will be fulfilling to them, and if so, which research topic.

Enhanced capacity to interpret the world

“Enhanced capacity to interpret the world” is closely connected to “Self-fulfilment”. P14 exemplifies this:

I feel that I am able to look back and see that I challenged myself to engage with a project for 4 years. I think spending time alone, researching and thinking deeply about something I am passionate about was very fulfilling and made me think differently about the world around me. [P14 – Philosophy, religion and/or history of ideas – 4–6 years – HE professional]

Variations of the phrase “made me think differently about the world” were recurrent: for example, P7 and P10 wrote that their doctorate “enhanced my knowledge and understanding of the world” and “changed my worldview”. Such responses were often in response to the survey question “Do you view yourself as changed or different in the world because of your doctoral education?”. Although it is unsurprising that participants repeated “world”, it is notable that they re-framed this to emphasise the doctorate’s impact on their capacity to understand or interpret the world. Several connected this to critical thinking and could articulate what this complex capacity means to them in practice.

Yes, mostly my critical mindset and the ability to question everything. I frequently notice issues that colleagues do not, because of this training. […]. At a human level I appreciate the critical thinking skills to help navigate a world of disinformation. [P1 – Literature; Visual arts – 4–6 years – Policy]

As P1 and P58’s comments exemplify, participants situated their enhanced interpretive capacity in the professional and personal realms. Similarly to P5 (cited in “Self-fulfilment”), P34 attributed the positive impact of their doctorate on their ongoing personal intellectual journey to increased confidence in their intellectual abilities:

I feel like it has given me the confidence to take on other subjects. I enjoy reading books by scientists, on all sorts. From environment to psychology. I enjoy the fact that I feel on a level with the professors / doctors who are the book authors, and feel like they are peers, rather than gods. I like feeling empowered to understand different areas of research. [P34 – Linguistics; Socio-linguistics – 7–9 years - Policy]

Responses offered less detail about the doctoral activities and processes that had helped to foster their enhanced capacity to interpret the world. Earlier scholarship offers insight on this: a lens to understand the challenging and all-encompassing nature of PGR learning is the crossing of threshold concepts (Kiley and Wisker, 2009). These are core concepts that, once grasped, lead “to a qualitatively different view of the subject matter and/or learning experience and of oneself as a learner” (Kiley and Wisker, 2009: 432). P32 articulated their experience of this process:

Doing a doctoral degree made me deconstruct everything about myself and my beliefs and start again from the ground up. [P32 – Gender studies; History – 10–12 years – Translation]

The crossing of threshold concepts shapes researcher education across fields but there are disciplinary variations in how it manifests and is understood (Kiley and Wisker, 2009). Participants’ descriptions of their enhanced interpretive capacity indicate the long-lasting transformative impact of crossing threshold concepts when this process is underpinned by the personal and situated nature of humanities knowledge creation and its sensitivity to specific contexts. Those whose research related to Gender studies emphasized the impact of developing doctoral research through this critical lens on their view of the world many years after graduation. P7 highlighted this both in relation to their professional work supporting vulnerable groups and to their understanding of themself. Their doctorate represented a unique exercise in developing compassionate self-understanding.

Basically I am still asking the question of “Does she belong?” (this was my thesis title) - I work with people unpacking and unpicking their intersectional oppression in real time, and helping them find their place in the world.

Several articulations of doctoral value as an enhanced capacity to interpret the world reflected participants’ experiences in the field of Languages. For some this arose from knowing a foreign language which opened professional opportunities. P17 unpacked this further by connecting their capacity for interpreting other people to their experience of studying a cultural context in the language.

Really learning about one moment in time in one cultural context in the language enabled me to understand more about the fundamentals of who we are as people. That we all have the same needs and are often motivated by similar wants and desires. I think it gives me more patience when I meet someone new, particularly if we don’t have a shared language. [P17 – Literary and cultural theory; Gender studies – 7–9 years – HE teaching]

While such reflections relate to the Languages context, they are relevant to reflecting on humanities doctoral experiences more widely. Humanities lenses are distinguished by their local and contextual grounding: scholars position themselves in the middle of things, in the realm of the specific (Gibson and Bengtsen, 2024). Participants in this study indicate how doctoral research underpinned by this distinct methodological approach fosters graduates’ enhanced capacity to interpret the world, and this continues to have valuable meaning in their lives beyond academia.

Humanities HE graduates contribute to society beyond their employability by being more likely to be socially and civically engaged (Comunian et al., 2023). Participants’ descriptions of their enhanced capacity to interpret the world reiterate this. After describing that their PhD changed their thinking processes, P58 highlighted how it also affected professional decision-making. They became more concerned about the social and civic impact of their employment.

I distinctly remember thinking that completing a PhD changed me as a person. I think I mainly just felt much more personally effective, and committed to following thoughts through properly to be clear about what I did and did not mean, and why. It also made me want to prioritise roles with a clear, practical impact on the world [P58 - Philosophy, religion and/or history of ideas – 13–15 years – HE professional]

P36, who was looking for work at the time of completing the survey, illuminated this impact from a different angle.

In essence, capitalist patriarchy sucks, and having a PhD provides very little, if any, defence against it. [P36 – Literature; Visual arts – 10–12 years – Publishing]

This comment recognises that the value of doctorates to employability is entangled with cultural and economic forces over which individuals have little control. At first glance, P36 appears to express resignation and disappointment. Yet they also emphatically described the overall value of their doctorate:

It’s hard to overstate how much I loved doing my PhD, and how much I changed and developed as a person whilst I was doing it. [P36]

In this light, their invocation of “capitalist patriarchy” should not be interpreted as a straightforwardly pessimistic view. This can be understood as a feminist interpretation of their situation and the wider forces that shape this. Capitalist patriarchy makes feminists angry yet their anger is not the problem: rather, being able to identify the cause of their suffering is a liberating refusal to normalise conditions that should not be normalised (Ahmed, 2017). This is small solace for graduates struggling to find work: their capacity to communicate their transferable skills to employers is also crucial (McAlpine and Austin, 2019). Yet humanities graduates are adept at flexibly translating their capacities across roles (British Academy, 2020). The shortening of contracts in today’s “gig economy” means that workers need to be prepared to do this across their careers (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2017). Being able to interpret one’s personal employment difficulties through a wide-angled lens is likely to promote the resilience needed to keep going. The deep and personal engagements with critical thought that characterise PGR-led research in the humanities are one way of sharpening this lens. Just as the capacity to communicate one’s skills across sectors is important to employability, so is the enhanced capacity to interpret the world described by humanities doctoral graduates.