Recent comprehensive research into the doctoral experiences of students worldwide reveals a pronounced gender disparity in satisfaction levels, with female doctoral candidates notably reporting lower contentment compared to their male peers. Drawing from the 2019 Nature Global Doctoral Student Survey, which compiled responses from over six thousand doctoral students representing 108 countries, the study offers a rigorous empirical analysis of factors influencing doctoral satisfaction. It highlights a complex interplay of institutional, socio-cultural, and personal challenges disproportionately affecting female doctoral students and shaping their academic trajectories in profound ways.
This investigation meticulously confirms a persistent pattern: female doctoral students, on average, express significantly diminished satisfaction throughout their doctoral journeys. This discontent is not a peripheral phenomenon but is robustly supported by a suite of analytical methods including benchmark regression analysis and propensity score matching (PSM) techniques to verify the consistency and reliability of the findings. The research compellingly situates gender as a critical axis along which doctoral satisfaction differs, indicating underlying structural and psychosocial issues nested within academic environments.
At the core of the dissatisfaction experienced by female doctoral students lie heightened encounters with gender discrimination, pronounced by a 12.3% greater likelihood compared to their male counterparts. Such discrimination generates a systemic environment of unfair treatment, eroding a sense of belonging and professional validation critical to doctoral success. Additionally, female scholars face a 6.81% higher risk of sexual harassment, an experience that exacts severe psychological and emotional tolls. These adverse events substantially erode their doctoral experience, undermining not only satisfaction but also academic confidence and mental well-being.
Compounding these challenges is the formidable struggle female doctoral students face in balancing academic commitments with personal and familial responsibilities. The research underscores that the conflict between intense academic demands and domestic obligations disproportionately impacts women, thereby constraining their satisfaction and undermining the otherwise expected positive aspects of scholarly pursuit. This intersection of professional and personal pressures reveals systemic inequities ingrained in the structure of doctoral education.
A nuanced heterogeneity analysis sheds light on the role of workload intensity, finding that female doctoral students engaged in excessive work hours—exceeding 50 hours per week—exhibit notably lower satisfaction. The phenomenon intensifies further among those working beyond 60 hours weekly, a regime insufficiently sustainable and deleterious to well-being. Notably, these labor-intensive conditions obstruct female students’ ability to reconcile academic responsibilities with life outside the university, a disparity less pronounced among male doctoral students.
Geographical and economic contexts further complicate this gendered satisfaction gap. Female doctoral students from low- and middle-income countries show significantly poorer satisfaction outcomes compared to those in high-income nations. This variation may be attributed to persistent cultural norms that reinforce traditional gender roles, slower institutional progress towards gender equality, and weaker protective mechanisms against discrimination and harassment. These findings emphasize how national socio-economic conditions and prevailing gender ideologies intersect to shape doctoral experiences worldwide.
Beyond these empirical findings, the study advances theoretical frameworks in higher education by integrating the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model into the context of doctoral education. Traditionally applied in workplace psychology, the JD-R model elucidates how certain demands—such as discrimination, harassment, and work-life conflict—deplete personal resources, leading to burnout and dissatisfaction. The research substantiates this depletion mechanism among female doctoral students, demonstrating that intensified demands uniquely affect their psychological resilience and overall satisfaction, thereby expanding the model’s applicability.
Importantly, the data challenge the JD-R model’s assumption of uniform demand effects, revealing significant gender-specific variations. Female doctoral students experience distinctive stressors that do not impact male students to the same degree, highlighting the necessity for theoretical refinements that acknowledge gendered dimensions of academic stress and resource depletion. This invites a reimagined framework capable of more accurately capturing diverse doctoral student experiences.
Practically, these insights underscore an urgent need for universities to implement policies that create safer, more inclusive academic environments. Combatting gender discrimination and sexual harassment requires robust institutional mechanisms such as clear reporting channels, zero-tolerance policies, and compulsory training for faculty and supervisors to recognize and mitigate unconscious biases. Beyond deterrence, academic institutions must adopt proactive measures facilitating female doctoral students’ work-life balance, including offering childcare support and flexible scheduling arrangements.
Workload management emerges as a critical policy focus, particularly given the deleterious impact of excessive working hours on female doctoral candidates. Universities should institute monitoring systems to ensure equitable and reasonable workload distributions, preventing exploitative practices that disproportionately burden women and erode their academic satisfaction. Supervisors play a vital role here, requiring guidance and accountability to maintain sustainable work expectations.
Furthermore, national and international policy frameworks must prioritize gender equity interventions tailored to low- and middle-income countries, where female doctoral students face intensified systemic barriers. Legal protections must be strengthened, gender-focused funding opportunities expanded, and mentorship programs enhanced to provide equitable access to resources. These targeted initiatives are essential for dismantling entrenched disparities and fostering a fairer global academic sphere.
From a theoretical vantage, this study challenges the prevalent gender-neutral paradigms in higher education research, which often obscure the differentiated experiences of women, particularly in male-dominated disciplines. It advocates for intersectional frameworks that integrate gender, socio-economic status, and cultural context to reveal the multifaceted nature of doctoral satisfaction disparities. Such approaches are necessary to generate policies and institutional practices that are responsive to the nuanced realities encountered by female doctoral candidates.
Limitations of this study point to further research opportunities. Due to data constraints, disciplinary differences—known to significantly influence doctoral experiences—could not be examined, signalling a need for subsequent studies to incorporate academic fields as a variable. Additionally, the cross-sectional design restricts insights into temporal shifts in satisfaction, underscoring the necessity of longitudinal research to track evolving experiences and outcomes across doctoral candidature.
Future explorations would benefit from comparative analyses elucidating why certain countries, such as Sweden and Finland, buck global trends by exhibiting higher female doctoral satisfaction than males. Decoding these anomalies may reveal exemplary policies or cultural factors that can be emulated elsewhere, offering promising directions for enhancing doctoral experiences universally. Moreover, disentangling whether dissatisfaction arises primarily from explicit discrimination or unmeasured variables will sharpen the focus of future interventions.
In summary, this landmark study furnishes invaluable empirical evidence illuminating the distinct challenges female doctoral students face worldwide, emphasizing the urgent need to rethink institutional policies, theoretical models, and societal supports. The clear demonstration of gender disparities in doctoral satisfaction spotlights the broader imperative to foster equity in academia, ensuring that the pursuit of knowledge remains an empowering and fulfilling journey for all scholars, regardless of gender or geographic origin.
Subject of Research: Female doctoral students’ satisfaction with doctoral candidacy experiences, gender disparities, and influencing factors globally.
Article Title: Are female students less satisfied with doctoral candidacy experiences? Evidence from 108 countries.
Article References:
Teng, C., Yang, C. & Wu, G. Are female students less satisfied with doctoral candidacy experiences? Evidence from 108 countries.
Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 610 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04937-2
Image Credits: AI Generated
