Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) 2013
The PRES is a biannual survey of postgraduate research students to collect feedback about
learning and supervision in order to inform improvements. The last survey took place in 122
institutions in Spring 2013. Each institution’s results are confidential, but participating
institutions are able to benchmark their results. This report summarizes the institution level
response to the feedback and free text comments from 279 (>35%) PGR students at the
University of St Andrews. Issues have been identified as ‘themes’ if similar comments were
reported by students in more than one School.
Supervision
93% of St Andrews students agreed (definitely or mostly) that their supervisor had the skills
and knowledge to support their research. A large majority reported regular contact that was
appropriate for their needs (86%) and receiving feedback to direct their research (88%).
However, only 70% agreed that the supervisor helped identify training and development
needs.
The overall level of satisfaction with supervision was reflected in the free-text comments,
most of which were complimentary of individual supervisors. There were three principle
areas in which comments about supervision were made by multiple respondents and from
multiple Schools:
1. Training and support for new supervisors (e.g., “Fresh supervisor should [have]
training [in] 'how to give feedback'”; “My primary supervisor is supervising a PhD for
the first time and I sometimes feel that he doesn't have access to some info”; “New
supervisors may need additional support to know what is expected of them and their
students”; “I am his first student, a few teething troubles are inevitable I guess”).
2. Over-loading of supervisors, either by having too many students or too many other
(e.g., administrative) responsibilities (e.g., “my supervisor is bogged down in
administrative duties”; “my main supervisor has become overcommitted”;
“supervisor has far too many PhD's and other responsibilities”).
3. Lack of support for development of researcher skills beyond the project / thesis
(e.g., “Some supervisors do not care about student training and development”;
“supervisor is inconsiderate about my requirement to develop my teaching and other
transferable skills”; “I do not feel like my supervisor takes a holistic approach to my
research. While he is good at helping me write my thesis, I wish that more time could
be given to development as a researcher and possible future academic”; “real
absence of career-oriented planning”)
Resources
The majority agree (i.e. >70% definitely or mostly) that they have suitable working space,
adequate computing resources and adequate library resources. However, this leaves a
sizable minority who do not. In particular, 19% definitely or mostly disagree that the library
provision is adequate and 15% think ‘specialist resources necessary for my research’ (which
may also include library and computing resource) are not accessible.
The free text comments reflect these responses, focusing predominantly on the library and
work space (“There is insufficient office space for PG students, and the university on the
whole has mismanaged current transition of available office space such that even less office
space will be available to PG students. Library does not have adequate workspace for
students, and library resources are extremely limited for university of this size”). The
criticisms about the library are mainly to do with journal and book holdings and the same
comments are made from Schools across faculties (“library holdings are inadequate for my
research needs”; “Most of the material I need is not held by the library. Although much of it
has been obtainable through interlibrary loans, these are for a limited period, and bizarrely,
you cannot obtain any piece of material more than once”; “absent library subscriptions”;
“The library's collection is generally not very good”). There were some comments about the
physical resource of the library being inadequate, but they mainly referred to the temporary
location of Special Collections or ‘over-crowding’ and lack of quiet space. Hopefully, these
issues will have been mitigated by the subsequent availability of the Martyrs Reading Room.
Complaints about a lack of desk space is a particular issue in some Schools, most notably IR
and Management.
Culture
There was general agreement that seminar programs were good and opportunities to
discuss research with other students were frequent, but fewer than three-quarters of
respondents found the ‘research ambience’ stimulating or had experienced opportunity to
become involved in the wider research community.
A common theme of the free text comments was a feeling of isolation and regret that there
was not greater opportunity for interactions. Both academic (seminars and research
discussions) and social interactions (and space for this purpose e.g. a coffee room) were
viewed as valuable (“collective coffee breaks for all academic and postgraduate staff
…would be a beneficial addition at least once a week”) between staff and students, within
and between Schools. There is a sense that the students have to initiate events themselves
(e.g., “Any collegiality that has happened has had to be initiated by the students. This is fine
but it would also be good to have faculty contributing their experience and knowledge as
well”) and that staff could make more contribution to ‘research ambience’ (“Even if there
were more talks, the issue is that there is very little community and few people show up”).
Induction, progression and assessment
Fewer than 10% said that they did not understand standards required for their PhD or the
requirements and deadlines for monitoring progress. Nevertheless, the feedback did
indicate that there are those who still do not know what is required or how to find out: this
was true for students (“There are communication gaps, some of us don't have a clue”; “I am
in my third year - thesis requirements have not yet been communicated”) and supervisors
(“My supervisor twice tried to inform registry of my suggested external examiner via email
(which is what he'd always done) but he recieved [sic] no reply. When he rang them he was
told that he had to do it via moodle(?). Why did they not just tell him that?”), which is
unacceptable.
This appears to be concentrated in a few Schools, suggesting that induction and the
provision of information is not uniformly good and can be improved. Sharing good practice
and perhaps making ‘induction packs’ for new PhD students widely available could be
helpful. To avoid spreading confusion, Schools will be reminded to follow the ‘golden-copy’
(i.e., making reference to the central information on policies/procedures, rather than
copying information which might then become out of date) principle (“The university
regulations concerning thesis submission are extremely confusing and spread all over the
place. The postgraduate handbook, the rulings of the senate, and who knows what else need
to be looked at to gain an understanding of what is required”).
Feedback and staff/student responsibilities
Over 90% of students agree that they understand both their own and their supervisors
responsibilities. However, although over 80% say they know who they can approach if they
have a concern, the comments indicated that there was considerable doubt that raising
concerns would have any positive effect.
Although some positive comments were made about Schools’ responses to feedback from
PGRs, there is an impression that at the University-level there is either no interest or no will
to make any changes (“the School values and responds to feedback, but the University as an
institution definitely does not”). Certain themes re-emerged, for example, “if you actually
listened to PG students, you would buy more books for the library” and “PGR students could
be a lot more involved in the academic life of this University”. Overall, a sense that “the
University as a whole doesn't value PhD students” and “this university is focused on
undergraduates rather than postgraduates” is an issue that we acknowledge and are trying
to address creatively. It is thought that the re-launch of St Leonard’s College (which
occurred in the summer after the survey was collected) will improve this perception, or
change this reality.
Research Skills
Over 80% agreed that their research skills, critical analysis, creativity and understanding of
research integrity, had all improved. Nevertheless, a few comments suggest that the
University could do more (“I feel that all of these have developed internally and have been
hindered rather than facilitated by external factors.”; “This development has been as a result
of my own work rather than explicit discussion of these elements, of which I would like to see
more”).
Professional development
Very few (>5%) disagreed that project management and ability to communicate effectively
had improved or that they increasingly managed their own professional development. There
were very few free-text comments too. However, the Schools/University might be able to
more to address why 20% of respondents do not agree that they have ‘developed contacts
or professional networks’.
Opportunities
The 279 respondents were asked to select from a list which opportunities they had received
during their programme. Attending a conference (nearly 80%) was the highest – which is
impressive given that over 25% were in first year. Surprisingly, however, only 87 (31%) had
agreed a personal training or development plan and only 65 (23%) had received any advice
on career options. Both of these proportions can and should be increased.
Over 60% had the opportunity to teach, but of these 20% disagreed that the support and
guidance was adequate. Particularly worrying was the fact that only 80% replied ‘Yes’ to the
question: ‘did you receive formal training for your teaching?’ It would seem important to try
to ascertain whether the 20% did not participate in the training that is required by the
University for post-graduates who teach, or whether they did not acknowledge the training
as being ‘formal’.
Overall experience
The overall experience is positive for PGR students at St Andrews, with only 5% ‘disagreeing’
that they are satisfied.
Recommendations
Below is summary of the response to the ‘key themes’ that are identified from the PRES
results. Some of the recommendations are already implemented, others are ongoing
projects.
1. Strengthening a sense of researcher community to improve ‘research ambience’
We recognize that the PGR value a sense of belonging to the University beyond an
individual School, even while we also recognize that a student working as part of a team
in a lab will have different needs compared to a student undertaking library research. To
address these issues, in the summer of 2013, St Leonard’s College was re-affirmed as the
focal point in the University for promoting the interests of all the PG community. The
mission of St Leonard’s is precisely to be concerned with the research culture as
experienced by PG students. In the first year of its reconstitution, the College hosted a
number of University-wide events, such as a workshop and talk by the creator of ‘PhD
comics’ creator, Jorge Cham; a Dragon’s Den-like event (‘The Provost’s Pit’) for aspirant
entrepreneurs; meet the Provost’s team coffee mornings and wine receptions; a ‘Prize
Lecture Series’ competition; and a Researcher-in-Residence scheme in a local school. We
will continue to offer a diverse and innovative program of events to continue to build a
sense of community beyond individual Schools.
2. Training for new supervisors and support for ‘over-loaded’ supervisors
Where a supervisor has not previously supervised a student to completion, a second
more experienced supervisor is appointed as the ‘second’ (or sometimes joint)
supervisor to provide support to both the student and the new supervisor. In addition,
the University runs an annual ‘New Supervisor Induction Event’ as well as Supervisory
Update sessions for more experienced supervisors. These events are used to share
supervisory stories and foster supervisory skills. Efforts are being made to improve the
perceived value of these events so that attendance improves. Regular (6-8 per year)
informal lunchtime meetings are held to keep Directors of Post-Graduates (DoPG) up-todate with policy changes and DoPGs are expected to brief members of their School
about these matters. These DoPG meetings will also be used to encourage DoPGs to
monitor more closely supervisors’ loads and to encourage additional training and
sharing of good practice within Schools.
3. Clarity of information around induction, monitoring, progression and assessment
of PhD
It is intended that the “Policy for supervisors and students in research postgraduate
programmes” (hereafter ‘the Policy’) contains, in a single location, everything that a PGR
student and their supervisor needs to know about their roles and responsibilities. It is
nevertheless a ‘living document’, which changes in response to feedback from students
and supervisors. We seek to identify all occasions when the Policy is not being adhered
to and explore the reasons for this. Sometimes is it necessary to enforce the Policy and
other times it is necessary to change the Policy. It is nevertheless not acceptable to have
a Policy that is ignored with impunity and all PGR and supervisors are invited to read the
Policy periodically and bring to the attention of the DoPG and/or the Provost occasions
where they note that the Policy does not correspond to practice.
4. Support for development of researcher skills beyond the project / thesis, including
career planning advice
The Policy requires that Supervisors discuss the career intentions of PGR students, assist
them to acquire skills relevant to their intended career development, and make referrals
to the Careers Centre, CAPOD, or programmes offered by professional societies as
appropriate. Additional training in the implications of these requirements will be offered
early in AY2014-15.
In AY2012-13, the Careers Centre and CAPOD hired a new adviser with the remit of
‘researcher development’ to cater for the career needs of PGRs. Around the time of the
PRES, new material for researcher career support was made available online. In addition,
the role provides one-to-one advice and guidance to PGR through the Careers Centre. It
is hoped that this additional resource will have a positive impact by providing the
additional skills training and career planning tailored for PGR.
5. Library resources are perceived to be inadequate for researcher needs
Academic Liaison & Enquiry Management
The Library is committed to improvements to meet researcher needs and users are
invited to contact the Library directly using ‘live chat’, e-mail, visiting and so on
(http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/library/contact/comments/). In addition, the Library has
recently recruited a third full time member of the Academic Liaison team to proactively
engage with the PGR community. This team also provides information skills training to
PGR.
Study space & Opening Hours
The PGR carrel system on the silent floors of the Main Library has been maintained, in
addition to the introduction of the Martyrs Kirk Research Reading Room, which opened
in Summer 2013 (i.e., it was not available at the time of the PRES). Martyrs Kirk adds
study space and has also improved the reading room provision for Special Collections,
both in terms of having a town centre location, greater capacity and excellent ambience.
Until Spring 2013, the University Library had never opened on Saturday afternoons
during undergraduate vacation time, nor had it opened at all on Sundays. Since spring
2013, the library is now open until 10pm on weekdays and 9 hours a day on both
weekend days throughout the University year. This represents a 49% increase in Main
Library opening hours, which greatly benefits the PG community.
Collections
The library is committed to improvements in the discoverability of our resources, as it is
acknowledged that sometimes users are unable find a resource that is available. In
addition, the Research Enhancement Fund continues to provide means to increase the
collections of research materials. Academic schools are invited to bid for funds in order
to fill gaps the research collections in a way best suited to their needs. DoPG will make
clear to students, during induction events, that they are invited to request materials via
their supervisor, the Academic Liaison team or by making a direct request to the Library
(morebooks@st-andrews.ac.uk).
6. Improving the formal training and support for post-graduates who teach.
Following consultation with DoPGs and DoTs, it was agreed that beginning AY2014-15,
all Schools would operate a formal selection process for PGR who teach, specifying the
criteria for selection and offering feedback to students to explain the basis for the
decision. Prior to engaging in teaching, the PGR students will be required to complete
the formal CAPOD workshop. In addition, the Module Coordinator will also provide
module specific training if appropriate and offer ongoing support, including monitoring
for the purposes of providing feedback and developmental advice. The member of
academic staff who monitors the PGR teaching will use the most appropriate means,
which will vary according to the nature of the teaching, but might include direct
observation, consideration of student feedback, or discussion of self-reflection.
7. Greater engagement by the University to ensure that feedback is acted up and that
action points are communicated widely
The remit of St Leonard’s College is wide, covering all aspects of the PGR experience and
training, including the mandate to continuously review University policies that affect
PGR students; facilitate interdisciplinary communication and entrepreneurial
endeavours; and coordinate the allocation of resources. Importantly, the Provost, two
pro-Provosts and the College’s Administrative Officer, recognize the importance of
listening to and acting on feedback from the PG community. PRES is just one route by
which we receive feedback. In order to shape our behaviour in the most helpful way, we
will continue to seek feedback from diverse sources and using different methods, and
endeavour to tell you what action we are taking and changes that have been effected.
Section 1: Supervision
1.a. My supervisor/s have the skills and subject
knowledge to support my research
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
1.b. I have regular contact with my supervisor/s,
appropriate for my needs
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
1.c. My supervisor/s provide feedback that helps
me direct my research activities
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
1.d. My supervisor/s help me to identify my
training and development needs as a researcher
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
St Andrews
3.20%
1.40%
2.20%
16.50%
76.70%
0.00%
9
4
6
46
214
0
St Andrews
3.90%
3.90%
4.70%
25.80%
61.60%
0.00%
11
11
13
72
172
0
St Andrews
3.20%
4.00%
4.70%
24.50%
63.50%
0.00%
9
11
13
68
176
0
St Andrews
7.60%
9.40%
12.20%
31.70%
38.10%
1.10%
21
26
34
88
106
3
PRES 2013
3.30%
3.80%
3.30%
20.80%
68.30%
0.50%
1603
1823
1580
9966
32718
246
PRES 2013
4.00%
5.00%
5.00%
22.70%
62.60%
0.70%
1910
2404
2379
10854
29922
318
PRES 2013
4.00%
4.90%
5.70%
25.10%
59.60%
0.70%
1885
2344
2693
11958
28383
347
PRES 2013
4.80%
8.70%
13.80%
29.90%
41.50%
1.40%
2268
4129
6595
14233
19803
650
Section 2: Resources
3.a. I have a suitable working space
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
St Andrews
6.10%
6.50%
17
18
PRES 2013
5.40%
7.70%
2557
3683
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
3.b. There is adequate provision of computing
resources and facilities
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
3.c. There is adequate provision of library
facilities (including physical and online resources)
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
3.d. I have access to the specialist resources
necessary for my research
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
6.50%
20.60%
55.20%
5.10%
18
57
153
14
St Andrews
4.00%
8.40%
8.00%
27.30%
48.70%
3.60%
11
23
22
75
134
10
St Andrews
6.50%
12.60%
8.70%
40.10%
31.00%
1.10%
18
35
24
111
86
3
St Andrews
3.60%
12.30%
12.70%
35.50%
31.50%
4.30%
10
34
35
98
87
12
8.80%
28.70%
42.80%
6.70%
4184
13715
20457
3179
PRES 2013
4.10%
7.60%
9.20%
31.00%
43.10%
5.00%
1970
3629
4360
14744
20479
2373
PRES 2013
2.90%
6.40%
7.90%
36.70%
44.60%
1.50%
1383
3028
3757
17492
21256
698
PRES 2013
3.10%
7.20%
13.00%
37.90%
34.60%
4.10%
1484
3441
6201
18067
16488
1966
Section 3: Research Culture
5.a. My department provides a good seminar
programme
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
5.b. I have frequent opportunities to discuss my
research with other research students
Definitely disagree
St Andrews
1.40%
5.00%
12.50%
40.90%
38.70%
1.40%
4
14
35
114
108
4
St Andrews
3.20%
9
PRES 2013
3.00%
7.30%
15.50%
38.40%
32.40%
3.40%
1455
3491
7391
18331
15448
1612
PRES 2013
4.80%
2299
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
5.c. The research ambience in my department or
faculty stimulates my work
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
5.d. I have opportunities to become involved in
the wider research community, beyond my
department
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
9.00%
15.10%
33.30%
37.60%
1.80%
25
42
93
105
5
St Andrews
4.30%
7.90%
18.60%
35.50%
32.30%
1.40%
12
22
52
99
90
4
St Andrews
3.60%
11.90%
23.00%
32.40%
27.30%
1.80%
10
33
64
90
76
5
12.30%
17.40%
34.00%
28.60%
2.80%
5882
8311
16185
13634
1330
PRES 2013
4.80%
10.10%
21.50%
32.70%
27.00%
3.90%
2288
4789
10245
15575
12851
1844
PRES 2013
5.30%
12.80%
22.50%
31.00%
25.10%
3.20%
2538
6102
10737
14792
11951
1536
Section 4: Progress and Assessment
7.a. I received an appropriate induction to my
research degree programme
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
7.b. I understand the requirements and deadlines
for formal monitoring of my progress
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
7.c. I understand the required standard for my
St Andrews
3.60%
7.20%
12.60%
43.20%
32.00%
1.40%
10
20
35
120
89
4
St Andrews
1.40%
5.40%
8.60%
40.30%
44.20%
0.00%
4
15
24
112
123
0
St Andrews
PRES 2013
3.90%
8.20%
13.00%
39.50%
33.90%
1.40%
1867
3935
6225
18847
16177
689
PRES 2013
2.00%
5.30%
7.70%
39.70%
45.00%
0.30%
966
2516
3661
18939
21464
138
PRES 2013
thesis
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
7.d. The final assessment procedures for my
degree are clear to me
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
2.20%
5.10%
14.40%
41.50%
36.50%
0.40%
6
14
40
115
101
1
St Andrews
2.90%
7.90%
17.30%
39.00%
32.50%
0.40%
8
22
48
108
90
1
2.10%
6.60%
11.70%
42.80%
36.30%
0.50%
989
3162
5600
20385
17287
254
PRES 2013
2.60%
8.10%
14.20%
40.80%
33.40%
0.80%
1261
3873
6777
19454
15911
361
Section 5: Responsibilities
9.a. My institution values and responds to
feedback from research degree students
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
9.b. I understand my responsibilities as a research
degree student
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
9.c. I am aware of my supervisors' responsibilities
towards me as a research degree student
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
St Andrews
4.00%
8.80%
27.00%
37.20%
19.30%
3.60%
11
24
74
102
53
10
St Andrews
1.80%
1.10%
5.80%
46.40%
44.90%
0.00%
5
3
16
127
123
0
St Andrews
1.50%
3.30%
7.40%
45.40%
42.40%
0.00%
4
9
20
123
115
0
PRES 2013
3.50%
7.00%
28.50%
35.10%
22.50%
3.30%
1688
3330
13559
16711
10724
1583
PRES 2013
1.20%
2.70%
7.50%
44.80%
43.40%
0.30%
559
1273
3581
21337
20669
162
PRES 2013
1.60%
4.00%
8.00%
42.80%
43.30%
0.40%
763
1890
3781
20293
20527
197
9.d. Other than my supervisor/s, I know who to
approach if I am concerned about any aspect of
my degree programme
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
St Andrews
1.50%
7.70%
8.00%
35.80%
46.70%
0.40%
4
21
22
98
128
1
PRES 2013
3.40%
8.40%
11.60%
37.60%
38.40%
0.50%
1626
4019
5508
17903
18258
259
Section 6: Research Skills
11.a. My skills in applying appropriate research
methodologies, tools and techniques have
developed during my programme
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
11.b. My skills in critically analysing and
evaluating findings and results have developed
during my programme
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
11.c. My confidence to be creative or innovative
has developed during my programme
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
11.d. My understanding of 'research integrity'
(e.g. rigour, ethics, transparency, attributing the
contribution of others) has developed during my
programme
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
St Andrews
1.40%
2.20%
7.20%
41.40%
46.80%
1.10%
4
6
20
115
130
3
St Andrews
1.10%
2.20%
9.00%
36.20%
50.20%
1.40%
3
6
25
101
140
4
St Andrews
2.20%
5.70%
14.30%
39.80%
36.90%
1.10%
6
16
40
111
103
3
St Andrews
1.10%
5.00%
3
14
PRES 2013
1.40%
2.50%
7.10%
36.90%
51.00%
1.10%
674
1183
3379
17691
24425
535
PRES 2013
1.30%
2.50%
8.50%
38.30%
47.70%
1.60%
630
1217
4047
18291
22795
777
PRES 2013
2.20%
5.10%
13.70%
37.90%
40.00%
1.10%
1067
2420
6542
18086
19090
508
PRES 2013
1.50%
2.60%
724
1253
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
11.80%
36.60%
44.10%
1.40%
33
102
123
4
11.70%
37.40%
45.30%
1.50%
5598
17865
21624
695
Section 7: Professional
Development
13.a. My ability to manage projects has
developed during my programme
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
13.b. My ability to communicate information
effectively to diverse audiences has developed
during my programme
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
13.c. I have developed contacts or professional
networks during my programme
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
13.d. I have increasingly managed my own
professional development during my programme
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
St Andrews
0.70%
4.30%
14.30%
38.00%
40.90%
1.80%
2
12
40
106
114
5
St Andrews
0.70%
3.60%
20.60%
35.40%
38.30%
1.40%
2
10
57
98
106
4
St Andrews
2.90%
9.30%
14.30%
38.00%
33.70%
1.80%
8
26
40
106
94
5
St Andrews
1.10%
2.50%
14.30%
37.60%
43.00%
1.40%
3
7
40
105
120
4
PRES 2013
1.50%
3.80%
15.30%
40.30%
36.90%
2.30%
704
1814
7304
19243
17634
1108
PRES 2013
1.50%
4.00%
16.50%
39.40%
36.30%
2.30%
698
1929
7856
18772
17309
1075
PRES 2013
2.90%
8.70%
18.90%
36.90%
30.60%
2.00%
1369
4156
9042
17621
14602
939
PRES 2013
1.40%
3.30%
14.90%
40.30%
38.00%
2.00%
679
1586
7097
19232
18134
948
Section 8:
Opportunities
15. Please indicate which of the following
opportunities you have experienced during your
research degree programme
Agreeing a personal training or development
plan
Receiving training to develop my research skills
Receiving training to develop my transferable
skills
Receiving advice on career options
Taking part in a placement or internship
Attending an academic research conference
Presenting a paper or poster at an academic
research conference
Submitting a paper for publication in an
academic journal or book
Communicating your research to a non-academic
audience
16. Please indicate whether you have taught (or
demonstrated) at your institution during your
research degree programme
Yes
No
16.a. '''If yes,''' to what extent do you agree that
you have been given appropriate support and
guidance for your teaching?
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
16.b. Did you receive formal training for your
teaching?
Yes
No
Not applicable
St Andrews
PRES 2013
n/a
87
n/a
21120
n/a
200
n/a
36022
n/a
142
n/a
22641
n/a
n/a
n/a
65
28
222
n/a
n/a
n/a
12870
4393
33762
n/a
186
n/a
27450
n/a
103
n/a
16812
n/a
90
n/a
16415
St Andrews
61.60%
38.40%
170
106
St Andrews
5.90%
14.10%
15.30%
39.40%
25.30%
0.00%
10
24
26
67
43
0
St Andrews
80.00%
14.70%
5.30%
136
25
9
PRES 2013
51.60%
48.40%
24115
22659
PRES 2013
8.20%
19.90%
13.60%
32.50%
22.40%
3.40%
1969
4798
3279
7844
5411
814
PRES 2013
56.10%
34.20%
9.70%
13527
8243
2345
Section 9: Overall Experience
17.a. Overall, I am satisfied with the experience of
St Andrews
PRES 2013
my research degree programme
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
17.b. I am confident that I will complete my
research degree programme within my
institution's expected timescale
Definitely disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Definitely agree
Not applicable
2.50%
2.50%
12.20%
43.00%
39.80%
0.00%
7
7
34
120
111
0
St Andrews
2.50%
2.90%
10.80%
42.60%
41.20%
0.00%
7
8
30
118
114
0
3.10%
5.90%
9.40%
42.90%
38.50%
0.20%
1462
2806
4519
20542
18415
109
PRES 2013
2.80%
5.10%
11.40%
38.80%
40.90%
1.00%
1340
2453
5416
18480
19518
477
Section 10
19. I am registered as doing a:
PhD
Professional doctorate
PhD by published work
New Route PhD
MPhil with transfer to PhD
MPhil
Master in research
Other
19.a. '''Note:''' PhD includes DPhil courses.
'''(Doctoral students only)''' Is your doctoral
training programme provided through a Doctoral
Training Centre or Doctoral Training Partnership?
Yes
No
Don't know
St Andrews
97.80%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.70%
1.40%
0.00%
0.00%
273
0
0
0
2
4
0
0
St Andrews
5.80%
52.30%
42.00%
14
127
102
PRES 2013
78.10%
4.80%
0.40%
0.40%
10.50%
1.10%
2.30%
2.30%
37256
2306
193
177
5029
547
1101
1094
PRES 2013
12.70%
43.60%
43.70%
4608
15808
15822
Section 11:
Motivations
20. The main motivation for me pursuing a
research degree programme was:
my interest in the subject
St Andrews
44.80%
125
PRES 2013
38.90%
18471
improving my career prospects for an
academic/research career
improving my career prospects outside of an
academic/research career
I was encouraged by a former academic
tutor/supervisor
the funding was available
it felt like a natural step for me
I felt inspired to work with a particular academic
Other
21. What type of career do you have in mind for
when you complete your research degree?
Academic career in higher education (either
research and teaching, or teaching only)
Research career in higher education
Research career outside higher education (e.g. in
a private research organisation, a charity or in an
industrial environment)
Teaching (at a level below higher education)
Any other professional career
Self-employment (including setting up own
business)
Returning to or remaining with employer who is
sponsoring your degree
Other
24.70%
69
29.30%
13914
7.20%
20
8.30%
3923
3.90%
11
4.40%
2070
2.20%
13.30%
2.90%
1.10%
6
37
8
3
3.10%
12.40%
1.60%
2.10%
1475
5895
745
994
St Andrews
PRES 2013
47.60%
131
45.70%
21472
14.20%
39
12.80%
6004
15.60%
43
14.70%
6925
1.50%
11.60%
4
32
1.30%
10.30%
614
4855
2.50%
7
3.50%
1655
1.50%
4
4.30%
2000
5.50%
15
7.40%
3478