PhD survey report 2024 Bi-annual survey among PhD candidates at the University of Amsterdam that monitors PhD experiences

Main recommendations
Based on the results of the Central PhD Council's biannual survey, along with observations, reports, and signals collected over the past years - including findings from previous surveys - the CPC highlights some major findings and formulates several recommendations for the university to address these pressing issues. In the rest of this report, detailed recommendations are provided organised by topic.

Recommendations PhD trajectory
The CPC strongly recommends action to address the excessive workloads and prevent delays in PhD trajectories, with a particular focus on at-risk groups identified in the data. Majority of respondents report experiencing their workload as (too) high, and an alarming number indicate working more than 40 hours per week. 70% of respondents work more than the hours specified in their PhD contract. Among those who report (too) high workload, nearly 40% are experiencing delays in their PhD trajectory, which they associate with a negative impact on their wellbeing. The CPC is concerned by the lack of perspective on extensions or structural solutions for these delays. We therefore recommend an institutional focus on supporting timely PhD completion, without increasing perceived workload, through multifaceted improvements including better supervision, clear supervision plans, formalised expectations around teaching and supervision duties, improved access to research facilities for all and ensuring a level of financial support to enable a humane standard of living in Amsterdam.

It is known that supervision quality plays a key role in the duration and
completion of PhD research. The UvA is investing strongly in the training of PhD supervisors. We recommend including skills training on initiating early conversations around workload, work culture and output expectations, fostering a safe work culture with attention to power dynamics and providing structured guidance during the later stages of the PhD track to prevent progress delays.

Recommendations social safety and wellbeing
The CPC fully endorses the standpoint of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), which recognises social safety as a fundamental prerequisite for the proper conduct of science. In the 2024 PhD survey, over a quarter of respondents experienced undesirable behaviour, a percentage that has not declined in the recent years. While the UvA has implemented several valuable measures to enhance social safety their impact remains insufficient, as reflected in the survey outcomes. In addition, the CPC has received multiple signals suggesting that information about these initiatives is not easily accessible or visible to all PhD candidates. We recommend that the university ensures transparent and consistent procedures for reporting, consequences, and appeals, applied uniformly across faculties. The importance of thorough training for supervisors and promotors was already mentioned above. Furthermore, social safety and wellbeing are closely tied to a sense of academic community. Interaction with peers and academic staff
should be actively facilitated, particularly for Own-time, Externally-funded and Non-EEA PhD candidates, who report lower levels of engagement.

Finally, it must be emphasised that the responsibility for fixing incidents of social unsafety does not primarily lie with PhD candidates (or others affected by it), but with perpetrators and with the institution. The UvA must lead in ensuring a safe, supportive, and accountable academic environment for all - one in which social safety includes space for dissenting voices, critical debate, and protest without fear of power abuses or violence.

Recommendations internal & external formalisation
The CPC emphasises the importance of continued and well-supported PhD representation in faculty and university councils. The 2024 PhD survey highlights ongoing challenges around PhD trajectories, delays and social safety. A strong, visible PhD voice is essential not only for advocating improvements in these areas, but also for shaping the PhD experience more broadly.

PhD representatives serve as a vital link between PhD candidates and
institutional decision makers. Their involvement contributes to clearer
policies, improved communication, and greater accountability. To ensure
these voices are heard, more structured support is needed, including time, resources, recognition and mandate. These are central to community building and to meaningful participation within the university. The UvA executive board and faculty boards have a key role to play in this process. PhD candidates must actively be involved in efforts to create a more inclusive, connected, and supportive research environment. PhD candidates represent the future of the university and supporting their voice is essential for building a resilient and forward-looking academic community.