Doctoral reforms fail when autonomy becomes neglect
Updated Aug 10, 2026
A doctoral school can formalise every milestone and still leave candidates dependent on one relationship. Jan Bazyli Klakla and Maciej Juzaszek's open-access Higher Education paper, "The leash, the trap, and the labyrinth - supervision, autonomy, and symbolic exclusion in doctoral education in Poland", shows how supervisory practice, conditional belonging, and bureaucracy can reproduce exclusion after structural reform. For UK universities reading PRES results and local PGR feedback, the practical question is not simply whether candidates have autonomy. It is whether autonomy feels like trust, useful independence, or abandonment.
Context and research question
Poland's 2018 higher education reform replaced informal department-based doctoral programmes with more structured doctoral schools. The new arrangements introduced competitive admissions, supervision agreements, formal progress reviews, and skills training. They aimed to improve transparency and reduce candidates' dependence on individual professors. Klakla and Juzaszek ask whether those formal changes altered the power, support, and belonging that doctoral candidates experienced in practice.
The authors used a qualitative design with 27 law doctoral candidates from Polish universities. Five focus groups involved 21 candidates, while six separate participants took part in individual in-depth interviews. The sample included pre-reform and post-reform cohorts, and the interviews used open prompts about programme organisation, supervision, departmental relationships, funding, progress, identity, and wellbeing. The researchers used reflexive thematic analysis and developed three metaphors from recurring patterns in the accounts: the leash, the trap, and the labyrinth.
The Polish law context matters, so this is not a direct benchmark for UK doctoral provision. Its value lies in the mechanisms it exposes. Supervision that depends on one powerful relationship, belonging tied to informal labour, and procedures understood mainly through insider knowledge are all issues that UK Graduate Schools can test against their own student voice evidence.
Key findings
The leash describes the difficult balance between autonomy and support. Candidates reported experiences ranging from collegial supervision to tight control, vague criticism, long periods without contact, and no substantive feedback. Independence helped when supervisors remained available and expectations were clear. Without that relational support, freedom became uncertainty, delay, or burnout. The study's sharpest conclusion is:
"autonomy is often experienced as neglect"
That distinction matters because two candidates may both report having freedom while describing opposite experiences. One feels trusted and supported; the other feels left alone. A survey item on supervisory independence will not separate those meanings unless universities ask candidates to explain the conditions around it.
The trap describes belonging offered on unequal terms. Some supervisors introduced candidates to departmental life and treated them as junior colleagues. Yet inclusion could bring informal expectations to teach, organise, or complete administrative work without clear recognition or reciprocal influence. Other candidates remained peripheral, particularly when they lacked established departmental connections. The result was conditional belonging: candidates were close enough to contribute, but not always secure enough to challenge expectations or shape decisions. This complements evidence that competitive doctoral cultures can turn belonging into a performance, rather than a stable sense of membership.
The labyrinth describes administrative rules that obscure rather than clarify the route through a doctorate. Post-reform candidates described accumulating points, completing activities with little research value, and seeking answers across changing offices and lines of authority. Formalisation changed the shape of the problem, but it did not consistently make expectations easier to navigate. Candidates with insider knowledge and stronger social capital were better placed to find workable routes, so apparently neutral procedures could reproduce inequality.
Structural reform did not automatically change doctoral culture. The authors argue that the reform reorganised dependence instead of resolving it. Supervisors also worked within workload, performance, and regulatory constraints, so training individual supervisors would not be enough. Doctoral-school rules, progress measures, departmental culture, and workload allocation all shaped whether support became developmental or merely compliant. The benefit of this wider lens is that institutions can look beyond isolated relationship problems and identify systems that repeatedly generate them.
Practical implications
UK doctoral schools should first separate autonomy from supervisory absence in their feedback questions. Ask whether candidates can make intellectual decisions, whether guidance is available when needed, whether feedback is substantive, and whether expectations are agreed. Add an open prompt such as "When has supervisory independence felt supportive, and when has it left you without enough direction?" This gives teams evidence they can act on instead of an ambiguous autonomy score.
Second, institutions should analyse PGR feedback at the level where the experience is produced. Whole-university averages can hide recurring differences between schools, disciplines, stages, modes of study, and supervisory arrangements. Where confidentiality thresholds allow, compare comments about contact, feedback, belonging, administrative clarity, and career support. This helps Graduate Schools distinguish one difficult relationship from an institutional pattern and direct improvement work to the right level.
Third, universities should formalise routes into academic communities without making inclusion conditional on extra labour. Doctoral representation in departmental bodies, protected discussion time, peer networks, and transparent opportunities can reduce dependence on a supervisor's personal sponsorship. Those routes also need safe escalation when support breaks down, because doctoral complaints systems fail when students do not feel recognised. The practical benefit is a research culture in which access and voice do not depend on knowing the right person.
Finally, doctoral schools should audit the bureaucratic load behind negative comments. Map which milestones, forms, point systems, and approval routes candidates find unclear or disconnected from research development. Give each recurring issue a named owner and report what changed after the feedback cycle. This turns complaints about "administration" into specific process evidence and reduces the time candidates spend navigating avoidable institutional friction.
FAQ
Q: How can a UK doctoral school apply the leash, trap, and labyrinth framework to PGR feedback?
A: Use the three metaphors as coding prompts, not survey scores. The leash covers the balance between autonomy, contact, and useful guidance. The trap covers belonging, recognition, voice, and informal obligations. The labyrinth covers rules, milestones, administration, and access to reliable information. Coding open comments across those dimensions can show whether a problem sits mainly in supervision, departmental culture, or institutional process.
Q: What should universities keep in mind before generalising from this study?
A: The study is exploratory and based on 27 law doctoral candidates in Poland, recruited purposively across pre-reform and post-reform cohorts. It explains mechanisms rather than prevalence, and it does not support direct comparisons with UK disciplines or institutions. UK teams should treat the framework as a set of hypotheses to test against local PRES data, focus groups, supervision reviews, and open comments.
Q: What does this change about student voice in doctoral education?
A: It shows why listening needs to extend beyond broad satisfaction and supervision scores. Doctoral comments can reveal whether formal independence masks neglect, whether belonging carries hidden costs, and whether administrative safeguards create new barriers. Because small PGR cohorts and supervisory detail can make comments identifiable, institutions should apply a clear student comment analysis governance framework before segmenting or sharing the evidence.
References
[Paper Source]: Jan Bazyli Klakla, Maciej Juzaszek "The leash, the trap, and the labyrinth - supervision, autonomy, and symbolic exclusion in doctoral education in Poland" DOI: 10.1007/s10734-026-01740-z
Request a walkthrough
Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround