Unveiling the Crisis: Decoding the Working Conditions of Doctoral Engineering Students and the Call for Decent Work

Rafael De Leon; Ann D. Christy; Rosalyn Stoa; Alexa Jayne; Bailey Underill

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Portland, Oregon
Publication Date: June 23, 2024
Start Date: June 23, 2024
End Date: July 12, 2024
Conference Session: Graduate Studies Division (GSD) Technical Session 7: Graduate Student Experiences
Tagged Division: Graduate Studies Division (GSD)
Tagged Topic: Diversity
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/48213

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Rafael De Leon The Ohio State University orcid.org/0009-0009-7599-690X

visit author page

A current PhD student in engineering education at The Ohio State University, Rafael De Leon has spent much of his academic and professional career researching and analyzing energy technologies. He spent some time working at the National Energy Technology Lab (NETL) becoming familiar with how policy is influenced by engineers. His current research interests include graduate student working conditions and policy. He enjoys spending time with family and riding his motorcycle when the weather permits.

visit author page

biography

Ann D. Christy P.E. The Ohio State University orcid.org/0000-0001-9172-0609

visit author page

Ann D. Christy, PE, is a professor of Food, Agricultural, and Biological Engineering and a professor of Engineering Education at the Ohio State University (OSU). She currently serves as associate dean and director for academic programs for OSU's College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences.

visit author page

author page

Abstract

There exists a crisis in the doctoral engineering population. This crisis is evidenced primarily by 1) the high attrition rates of doctoral engineering students from their programs and 2) the poor mental health status of doctoral engineering students. Despite typically being fully funded, doctoral engineering students leave their programs without completing their dissertations at high rates. This represents a significant loss of effort and time to various stakeholders including the students themselves, faculty advisors, administrators, universities, and ultimately the funding entities that support the work of graduate students. The mental health crisis in graduate programs at large is well-documented and cited in literature, however little literature exists specifically on engineering doctoral students. Understanding the causes of these issues is an important step toward being able to remedy them. I believe that these issues are merely symptoms of a deeper issue, specifically the working conditions of doctoral students. As existing literature and legislation reflect, the doctoral engineering student has long existed in an ambiguous space. Universities do not consistently classify them as either staff or student. However, engineering graduate students do perform work and provide quantifiable economic value to universities through research and teaching that are critical to the business model of universities and essential to the advancement and dissemination of scientific knowledge. When recontextualized as workers, many frameworks and theories can be used to explain the experiences of doctoral engineering students. One promising framework is the Psychology of Working Theory (PWT). Central to the PWT is the concept of decent work. The PWT claims that in order to have access to well-being in an affluent western context, decent work is necessary. Decent work is defined within the PWT as having five components: (1) physically and interpersonally safe working conditions, (2) hours that allow for free time and adequate rest, (3) organizational values that complement family and social values, (4) adequate compensation, and (5) access to adequate healthcare. Decent work exists when all these components are present. This paper explores the argument for doctoral engineering students to be classified as workers for their research contributions as well as for the work they perform for universities as teaching or research assistants. It posits that the “typical” doctoral engineering student likely does not have access to decent work. Finally, it compares recommendations from current work which views the doctoral engineering student as a student versus work that looks at the doctoral engineering student as a worker to illuminate political implications of both approaches.

Citation
Format

De Leon, R., & Christy, A. D., & Stoa, R., & Jayne, A., & Underill, B. (2024, June), Unveiling the Crisis: Decoding the Working Conditions of Doctoral Engineering Students and the Call for Decent Work Paper presented at 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon. https://peer.asee.org/48213

TY - CPAPER
AB - There exists a crisis in the doctoral engineering population. This crisis is evidenced primarily by 1) the high attrition rates of doctoral engineering students from their programs and 2) the poor mental health status of doctoral engineering students. Despite typically being fully funded, doctoral engineering students leave their programs without completing their dissertations at high rates. This represents a significant loss of effort and time to various stakeholders including the students themselves, faculty advisors, administrators, universities, and ultimately the funding entities that support the work of graduate students. The mental health crisis in graduate programs at large is well-documented and cited in literature, however little literature exists specifically on engineering doctoral students. Understanding the causes of these issues is an important step toward being able to remedy them. I believe that these issues are merely symptoms of a deeper issue, specifically the working conditions of doctoral students.
As existing literature and legislation reflect, the doctoral engineering student has long existed in an ambiguous space. Universities do not consistently classify them as either staff or student. However, engineering graduate students do perform work and provide quantifiable economic value to universities through research and teaching that are critical to the business model of universities and essential to the advancement and dissemination of scientific knowledge. When recontextualized as workers, many frameworks and theories can be used to explain the experiences of doctoral engineering students. One promising framework is the Psychology of Working Theory (PWT). Central to the PWT is the concept of decent work. The PWT claims that in order to have access to well-being in an affluent western context, decent work is necessary. Decent work is defined within the PWT as having five components: (1) physically and interpersonally safe working conditions, (2) hours that allow for free time and adequate rest, (3) organizational values that complement family and social values, (4) adequate compensation, and (5) access to adequate healthcare. Decent work exists when all these components are present.
This paper explores the argument for doctoral engineering students to be classified as workers for their research contributions as well as for the work they perform for universities as teaching or research assistants. It posits that the “typical” doctoral engineering student likely does not have access to decent work. Finally, it compares recommendations from current work which views the doctoral engineering student as a student versus work that looks at the doctoral engineering student as a worker to illuminate political implications of both approaches.

AU - Rafael De Leon
AU - Ann D. Christy P.E.
AU - Rosalyn Stoa
AU - Alexa Jayne
AU - Bailey Underill
CY - Portland, Oregon
DA - 2024/06/23
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Unveiling the Crisis: Decoding the Working Conditions of Doctoral Engineering Students and the Call for Decent Work
UR - https://peer.asee.org/48213
ER -