This manuscript focuses on an exciting and less researched topic, exploring the daily lives and well-being of doctoral students through research conducted at an Irish university.

Positives of the manuscript:

- Draws on substantial and relevant literature, most of the literature is recent.

- The paper and the research on which it is based focus on a less researched area of study.

- The paper is, if not completely, then essentially well structured, logically organized, and written with scientific rigour.

Suggested changes:

- The title could be shorter and more precise, e.g., Daily Lives and Well-being of Doctoral Students in an Irish University.

- The Introduction section should provide a better grounding in why it is important to address the topic. The information currently provided in the Introduction section is good but needs to be supplemented. A good example is the sentence at the end of the first paragraph: ...with significant consequences to individuals and institutions (Levecque et al., 2017; Mackie & Bates, 2019). It would be good to explain what these are here. I suggest, for example, that the second part of the first paragraph of the Implication section should be moved here (from the sentence beginning 'The isolation caused by...'). Furthermore, the Introduction section should include a few sentences about the Irish doctoral training system (how uniform the system is, how the doctoral schools differ or may differ, how many years the training is and how it is structured, what the scholarship system is like etc.), so that a non-Irish reader can place the research and its results.

- The Material and Methods section lacks a lot of information without which the results cannot be accurately interpreted. (1) It is not clear why the sample was chosen in this way. Why these 10 people (by the way, this information should be included here) were selected? What was the basis for the sample selection and why? The fundamental question is what the sample is for, a question which is also addressed by the author(s), as it is also written about in the limitations. For example, in the limitations, it is well noted that an important background variable is full-time, part-time, and caregiving responsibilities, but also, otherwise, scholarship, labour market status, family status, gender, etc. Why were these not the main criteria for sample selection at the beginning of the research? For example, gender raises a question. Most of the participants in the research are women. Is this the general situation in Irish doctoral education? Regarding the interpretability of the sample, it would be important to provide some information about the overall diversity of Irish doctoral students (if such data are available, if not, this information should be mentioned). (2) Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted; the main thematic blocks of these interviews would also be worth mentioning here. (3) A thematic analysis was done using Braun and Clarke's six-step approach, however, there is a slight sense of omission that these six steps are not mentioned.

- There is a table with information on the research participants included at the beginning of the Results and Discussion section. It needs to be explained what is meant by full-time and part-time (which is why it would be good to write about the Irish system earlier) and whether or not they receive a stipend.

- The Implications section contains several conclusions (and suggestions) that should have been inferred from the study findings. The Implications section should discuss how the findings of the study may be important to justify further exploration of the research topic. In other words, this section should also be based on the results, which is not entirely the case at present.

- The novelty of the research and its results should be highlighted. Currently, it is not clear what new information the research on which the study is based adds to what is already known. In the Conclusion section, it is stated that the research adds to the knowledge on the subject (but in what exactly?), and then a reference is made to a 2013 article that made a similar finding as the one that is prominently presented in the manuscript.

In my view, all of this is worth reflecting on to make the manuscript more scientifically sound and sufficiently novel.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your feedback on our submission. Your time and comments are highly appreciated.

In line with your feedback, and the feedback of other reviewers, several adjustments have been made to each section of our paper in order to produce a strengthened research article that is scientifically solid. Edits have been highlighted in yellow within the body of the text.

The title has been edited to be shorter and more precise.
The introduction section has been edited in order to provide more context as to why this is an important research topic. Additionally, information on the Irish doctoral training system and degree requirements at the university have been included.
Additional information on the sample and recruitment process has been included in the Materials and Methods section. The focus of the interview guide has now also been addressed within this section. The steps of Braun and Clarke’s six-step approach have now also been detailed. The limitations associated with this specific sample, relating to gender, has now been addressed within the Limitations section.
Table 1 has been edited to include information on if participants' study was funded.
The implications section has been edited to present the findings of this study and how this relates to the literature. The implications this research has for higher education, as well as wider society, are addressed in this section. This includes various recommendations for support structures aimed at improving the well-being of doctoral students as well as how higher-level education institutions can better support the well-being of this population.
The conclusions section has been altered to reflect on the research question of the study, summarise the findings of the current study, as well as reflect on specific recommendations that stem from the study’s findings.

Kind Regards,

Authors of Education-2575212

Reviewer 2 Report

The article raises a general objective that could be interesting if the authors change the structure of the research. The authors need to expand the theoretical framework further. In order to carry out this type of research, the sample must be enlarged.

I advise authors to use computer programs such as Atlas.ti, which is a tool that can help them to better organize interview coding and better interpretation in qualitative research.

The article lacks news that is interesting. I don't think current research contributes anything new to the scientific community if it does not expand different types of interpretive analysis. I encourage researchers to restructure the article completely and resubmit.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your feedback on our submission. Your time and comments are highly appreciated.

In line with your feedback, and the feedback of other reviewers, several adjustments have been made to each section of the paper in order to produce a strengthened research article that is scientifically solid. Edits have been highlighted in yellow within the body of the text.

Additional information has been included to justify the theoretical framework used in this study.
A sample of 10 falls within the recommended sample size for qualitative study.
Data was thematically analysed using Braun & Clarke’s six-step approach, which we believe is sufficient for this study. Additional details regarding data analysis have now been included.
Care was taken to ensure trustworthiness of the findings of this research, particularly within the data analysis process and interpretation of findings. Pilot interviews were conducted prior to the data collection interviews to ensure credibility of the interview guide and interview methods. Member checking was also key during data analysis. During the interview, the researcher did this by summarising and paraphrasing the participant’s answers. Participants were then asked if they felt this summary was an appropriate account and representation of what they were saying or trying to convey. Following the interview, participants were emailed a copy of their interview transcript as well as a brief account of the initial themes. They were asked if they felt that the transcript of their interview was accurate, if they felt their answers were captured within the initial themes, and if they would like to add any further comment. Participants were not obliged to respond to member checking, however, a total of 9 out of the 10 participants engaged in member checking and confirmed that their transcript was accurate and felt that the initial themes represented their views. Peer reviewing was also used by regularly meeting with at least one research supervisor to discuss the research process and interpretation of the data. They inspected the data to detect bias or subjectivity, therefore challenging any decisions, assumptions, or interpretations of the researcher.
We truly believe that this research contributes new research to the scientific community. This is a less researched topic, exploring the daily lives and well-being of doctoral students through research conducted at an Irish university. The findings of this study have implications for higher-level institutions as well as policy makers. We have included a comprehensive discussion of strategies to enhance the health and well-being of doctoral students, which has potential to benefit doctoral students in the Irish context.

Kind Regards,

Authors of Education-2575212

Reviewer 3 Report

It is an interesting topic and I appreciate it.

However,

1. The introduction seems a bit long and I think that some of the paragraphs would be better in discussions

2. In the introduction, you present the purpose: "What are the daily life experiences of doctoral students, and how do these impact activity balance and well-being?" Is the answer to this question found in the conclusions?

3. Materials and Methods

In Material and Methods, you specified the type of studies, the method of recruitment and the number of participants in the study. You mentioned that there are 10 participants from the same university who participated in an interview.

Please specify why references and comments appear in this section? Don't you think they should be found in Discussions?

You presented the data analysis. I think they should be in the Results chapter.

In Topic 1, you talk about roles and responsibilities. And here you present the answers of the participants, but you also put references. These usually take place in the Discussions chapter.

I have not seen the design and method of data collection presented, as well as their analysis.

In Topic 2 - It is not clear what you have followed, what are the elements that are common or not with these participants: for example - morning routine: how many went to the gym? How many went for a walk, etc

In Topic 3, you discuss overwork and impostor syndrome, and the participants felt that they were not "good enough" to pursue a doctorate. And then you continue with comments and bring data from the specialized literature, something that should be found in Discussions.

The Implications chapter is actually a presentation of some general perceptions, not related to your study. Here I think you should have analyzed what you obtained in your study compared to the specialized literature.

Only in the final fragment, As demonstrated by this study, doctoral students have a range of roles, responsibilities and activities associated specifically with their degree, as well as outside of their degree. Accordingly, they may encounter a variety of experiences and difficulties that undergraduate students do not. Universities need to consider how their policies impact the health and well-being of their entire student population, and how health and well-being can be prioritized alongside academic learning." you refer to the present study.

Of course, the presentation of the limits of the study is welcome

Also mention that you have the approval of the Ethics Commission

Were there any conflicts of interest because the study participants were at the same university? If the answer is yes, how was the situation managed?

Can you say what your expectations are from this study? About the content?

My comments are only intended to make the paper better. Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your feedback on our submission. Your time and comments are highly appreciated.

The introduction has been edited in an attempt to provide a succinct overview of the background and context for this study.
In the Materials and Methods section, references only appear to justify our choice of methodology as well as credit the digital badge programme participants engaged in.
Within the Results and Discussion section, additional description has been included to highlight how each theme answers the research question as well as identify experiences that are common and different amongst participants. Further to this, literature appears in this section as the Results and Discussion are combined, which is allowed in this journal. This decision was made to reduce repetition within the manuscript and emphasise how the current study’s findings fit within the current literature.
The implications section has been edited to present the findings of this study and how this relates to the literature. The implications this research has for higher education, as well as wider society, are addressed in this section. This includes various recommendations for support structures aimed at improving the well-being of doctoral students as well as how higher-level education institutions can better support the well-being of this population.
Although participants attended the same university in which the study was conducted, there were not any conflicts of interest. Participants volunteered to participate and were not known to the researchers prior to volunteering. This has now been addressed within the Materials and Methods section.
Our hopes for the content of the study have been included in the Conclusion section.

Kind Regards,

Authors of Education-2575212

Reviewer 4 Report

It was a pleasure reading this article.

The title and abstract are clear, the introduction complete, the method well described and the results and discussion very coherent.

Excellent work!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your feedback on our submission. Your time and positive comments are highly appreciated.

In line with the feedback of other reviewers, several adjustments have been made to each section of the paper in order to produce a strengthened research article that is scientifically solid. Edits have been highlighted in yellow within the body of the text.

Kind Regards,

Authors of Education-2575212

Reviewer 5 Report

The research study aims to delve into the daily life experiences of doctoral students and assess their influence on the students' overall health and well-being.

Positive Aspects of the Study:

The study effectively aligns the qualitative research method, interpretive description (ID), with the research question: "What are the daily life experiences of doctoral students, and how do these experiences impact their work-life balance and well-being?" Three key themes emerged from the analysis, shedding light on the multifaceted experiences of doctoral students:

· "More than a Ph.D. student"

· "Doctoral degrees are all-consuming"

· "Doctoral degrees can have a positive and negative impact on well-being"

The implications section offers a comprehensive discussion of strategies to enhance the health and well-being of doctoral students.

Areas for Improvement:

To enhance clarity, the paper should specify the selection criteria employed in the "purposive sampling" process.

While Table 1 exhibits some diversity in the sample, it's noteworthy that only two out of the ten participants are male, and two are in the 4th and 5th years of their doctoral programs. In the "Study Limitations" section, the author could elaborate further on the limitations associated with this specific sample.

Additionally, the limitations section could encompass recommendations for support structures aimed at improving the well-being of doctoral students. Suggestions like fostering a supportive doctoral student community and implementing university resources such as “well-being education, coaching, and counseling services” could be included.

In the conclusions section, the paper properly characterizes a doctoral study as "A Constant Juggling Act," as reflected in the paper's title. However, it could be strengthened by concluding with specific recommendations stemming from the study's findings. For instance, the paper could suggest harnessing the support of the "doctoral student community to mitigate burnout and exhaustion and aid students in adapting to daily life." It could also propose "structured well-being interventions such as workshops, courses… well-being webinars, and university counseling services or coaching sessions."

Another minor suggestion is to avoid duplication of participants’ comments. Line 135 and line 203 include the following comment: “Well as PhD student, I always have this guilt when I am not in front of my laptop” (Amy).”

Overall, this paper addresses a pertinent and critical topic: the enhancement of the well-being of doctoral students.

No comments. Overall, the paper is well written.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your feedback on our submission. Your time and comments are highly appreciated.

Additional information on the sample and recruitment process has been included in the Materials and Methods section.
The limitations associated with this specific sample, relating to gender, has now been addressed within the Limitations section. The Limitations section focuses specifically on the limitations of this research study and how it was conducted. Recommendations for support structures aimed at improving the well-being of doctoral students have been included within the Implications and Conclusion sections.
The conclusions section has been altered to reflect on the research question of the study, summarise the findings of the current study, as well as reflect on specific recommendations that stem from the study’s findings.
The duplication of the participants’ comments at line 135 and 203 has been removed.

Kind Regards,

Authors of Education-2575212

Reviewer 6 Report

Your manuscript constitutes substantial research. However, some issues should be considered:

1. Numeric data could be added to the "Abstract" to enhance the arguments.

2. Although the contribution of the research to the field is underlined, research questions are missing (or they are not clearly presented).

3. Results could be interpreted according to the research questions. This practice will highlight the association of the results with the research objective.

Slight English proofreading is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your feedback on our submission. Your time and comments are highly appreciated.

A sentence has been added to include that there are increasing numbers of doctoral students in the Irish context.
The research question is presented in a paragraph of it’s own at the end on the Introduction section.
Our aim was to interpret and present the results and discussion section according to the research question. The first theme addresses the daily life experiences of doctoral students. The second theme presents findings related to the activity balance of doctoral students. The third and final theme focuses how pursuing a doctoral degree impacts well-being. In order to highlight this more clearly, additional lines have been added to each theme, linking them to the research question.

Kind Regards,

Authors of Education-2575212

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been supplemented and clarified on several points. In my professional opinion, it has been improved and its publication is supportable.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made the modifications that we told them about. The article can be published.

Article Menu

“A Constant Juggling Act”—The Daily Life Experiences and Well-Being of Doctoral Students

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI