Judith Johnson PhD

PhD vs DClinPsy: which psychology doctorate is right for you?

Occasionally it comes up in conversation: someone mentions that they want to do a PhD in clinical psychology. Almost always, what they mean is that they want to become a Clinical Psychologist, and in the UK those are two different qualifications. Both are doctorates, both involve research, and both entitle their graduates to use the title ‘Dr’, but in the UK, and some other countries, they are designed to produce different things. So the question I answer here is PhD vs DClinPsy: if you want to work clinically, or in research, or in both, which doctorate do you actually need?

The short answer is that if you want to practise as a Clinical Psychologist in the UK you need an approved clinical psychology doctorate, and an ordinary PhD will not get you there; if you want to become an independent researcher, a PhD is usually the more direct route.

a wall of brightly coloured book spines stacked side by side

Two things before we start. This post is written from a UK perspective, and there is a short section below on how it looks elsewhere. My own route included both: I hold a PhD from the University of Manchester and a ClinPsyD from the University of Birmingham, and I now work across research, clinical psychology and clinical academic career development. However, doing both is not necessary, and for most people it may not be the best use of time and effort.

This post is about choosing between two doctorates. If the real question is how to become a Clinical Psychologist at all, my ten tips for aspiring Clinical Psychologists and the 2023 update are the better starting points. Equally, if you know you want to do a PhD but you’re not sure how, please see my posts on gaining PhD funding or securing a PhD by publication.

PhD and DClinPsy at a glance

Dimension PhD DClinPsy
Purpose Train an independent researcher Train a Clinical Psychologist and scientist-practitioner
Common title PhD or DPhil DClinPsy, ClinPsyD or DClinPsych
Typical length Usually three to four years full-time Usually three years full-time
Main activity Original research, analysis and a thesis or papers Teaching, placements, supervision and doctoral research
Funding Studentship, fellowship, employer funding or self-funding Most UK places are NHS-funded; some training courses may offer self-funded places, which may only be open to international students
Professional outcome Does not ordinarily qualify you as a Clinical Psychologist Approved programmes lead to eligibility to apply for HCPC registration
Typical careers Research, academia, policy, industry and analytical roles Clinical psychology, NHS services, leadership, research and teaching
Clinical work Not normally included A substantial and compulsory part of training

There are variations, which the rest of this post works through, but that captures the main UK distinction.

Where you are in the world matters

Everything above describes the UK, and this is the single biggest source of confusion I encounter. In many other countries the separation I have just drawn does not exist, at least not as clearly. Elsewhere, PhD programmes may include assessed clinical placements, so a qualification carrying a PhD title can itself be a clinical qualification and a route to practising as a Clinical Psychologist.

What a PhD involves

A PhD is principally a research degree. You carry out a substantial, original research project under the supervision of one or more academics, and depending on the university and the discipline you submit either a traditional thesis or a linked collection of papers. In some other countries and programmes, a PhD may involve taught and assessed modules alongside a research project. In the UK, though, the defining feature of a PhD is that research is what you do all day, for three or four years, and that sustained immersion is the point. Over that time you would expect to develop expertise in quantitative or qualitative methods, systematic reviewing, statistics, academic writing, public involvement, project management and research dissemination, and to have time to try several approaches, get some of them wrong, and learn from that. You may also teach, present at conferences and publish. What you would not ordinarily do is complete the supervised clinical placements required to qualify as a Clinical Psychologist.

This can catch people out when the degree is called a PhD in Clinical Psychology. The University of Manchester’s PhD Clinical Psychology page makes it explicit, telling applicants that if they intend to pursue doctoral study in clinical psychology as a programme of academic and clinical training, the entry route is a different one and they should look at the ClinPsyD instead. A research PhD housed in a clinical psychology department is still a research PhD.

a researcher working at a laptop in a library lined with bookshelves

What the clinical psychology doctorate involves

The Doctorate in Clinical Psychology is a professional doctorate, and its purpose is to train people to work as Clinical Psychologists. Universities use slightly different abbreviations, including DClinPsy, DClinPsych and ClinPsyD, but the abbreviation matters far less than whether the programme is approved by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC). Training combines university teaching, supervised clinical placements, clinical and professional supervision, assessment, formulation and intervention skills, service evaluation, and a substantial programme of doctoral research.

The research component is worth understanding properly, because it is often either dismissed or overestimated. On most UK courses the thesis comprises a systematic or structured literature review and an empirical study making an original contribution, each written to publishable standard. Most courses also require a separate service evaluation or quality improvement project. The structure varies, so check the research handbook of any programme you are seriously considering.

That is rigorous training, and more than many people outside the profession assume. What it is not is the same quantity of research experience as a PhD: one review and one study, conducted alongside placements and coursework, usually means learning one or two methodologies rather than building a broad repertoire. It is very useful preparation, but if your ambition is to lead your own research, most people need a further period of research training and output after qualifying.

Trainees on NHS-funded places are NHS employees. The Clearing House states that they start at the bottom of Band 6 on the Agenda for Change pay scale and that course fees are usually paid by the NHS, though arrangements differ between the four UK nations and for self-funded and international places.

Entry is competitive. For 2025 entry, the Clearing House recorded 5,910 applicants for 1,179 NHS-funded places, so roughly 20% of applicants secured a place nationally. You will generally need Graduate Basis for Chartered Membership of the British Psychological Society, and courses are mainly looking for a first or a 2:1 alongside substantial clinically relevant experience.

a psychologist holding a notepad sits opposite a client in a consulting room

Can a PhD make you a Clinical Psychologist?

In the UK, generally no. ‘Clinical psychologist’ is a protected title regulated by the HCPC, and to join the register you need a qualification from an HCPC-approved programme. You cannot use the title because you have completed a psychology PhD, however clinically relevant your research, and a UK research PhD does not normally contain the supervised clinical training that registration requires. Research expertise and professional clinical competence are related, but they are not the same thing, and the register exists to certify the second.

This is different from asking whether the two are academically equivalent, and on that point the answer is yes. Doctorates sit at Level 8 of the qualification framework for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the QAA’s doctoral degree characteristics statement treats research and professional doctorates alike, noting that all UK doctorates require an original contribution to knowledge in a subject, field or profession.

Which route should you choose?

It helps to start with what each opens up. A PhD is the more direct preparation for work in which research is the central activity, whether in universities, health services research, government and policy, charities, industry, evaluation roles or research management. It is worth knowing that a permanent academic post is not guaranteed at the end of it, and a PhD is often followed by fixed-term contracts and fellowship applications, or a move into another sector. A DClinPsy prepares you primarily for clinical practice, and qualified Clinical Psychologists routinely combine that practice with research, teaching and supervision, service development, policy or clinical academic work.

With that in mind, a PhD is likely to be the better fit if the questions you want to answer are primarily research questions, if you enjoy designing studies and analysing data and writing, if you want deep expertise in a particular topic or method, and if you are comfortable with some mobility and uncertainty. And you do not need to be a clinician to contribute to mental health or healthcare: research without clinical registration is not a lesser version of clinical practice.

A DClinPsy is likely to be the better fit if you want direct work with patients, families, teams or services to be a substantial part of your working week, if you are drawn to assessment, formulation and intervention, and if you want to combine clinical practice with research, teaching or leadership. It asks a lot: placements, academic work and research run concurrently for three years, a different kind of demand from the sustained single focus of a PhD. Above all, be honest with yourself about why you want it. Choose this route because you want the clinical work, not because it is a funded doctorate or because the job title appeals.

a hand writing a plan in a spiral notebook on a desk

Do you need both for a clinical academic career?

Usually not. A Clinical Psychologist does not automatically need a separate PhD to become a clinical academic, because the DClinPsy is already a doctorate and already includes research training. Most people build clinical academic careers from that foundation. Equally, a PhD researcher does not always need clinical training in order to lead clinically important research; much depends on the question, the team and the contribution you want to make.

It is worth knowing how funders treat professional doctorates, though, because this is where the practical differences show up. The NIHR is the obvious example. Its Doctoral Award requires only that you do not already hold a PhD by research in a relevant subject area, so holding a DClinPsy does not shut you out: a qualified Clinical Psychologist can apply and go on to do a PhD. Its Postdoctoral Award, by contrast, asks applicants to hold a relevant PhD or MD, and states that if you hold a professional doctorate you must contact them before starting an application so they can confirm your eligibility. So a DClinPsy is not automatically treated as a PhD for postdoctoral funding; it is assessed case by case. Eligibility wording changes between rounds, so always check the current scheme page.

This also points to a useful pattern in how the two groups fund doctoral research. Clinicians often prefer fellowships that pay them at their professional salary, because a stipend is a substantial pay cut for someone already earning at Band 7 or above. The NIHR Doctoral Award funds the award holder’s full salary and allows active clinicians up to 20% clinical time, which is why it matters so much for qualified Clinical Psychologists who want a PhD. Non-clinicians more often take stipend-funded studentships. My post on funding a PhD sets out these routes in detail.

If you want both, which comes first?

Completing a PhD first gives you research and methodological skills, publications, conference experience and evidence that you can complete a major independent project. Those things can make you a stronger applicant for clinical training, which was my own experience: my PhD strengthened my application and in the end did not delay my entry into the clinical psychology profession. What it does not do is replace the clinical and reflective experience courses are looking for. Manchester states plainly that a PhD or a master’s is not a minimum requirement for its programme, while treating twelve months of clinically relevant paid experience as essential. So a PhD can help, but it is not a shortcut, and doing one purely as an application strategy is a poor reason to spend three or four years. It makes most sense when you want the research experience in its own right.

Completing a DClinPsy first may get you qualified sooner so you can start building a clinical career, and it can help you identify research questions grounded in direct experience of services and patient care. You can then develop your research through the fellowship routes described above. The difficulty is finding enough protected time once you are in a busy clinical role, and it takes deliberate effort to keep research moving. There is no universally correct order; the more useful question is which kind of work you need to be trained to do next.

Two things people get wrong

A master’s in clinical psychology will not qualify you. In the UK, a master’s degree in clinical psychology does not ordinarily qualify anyone to practise as a Clinical Psychologist. It may provide useful knowledge or research experience, but be very clear about what it does and does not lead to before committing your time and money, particularly if the fees are substantial. My guide to choosing a psychology master’s course goes through what to look for.

The title ‘Dr’ does not tell you someone is registered. It describes a doctoral qualification and nothing more, and says nothing about whether the person holding it is registered to provide a regulated healthcare service. For UK clinical practice, the question is always HCPC registration, and the register is public and searchable.

A final word

A PhD and a DClinPsy are both demanding and both valuable, and the difference between them is not prestige but purpose. Work out what you want to spend your days doing, establish what training that actually requires, and choose from there. Requirements, figures and funding schemes change from year to year, so do check the current details on the Clearing House, HCPC and funder websites before committing to anything.

Related reading

Can you get a PhD by publication? A guide for researchers

In my last post, I explained the main routes into PhD study and how to fund them. That post assumed you would be doing a PhD in the usual way, by carrying out a programme of research over three years or more. But every so often someone gets in touch to ask: ‘I have already published a lot of research. Do I really need to do a whole PhD from scratch, or could I do it by publication?’

The answer is that you may well be able to, through the ‘PhD by publication’ route. This works quite differently from a standard doctorate. There is also a related but separate option, often confused with it, called the ‘publication format PhD’. The two sound almost identical, and the terminology used across universities sometimes overlaps, so it is easy to mix them up.

In this post I will explain what each one is and how they differ. I will then cover how to find a university that offers it and how to approach them, what it costs, and how to decide whether this route is the right one for you. As with my funding post, the focus here is the UK, with a Manchester slant: I am Manchester based, and so are most of the people who ask me about this.

Two routes that sound the same but are not

The single most useful thing to understand is that these are two different things. Here is the distinction at a glance, with the detail below.

PhD by publication Publication format PhD
What is assessed Research you have already published A new programme of doctoral research, presented as papers
What it involves A commentary tying your published work together, then a viva The full PhD: research, supervision and examination
Typical registration Around a year Three to four years full-time, longer part-time
Cost and funding Roughly a year’s fee; rarely funded Standard PhD fees; eligible for the usual funding routes
Also known as PhD by published work; PhD by prior publication Thesis by publication; alternative format; integrated thesis; journal format; three-paper PhD

A PhD by publication is a way of being awarded a doctorate on the basis of research you have already published. You do not carry out a new research project. Instead, you gather a coherent body of your existing published work, write a piece to explain how it fits together and what it contributes to your field, and you are then examined on it, usually with a viva.

A publication format PhD, by contrast, is a way of writing up an ordinary, enrolled PhD. The difference is in the shape of the final thesis. Rather than producing one long, traditional monograph, you submit a series of papers, some or all of which may be published, accepted or written in the style of journal articles, held together by an introduction and conclusion. I call it a ‘thesis sandwich’, where the introduction and discussion are the bread and the papers are the filling. I support all my students to write up in this format where possible, as in my experience, it increases the chances they will publish their work in peer-reviewed journals.

a pen on the first page of a thesis, reading 'doctor of philosophy' as a title

The PhD by publication, in more detail

In practice, this means submitting a coherent selection of your published outputs together with a written commentary (often called a critical appraisal) that ties them together, followed by a viva, judged to the same standard as a conventional PhD. You may not be required to be the first author on all the outputs you submit, but you will be asked to evidence your own contribution to co-authored work, and your relationship with your submitted work will be scrutinised as part of the process.

The biggest catch is eligibility, which varies. Some UK PhD by publication routes are reserved for a university’s own staff or graduates, while others are open to anyone who already holds a degree and can show a strong body of published work. To show the range, I selected six illustrative universities: the three in Manchester, which are local to me, and three others (Leicester, the University of East Anglia (UEA) and Warwick) whose rules span the restrictive and open ends. Not all UK universities offer the route, so if you have a particular university in mind, first check that it offers the option at all. Here is how the six universities compare, based on their current regulations.

University Who can apply Registration period Commentary length
Manchester Own academic staff who have held their post for at least five years Up to 12 months Up to 15,000 words
Manchester Met Staff, partner-institution staff and alumni; graduates of five years’ standing holding a Master’s Six months full-time as standard Up to 15,000 words
Salford Open: a Master’s or good honours degree, plus a prima facie assessment One year, plus a completion year Up to 15,000 words
Leicester Own academic staff (three years full-time or six years part-time), or NHS clinical or scientific staff with a three-year honorary position One year Around 5,000 words
UEA Graduates of UEA or another approved university Normally six months, extendable to twelve Up to 15,000 words
Warwick University staff of three years’ standing, or any graduate of seven years’ standing Normally 12 months 5,000 to 10,000 words

Beyond what is in the table, a few points are worth knowing about each. At the University of Manchester, you apply through your Faculty Doctoral Academy, setting out the theme connecting your published works and the extent of your own contribution (the full regulations are online). The examination is unusual in that it normally involves two external examiners and no internal examiner, with a member of staff acting as an independent chair.

At Manchester Metropolitan University, the regulations take a broad view of what counts as a publication, including books, chapters, refereed journal articles, published conference papers, patents, and even exhibitions or performances where a permanent record exists. There is no fixed number of publications required; instead you agree a suitable selection with an internal advisor before enrolling, and the same advisor (rather than a supervisory team) helps you compile the commentary and prepare for the viva.

The University of Salford explicitly designed its route for people who did not follow the traditional path into research, especially in practice-based disciplines (see the appendix of its Code of Practice). The prima facie assessment mentioned in the table is a preliminary review, involving a written report and an oral discussion, in which a panel judges whether your published works form a coherent theme and a sufficient contribution to knowledge. A claim is normally based on five to eight publications or equivalent, usually published within the previous ten years, and you register only once the works are complete.

At the University of Leicester, the works themselves must already have been published or accepted for publication when you submit, normally as or in scholarly books or journals, and normally within the ten years before you first register. The number of works is not prescribed, but together they should be at least equivalent in size to a typical doctoral thesis in the discipline (see Senate Regulation 9).

At UEA, the combined length of your publications and the 15,000 word critical analysis should be broadly comparable to a standard doctoral thesis (typically 80,000 to 100,000 words), and the quality of the journals you have published in is assessed as part of the application (see the regulations).

At Warwick, the university’s guidance notes that you do not need to be a Warwick graduate to apply, and the examination is conducted by two external examiners supported by an experienced examination adviser.

A group of graduates hold up their graduation caps to the sky

How to find the right university for a PhD by publication, and how to approach them

Start with eligibility. Begin by drawing up a shortlist of places where you qualify, using their current regulations. If you are a member of staff somewhere, or a graduate of an institution that admits its alumni, that is the obvious first port of call. If not, look to the more open routes, such as Salford or UEA, where an existing degree and a strong body of work can be enough.

Next, find someone whose research aligns with yours. These routes still need an academic to support you, whether that is called a supervisor, an advisor or a mentor, so identify a potential person, not just an institution. Read the recent work of academics in your field at your shortlisted universities and note who is active in the area your publications sit in. Supervisor and topic fit matters more than institutional prestige here, just as it does for a standard PhD.

Then make contact early, and informally. Manchester asks staff to seek approval from their Faculty Doctoral Academy before proceeding, MMU requires a discussion with a proposed advisor before you apply, and Salford runs a prima facie assessment before registration. In other words, the first move is usually a conversation, not a formal application. A short, tailored email to a relevant academic, or to the university’s Doctoral Academy, Graduate School or Doctoral School, is the right way in. Briefly describe your body of published work, the theme that connects it, and ask whether they would consider supporting a PhD by publication application, offering to send your CV and a list of publications.

In terms of preparation, you could put together a one-page summary of the theme running through your publications, and a note of your own contribution to each (especially any co-authored work). This will make your email far more persuasive, and it is also more or less what the formal application or prima facie stage will ask for later. If you are not sure who to contact, the university’s doctoral admissions team, often called the Doctoral Academy or Graduate School, is the right front door and can confirm your eligibility before you invest too much time.

What about the cost?

The PhD by publication is usually cheaper than traditional PhD programmes, because it is shorter. Rather than paying tuition fees across three or more years, you pay for a brief registration period, typically a year or so, with the fee payable on registration. Do watch for one-off costs that are particular to this route, though. Salford, for instance, charges a separate fee for the prima facie assessment you must pass before you can even register, and some universities charge an additional fee if your thesis has to be resubmitted and re-examined.

The bigger catch is that the published-work route is rarely funded. Because you are not undertaking a funded research project, the stipends, studentships and most of the fellowships I described in the funding post generally do not apply to it. In practice it tends to be paid for out of your own pocket, or supported by your employer if the work aligns with your job, so it is well worth asking them.

Is a PhD by publication actually the best route for you?

As with funding, it depends on where you are starting from. If you already have a strong, coherent body of published research, the PhD by publication can be an efficient and fitting way to gain a doctorate. However, just because you can take the published-work route does not always mean it is the most rewarding one. A traditional PhD is a developmental experience as much as an assessment. It gives you sustained mentorship from supervisors, a cohort of peers and a research community to belong to, structured training and development events, conferences and networking, and access to funding and schemes that are open only to enrolled doctoral students. For many people, that immersion is where they grow into independent researchers, and it can open doors that a faster recognition of existing work does not.

the spine of a PhD thesis, reading 'PhD 2007'

Where to find more information on the illustrative university policies

The key points above were synthesised from the university policy documents below using Claude Fable, an AI model, so do check the points that matter to you against the original policies before proceeding. Universities also update their regulations periodically, so make sure you are reading the current version.

University of Manchester. The link opens the PhD by Published Work Regulations PDF directly (version dated October 2025). Eligibility is in paragraph 1, the 12-month registration period in paragraphs 6 and 10, the 15,000-word statement in paragraph 19, and the examination arrangements in paragraph 27.

Manchester Metropolitan University. The relevant document is Regulations for Postgraduate Research Degrees: Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) by Published Works (PDF). Eligibility is in sections 3.1 and 3.2, the types of publication accepted in section 2.1, the registration periods in section 7.1, the advisor arrangement in sections 8.1 and 8.2, and the 15,000-word commentary limit in section 11.2.

University of Salford. The relevant document is the Code of Practice for the Conduct of Postgraduate Research Degree Programmes 2025/26 (PDF), listed under Part E of the university’s Academic handbook page. Everything relevant is in Appendix 1, ‘Guidance for the Award of PhD by Published Works’, on pages 26 to 33: the requirements, including the five to eight publications, on page 26; eligibility and the prima facie assessment on page 27; and the registration period and 15,000-word critical review on page 29. Fees, including the prima facie assessment fee, are on the fees and funding page.

University of Leicester. The link opens Senate Regulation 9 (PDF) directly. The relevant part is Appendix One, ‘Regulations Governing Research Degree by Published Work Programmes’, on pages 34 to 39: eligibility is on page 34 (regulation (1)9.4), the one-year registration period on page 35 ((1)9.16 and (1)9.17), and the requirements for the works and the 5,000-word critical appraisal on page 38 ((1)9.44 to (1)9.47).

University of East Anglia. The PhD by Publication page on the UEA website sets out the award regulations in full. Eligibility is in regulation 2.1, the length and journal-quality requirements in 2.2, the six-month period of study in 3.1, and the 15,000-word critical analysis in 5.2.

University of Warwick. The PhD by Published Work course page covers who can apply, the registration period and fees. The examination arrangements are in a separate document, the Guidance on the Requirements for the Award of Postgraduate Research Degrees, under the section on the appointment of examiners.

How do you fund a PhD? A guide for aspiring health researchers

Funding is one of the biggest sticking points for people thinking about a PhD, and it often puts them off before they have even started. The landscape can look like a maze, with stipends, fellowships, fees and studentships all sounding vaguely similar but meaning quite different things in practice.

The good news is that, once you understand the main routes, it becomes far less daunting. In this post I will walk through the options, with links to relevant funders along the way. Three things to note before we start. First, this post focuses on PhDs in the UK; the funding systems in other countries work quite differently, so the specifics here may not apply if you are looking to study elsewhere. Second, this post focuses on prospectively-registered PhDs, where you register for the PhD before you undertake the research. This is by far the most common approach to completing a PhD, but if you are considering the alternative, a ‘PhD by publication’, please see this blog post instead. Third, my own background is in health research, so the advice will be most useful for those of you working in or towards a health-related field, although much of it applies more widely.

Two ways in, four ways to fund it

There are broadly two ways to do a PhD. The first is to design your own project and find your own supervisors. The second is to apply for a project that someone else has already designed and advertised, which works much like applying for a job.

Cutting across these two routes are four main ways a PhD can be funded:

  • Full fellowships, which fund you at your current salary and cover your fees, research costs and training.
  • Stipend-funded PhDs, which pay a tax-free annual stipend along with your fees and some research costs.
  • Fees-only fellowships, which cover your tuition fees (and sometimes some research costs) but not your living costs.
  • Complete self-funding, where you pay your own living costs, fees and research costs.

It helps to see how these four link to the two routes before we look at each in turn. Full fellowships and complete self-funding are almost always tied to a project you have designed yourself. Stipend-funded PhDs and fees-only fellowships, by contrast, can work either way: you might be awarded one as part of an advertised project, or through a scheme that still lets you shape your own.

woman studying in a library

Whichever route appeals to you, I would encourage everyone to sign up to FindAPhD and jobs.ac.uk and set up alerts. They are best known for advertising pre-designed projects, but they also list funded opportunities, both stipend-funded and fees-only, where you are free to develop your own topic, so they are a useful way to spot funding of all kinds that you might otherwise miss. With that overview in mind, here are the four funding routes in more detail.

Full fellowships: the big package. Fellowships are usually the most generous form of funding, and correspondingly the most competitive. They typically fund you at your current salary, and also cover your fees, your research costs and a budget for training and development. They are almost always attached to a project you have designed yourself, which makes them especially attractive for clinicians and other healthcare professionals who want to pursue their own research idea without taking a pay cut.

For health researchers, the obvious starting point is the NIHR, which runs doctoral fellowships for health and social care professionals. Many disease-specific charities run their own fellowship schemes too, such as the British Heart Foundation’s research training fellowships for nurses and healthcare professionals and Kidney Research UK’s fellowships and PhD studentships, which include clinical fellowships for nurses and allied health professionals. It is well worth checking whether a charity exists for your particular clinical area, as they often have schemes designed precisely for people in your position.

The trade-off is that these schemes are extremely competitive. Exact figures vary by scheme and round, and are worth checking on the funder’s website, but as a rough guide only around 20% of applications to NIHR personal and career awards have historically been funded.

The timelines are long, too. A strong application usually takes months to prepare, and you should then expect a wait of around six months from submission to a decision (the British Heart Foundation, for instance, advises applicants to allow six months), with the award often starting several months after that again. For these reasons, fellowships tend to suit people who already have some research experience behind them, and who are comfortable waiting a while for an outcome rather than needing to start quickly.

a PhD gown, pictured on one side of someone from the shoulder down to around mid-arm.

Stipend-funded PhDs. These pay you a tax-free annual stipend, usually set at the rate determined by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). As of writing (June 2026), the UKRI minimum stipend is £20,780 for the 2025/26 year, with the 2026/27 minimum announced at around £21,805. I would always recommend checking the current figure directly, as these rates are reviewed annually.

A stipend is usually less than a professional salary, but because it is tax-free and not subject to National Insurance, the take-home pay compares much more favourably than the headline number suggests. This route can work either way. Many advertised projects are stipend-funded, but some universities also advertise and fund stipend schemes that let you shape your own project, such as Manchester’s Bicentenary PhD studentships.

Fees-only fellowships. Some schemes cover your tuition fees, and sometimes a contribution towards research costs, but do not include a stipend for your living costs. Like stipend-funded PhDs, these can come attached to an advertised project or through a scheme you apply to with your own idea. The main thing to plan for is how you will support yourself day to day, as you will need to cover your living costs from savings, part-time work or another income. As always, read the details carefully so you know exactly what is and is not included before you apply. Equally, if planning to work part-time, check what time commitments are anticipated and how flexible the project is likely to be to accommodate your planned work hours.

Four magnifying glasses on an orange background

Complete self-funding. This is exactly what it sounds like. You find supervisors who are interested in working with you, check the fees with the university, and apply for your project, paying your own fees and research costs. It is the most flexible route, but also the most financially demanding, so it pays to be realistic about the full cost before committing.

One thing worth knowing is that, even as a self-funded student, you can sometimes apply for grants towards your research costs from charitable organisations as you go. Disease-specific charities often offer small grants that can help cover the costs of running a study, so it is worth keeping an eye out for these throughout your PhD.

One advantage of self-funding is that the set-up timelines are usually much shorter than for fellowships. Because universities can make offer letters on their own time scales, decisions often come through in anything from a few weeks to a couple of months. Most universities also offer several possible start dates across the academic year, although October remains the most common and popular time to begin. This can make self-funding a good option if you are keen to get going sooner rather than later.

Be clear about what you want from it

Now that you can see the four funding routes, it is worth pausing to ask what you actually want to get out of your PhD, because the answer will strongly influence which one suits you. If your ambition is to become established as a leading researcher, it helps to view the PhD as one part of a much longer journey rather than the whole of it. In that case, it can make a lot of sense to take some time first to build up your CV, perhaps by volunteering on projects or working as a research assistant, so that you get a feel for what you enjoy and where you might want to focus. The period after a PhD catches a lot of people off guard; taking longer to build up to it can mean you arrive at the end of your PhD more ready to start developing as an independent academic in your post-doctoral season.

On the other hand, your goals might be quite different. If you mainly want to learn some core research competencies as part of a clinical or corporate career, and you do not intend to stay in research afterwards, then time may matter much more to you. In that situation, getting started sooner, without long waits for funding applications and their outcomes, can make a lot of sense, and a self-funded route may actually be the better fit. There is no single right answer here; the key is to be clear with yourself about where you are heading, as this will help you choose the route that suits you best.

A woman in an orange top working on a laptop in a relaxed office space

Other things to weigh up before you apply

Look into preparation opportunities. If the most competitive schemes feel out of reach right now, it is worth knowing that there is funding designed specifically to help you prepare a stronger application. The NIHR runs Pre-Doctoral Fellowships and a Pre-Application Support Fund, which pay salary backfill to buy out some of your working time so that you can build a more competitive application for the bigger, harder-to-win schemes. There are also local and regional pre-doctoral fellowships available, such as those run by ARC Greater Manchester, which are similar to the national schemes and can also be a useful stepping stone towards any kind of competitive PhD funding.

Be honest about your time. A PhD is a significant commitment, typically three years full-time or six or more part-time, and it should not be underestimated. Before you apply, think carefully about what you can realistically commit to alongside your existing work and home life. Going in with a clear sense of this will serve you far better than being caught out later.

Talk to your employer. If your PhD aligns closely with your job, your employer may be willing to support some of the fee costs, or to release you for part of the week. This is easy to overlook, but for many healthcare professionals it can make the difference between a PhD being feasible or not. It is always worth asking.

Check your fees status. This is a big one. Many UK PhD opportunities are only open to, or will only fund fees for, applicants at the home (UK) fee rate. This can mean there are relatively few funded opportunities for international applicants, and research council studentships available to international students are capped. Fees status is not always obvious, though, as it depends on factors such as your nationality, residency and immigration history. If you are at all unsure, it can make most sense to contact the university’s doctoral admissions team (sometimes called the Doctoral Academy) first to establish where you stand before you go any further.

If you are an international applicant, it is worth knowing that dedicated funding does exist, even if there is less of it. Commonwealth PhD Scholarships fund full-time PhDs in the UK for applicants from eligible Commonwealth countries, covering fees, travel and a living allowance. Some universities also run their own fully funded schemes that are open to overseas candidates, such as Manchester’s International Partnership PhD studentships and its Bicentenary studentships, both advertised over the past year. The British Council’s Study UK scholarships pages are a useful general starting point for browsing what is available. As always, check the eligibility details carefully before investing time in an application.

A final word

The funding landscape can look intimidating, but it really does break down into two ways in, designing your own project or applying for an advertised one, and four ways to fund it: full fellowships, stipend-funded PhDs, fees-only fellowships and complete self-funding. Work out which combination fits your circumstances, be honest with yourself about the commitment, and check the eligibility details before you get too far down the road. Funder schemes, deadlines and stipend rates change from year to year, so always confirm the current details on the relevant website. A PhD is a big undertaking, but with the right funding in place it is a hugely rewarding one, and there are more routes in than most people realise.

How to write a research report discussion section the easy way

There’s something uniquely satisfying about finishing the discussion section of a paper – it signals you’re in the homeward stretch, tying up all those loose ends before hitting ‘save’. Yet many academics I work with tell me this is where they get stuck, staring at a blank page and wondering where to start.

The pressure to publish has never been greater. Younger cohorts of academics are writing more than ever before, publishing greater numbers of shorter reports. This can be particularly challenging for those of us who find academic writing difficult – and by all accounts, this is most of us. However, there’s no reason that your discussion section should be a stumbling block to getting that paper finished. In my view, the discussion is the homeward stretch of the paper, where you quickly tie things up before hitting ‘save’ and ‘submit’.

In this post, I outline an easy formula which takes the pain out of the discussion section. To illustrate what I mean, I’ll refer to a paper I published with my collaborators in 2024 describing a pilot evaluation of a psychological intervention for medical students, which you can read here.

Hands typing on a laptop against a teal background

Five sections, not one overwhelming task
Your discussion might need to be around 1000 or 1500 words, but here’s the good news: these are usually divided into five sections. When you break it down this way, you’re only writing 200-300 words per section on average. Suddenly, that intimidating 1500-word discussion becomes five manageable mini-tasks:

  • Summary of findings – A brief recap of what you found
  • Interpretations of the findings – How your results fit with existing research and extend knowledge
  • Strengths and limitations – A balanced self-critique
  • Implications – What your findings mean for practice and future research
  • Conclusion – A brief wrap-up

It helps to write the summary of findings section first as this can clarify your key points. Apart from this though, the sections can be written in any order which works best for you. So, follow the path of least resistance and start with the sections you’ll find easiest. Getting started is often the hardest part, and as words fill the page, it can give you the encouragement you need to take on trickier sections.

Starting with the easiest win: Your summary
If you’ve just written and reviewed the results section of your report, the first paragraph will be straightforward. You pick out the main findings and report these without referring to numbers. Think of this as the “greatest hits” version of your results – the key takeaways that matter most.

In terms of ordering the report of the findings, this can be done in one of two ways. First, if you have multiple aims or objectives, it can make sense to report results in line with how these were ordered in the ‘aims’ subsection. Second, if you only have one or two main aims but several findings, it can make sense to go with the most important first. Some authors like to re-state the research question or aims at the beginning of the discussion and summary section, but this can be a poor use of words. Usually, it’s sufficient to simply describe briefly what the study did, or it’s fine to go ahead and launch into the results summary.

In our 2024 paper on the psychological coaching programme for medical students , I opened by noting this was the first study to evaluate this targeted intervention, then summarised the key findings: high acceptability and feasibility, significant improvements in resilience and confidence, and reductions in burnout and depression. I finished with a clear statement: “The present findings extend existing knowledge in two main ways.” This declaration became my roadmap for the entire interpretations section.

The interpretations section: Focus on what your study adds
The interpretations section is always the most difficult, but spend a little time thinking about what your study adds to what is already known. Two or three ideas is enough for a discussion. This is where that roadmap statement comes in handy. End your summary paragraph with a clear declaration:

“This study extends the literature in [insert number] ways”

Your interpretations section can then be structured around this statement, with one paragraph devoted to each of the main extensions. The first sentence of each paragraph should outline the key finding you’ll focus on. Next, describe the findings from previous studies in the area, with reference to whether they are similar or different to the findings from your study. Finally, clarify how your study extends what is known, with a nod to why this is important.

In our paper, the first interpretations paragraph focused on how the coaching programme – a targeted, tailored intervention – showed promising results compared to generic interventions like mindfulness and yoga, which have received mixed evidence in systematic reviews. I was able to position our findings as addressing a gap in the literature: the need for interventions specifically designed for the medical context rather than off-the-shelf solutions.

 

Someone typing at a computer; you see the side/back of their hand and their hands on the laptop

Being fair to yourself in the limitations
In my experience working with PhD students and early career researchers, I find they’re often excessively critical of their work in the limitations section. It’s as if they’re trying to pre-empt every possible reviewer criticism by demolishing their own study first. I always encourage them to temper this a little. All research studies are flawed, and this section should present a fair self-critique rather than a blistering personal review.

Here’s something I’ve learned through experience: reviewers will identify further flaws that haven’t even occurred to the authorship team and may ask for these to be added to the limitations section. As such, it’s usually better to start with a moderate self-critique which allows room to expand in response to the criticisms of others.

These sections are also strengthened when they open with the strengths of the study. This can help remind reviewers about the positives of the design and communicate a sense of balance to readers. You’re not hiding from your study’s weaknesses – you’re presenting them in context.

Don’t confuse interpretations with implications
A common trap researchers fall into is to insert implications into the interpretations section. Sometimes the line between these two sections can be fine, but discussion sections are strengthened when the interpretations section focuses on the scientific advances of the study, and the implications section outlines the practical advice the authors can now offer due to what they have found.

Think of it this way: interpretations are about “what we now know”, while implications are about “what we should now do”. Implications are best when they are practical, balanced and useful to readers. This is also a good place to make recommendations for future researchers. Where your study has fallen short, you can recommend they do better!

Don’t overthink it
Writing discussions can feel like a daunting task, and a blank page can induce writer’s block. Remember: something is always better than nothing, and once written down, it can always be improved. Perfection is the enemy of progress! Don’t wait for that full day when you can focus, which may never come. Instead, start typing and see what happens. Even just a few lines can reduce your anxiety and help you get started more quickly when you next return to your document.

By breaking the discussion into five manageable sections and following the path of least resistance, you can transform that blank page into a finished section faster than you think. Your paper is nearly finished – time to bring it home.

Related reading

Humans of Clinical Academia: New podcast series!

I’ve just wrapped up hosting Manchester Catalys’s new podcast series “Humans of Clinical Academia”. The premise was straightforward: we wanted to move beyond standard academic interviews to explore what actually shapes successful clinical academic careers.

The Approach

Rather than the usual “tell me about your latest research,” I asked each guest to share five meaningful images from their personal and professional journey. This simple change opened up conversations that were far more honest and revealing than typical academic discussions.

Our Guests

The series featured eight distinguished clinical academics from nursing, psychology, podiatric, pharmacy and medical backgrounds:

Plus a special final episode: “7 Secrets of Successful Clinical Academic Careers” – distilling wisdom from all conversations into key insights for aspiring clinical academics.

Cover of Humans of Clinical Academia podcast, featuring the name of the podcast and a photo of Judith Johnson at the podcast desk

Honest Conversations

What made these interviews valuable was the willingness of our guests to discuss challenges that many clinical academics face but rarely talk about openly. Imposter syndrome featured in some conversations, as did the ongoing tension between clinical work and research commitments. These discussions provided practical insights for anyone navigating this career path.

Having researched healthcare workforce wellbeing and psychological resilience throughout my career, I was particularly interested in how each guest had developed their own strategies for managing the unique pressures of clinical academia. These conversations reinforced findings from my own research about what helps healthcare professionals thrive.

As Director of Manchester Catalys and someone who is passionate about helping clinicians get into research, I found these conversations affirmed much of what I’ve observed about successful clinical academic careers. The human stories behind the research reminded me why supporting the next generation of clinical academics matters.

Where to Listen

The series is available on:

Whether you’re considering a research career, currently balancing clinical work with academic development, or simply interested in the people behind leading clinical academic careers, these conversations offer genuine insights into what it takes to succeed.

Please check out our episodes, like and subscribe. We’re so grateful for your support!

Related reading