What Is It Like to Complete a PhD in Three Years?

It has been a while since I defended my PhD thesis—an experience that now feels like both yesterday and a distant dream. The days following the defence were swallowed by a web of administrative requirements, final submissions, and the strange emotional vacuum that comes once the adrenaline wears off.Since then, I’ve been asked one particular question countless times: “How did you manage to complete your PhD in three years?”

Well, in fact, a bit less than three years. And while I always try to give an honest answer, I find that the question itself deserves a bit more unpacking. Because, simply put: yes, it is entirely possible to complete a PhD in three years. However, whether one should focus on that specific timeframe is an entirely different argument. So, in this highly personal reflection, I want to talk about the realities—both subtle and stark—of doing a PhD on a fast timeline. Not as a how-to guide, but as a window into what it meant for me, and why I think the timeframe is something we need to talk about more openly.

The Myth of the Three-Year PhD

There’s a kind of unspoken mystique around finishing a PhD “on time,” especially in the UK where three years is often considered the standard. People hear "three years" and assume a kind of academic sprint—where discipline, brilliance, and planning align perfectly to cross the finish line. But in practice, finishing within that window depends on a complex interplay of factors: institutional support, supervision quality, personal motivation, life circumstances, research feasibility, and yes, luck.

In my case, one of the most decisive factors was the unwavering support and guidance of my supervisors: Professor Karim Hadjri and Dr. Krzysztof Nawratek. They weren’t just academic mentors—they were allies throughout the process. Their feedback was consistently sharp, constructive, and timely, allowing me to stay on track without the prolonged silences that many doctoral researchers unfortunately experience. They understood the rhythm of the PhD journey, and they respected the intensity of the path I chose to take.

I should also acknowledge the significant role of the RE-DWELL project consortium in providing comprehensive support. For example, I didn’t worry too much about data collection, as secondments were already integrated into the project. I always knew there were highly specialised contributors I could consult and ask for help when needed. I was also given the freedom to develop my own ideas while being guided by researchers who genuinely cared about both the research and the researcher. That made a huge difference—not just in finishing on time, but in emerging from the PhD with confidence and clarity. But I want to be very clear: none of this made it easy, nor should it suggest that a PhD should be limited to a three-year timeframe.

What It Actually Feels Like – My Strategy for a Sustained Rhythm

If I were to sum it up, it feels like constantly living in the tension between focus and exhaustion. On the one hand, there’s a deep satisfaction in watching your work come together in a concentrated period of time. There’s clarity that comes from momentum—a rhythm that can carry you forward through difficult patches. On the other hand, it’s intense. The emotional and intellectual toll of sustaining deep engagement with one topic for nearly three years—without long breaks, without fully detaching—is not insignificant. Burnout is a real risk.

There were months where writing consumed my weekends, and weeks where I didn’t sleep well because a paragraph or argument just wouldn’t settle. You get to the end, yes—but sometimes, you're not sure which version of you has actually arrived.

Balancing both my doctoral work and the demands of the RE-DWELL project required more than just time management—it required clarity. Out of this necessity, I developed a simple but effective framework I now refer to as CPA: Categorise, Prioritise, Act.

• C – Categorise: I began by classifying my activities into core areas — such as research, teaching, writing, and public engagement. This helped me see the broader picture, rather than drowning in a long, unstructured to-do list.
• P – Prioritise: I then assigned levels of urgency to each task — immediate, high, medium, or low. This allowed me to be realistic about what needed attention now and what could wait without consequence.
• A – Act: Finally, I allocated time and energy to each task based on both its urgency and its relevance. I learned to distinguish between what was critical and what was simply noise. Not everything needed to be done right away — and not everything needed to be done by me.

CPA became more than a productivity tool. It was a mindset that helped me navigate a high-pressure environment with competing demands. Most importantly, it gave me permission to be selective — to stay focused without feeling guilty for not doing everything, all the time.

Why the Timeframe Matters

Some might ask, “Why not just take longer and reduce the pressure?” And that’s a fair question. But the answer isn’t always so simple. For many of us, time is a structural constraint. Funding runs out. Visas expire. Life commitments press in. The pressure to finish "on time" isn’t just internal—it’s embedded in the system.

And yet, I believe we should stop treating the three-year finish line as the gold standard of a successful PhD. It's a milestone, yes, but not a measure of academic worth. Some of the most thoughtful, nuanced, and field-defining PhDs I’ve read were written over four or even five years. Some needed time to mature, to pivot, to deal with life. So when people ask me how I did it, I answer honestly. But I also try to reframe the conversation:
“It’s not about how fast you go. It’s about what kind of researcher you become along the way.”

Final Thoughts: It's a Journey, Not a Deadline

Completing a PhD in under three years was a massive achievement, and I’m proud of it. But I’m also aware that it came at a cost. There were things I had to say no to. Moments of rest I had to postpone. Conferences I couldn’t attend, and connections I didn’t build. Would I do it the same way again? Honestly, I’m not sure.  What I do know is this: speed should never be the only lens through which we measure doctoral success. Let’s talk more openly about the different paths through a PhD. Let’s make room for the slow thinkers, the deep feelers, the ones who need time.

And for those who choose or need to finish quickly: I see you too. I hope you’re taking care of yourself after the storm.