Search results

In light of a largely negative discourse, this study aims to identify the various ways in which PhD mums have been supported in a range of contexts to develop a comprehensive typology of positive support, as well as to identify patterns that transcend institutional, national and disciplinary borders.

The study is guided by ecological systems theory which allows for the investigation of the various interrelated systems that influence (in this case) doctoral researchers. A mixed-methods survey elicited the first-hand experiences from recent and current PhD mums across the world.

The authors have identified a range of potential supports for PhD mums, but note a careful balance is needed to ensure that PhD mums are supported in their roles as both mother and doctoral researcher, where support in one domain does not contradict nor ignore support for the other.

This study complements the existing knowledge body, which consists mainly of localised studies, by providing a birds-eye view of issues that transcend national, geographic and disciplinary borders. A topography provides a visual map of the various sources of potential support and the complicated relationships between them.

This study aims to advance the understanding on individual variations in PhD candidates’ personal interest in their doctorate and supervisory and research community support, and several individual and structural attributes potentially having an impact on the profiles.

The authors explored the interrelationship between personal interest – social support profiles, and nationality, gender, research group and study status and the risk of dropping out. A total of 768 PhD candidates from a research-intensive university in Finland responded to a modified version of the cross-cultural doctoral experience survey. Latent profile analysis was used to explore the individual variations in PhD candidates’ interest and support from the supervisor and research community.

Three distinctive PhD interest-social support profiles were detected; the high interest–high support profile (74.4%, n = 570), the high interest–moderate support profile (18.2%, n = 140) and the moderate interest–moderate support profile (7.4%, n = 56). The profiles exhibited high to moderate levels of research, development and instrumental interest. Individuals in the high interest–moderate support and in the moderate interest–moderate support profiles were more prone to consider dropping out from their PhD than in the high interest–high support profile.

The results indicate that by cultivating PhD candidates’ interest and providing sufficient supervisory and the research community offers a means for preventing candidates from discontinuing their doctorate. Hence, building a supportive learning environment that cultivates a PhD candidate’s personal interest is likely to reduce high dropout rates among the candidates.

Market forces and other external pressures have significantly transformed higher education over the past four decades. Research on the influence of cross-sector permeation on doctoral education has primarily focused on preparing and socializing students for academic careers that involve entrepreneurial activity. Conversely, PhD student agency involving cross-sector engagement and the pursuit of individual values and goals in ways that span the boundaries of academia have been overlooked. The purpose of this study is to qualitatively explore how a sample of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) students in Science, Technology, Mathematics and Engineering (STEM) programs recognized, made sense of and navigated cross-sector permeation relevant to their individual passions and commitments to climate change alleviation.

The authors conducted an embedded case study that qualitatively explored how 16 STEM PhD students recognized, made sense of and navigated cross-sector permeation relevant to their individual values and goals and commitments to climate change alleviation. Data were collected through individual interviews that probed the participants’ engagement and agency in cross-sector permeation.

The authors identified three themes that frame the role of PhD students as boundary spanning agents. The themes involve students placing their values and goals over specific positions and career paths, aligning their values and goals with cross-sector conditions and creating opportunities through cross-sector engagement.

Recommendations are provided for fostering and enhancing the agency PhD students have over the pursuit of their individual values and goals and their engagement in boundary spanning activities and strategies.

Cross-sector permeation is framed relevant to PhD student agency and boundary spanning. The findings introduce the role of PhD students as boundary spanning agents who intentionally pursue their individual values and goals in ways that extend beyond traditional academic career pathways.

In a climate of tightening quality controls and audits within higher education, the transparency of doctoral examination practices is increasingly the subject of scrutiny. Examines quality and standards issues that arise in relation to setting up, and preparing for, the examination of the research PhD. Specifically, the ways in which the examination is organised and the ways in which candidates prepare for the viva are addressed. The discussion draws on three sets of data collected between 1999 and 2001: institutional policy data; questionnaire data from PhD candidates, examiners and supervisors; and interview data with candidates before and after their PhD vivas.

Given declining tuition funds and government grants, Kenyan universities need to develop strategies, including increased research grants and collaborations, to diversify their income sources. Well-managed doctoral students can boost a university’s teaching and research outputs. However, numbers of students enrolled in doctoral programmes at Kenyan universities are low, and graduation rates and time-to-graduate statistics are disturbing. Research undertaken elsewhere underline the important role played by supervisors and peers in facilitating students’ sense of belonging and their success. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the influence of supervisory and peer support on PhD students’ sense of belonging and their success at Kenyan universities.

In this cross-sectional study, data were gathered through an online questionnaire from 614 students admitted to doctoral programmes at Kenyan universities between 2010 and 2018. We used multi-item scales to collect data on PhD students’ self-efficacy, supervisory and peer support and a sense of belonging.

Structural equation modelling results revealed that PhD students’ modes of study and self-efficacy were significantly associated with the quality of supervision, peer support and a sense of belonging. However, only age, a sense of belonging and the quality of supervision were directly linked to their success.

This study contributes to the literature on doctoral-level education, responding to the need for research on the influence of relationships with supervisors and peers on PhD students’ sense of belonging and their success, especially in developing countries.

If we were to liken the long, intense doctoral journey to a battle, a strategy for winning can start from understanding well and then setting the right expectations about modern supervision. We need to ask whether doctoral learners’ expectations are aligned with their supervisors’ expectations. With the wide and evolving roles of PhD supervisors, we focus only on three key areas: (1) academic conventions, (2) psychological well-being, and (3) career development. Using a hypothetical scenario for each area, we compare doctoral learners’ perspectives with their supervisors’, which highlights the need for greater understanding and connectivity between both parties. This leads to our discussion on how appreciating these areas has practical implications for doctoral learners and supervisors. Drawing mainly on UK-based examples, we raise useful ideas that can help promote a holistic doctoral journey and increase doctoral learners’ chances of winning the metaphorical “doctoral battle.”

While postdoctoral research (postdoc) training is a common step toward academic careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields, the role of postdoc training in social sciences is less clear. An increasing number of social science PhDs are pursuing postdocs. This paper aims to identify factors associated with participation in postdoc training and examines the relationship between postdoc training and subsequent career outcomes, including attainment of tenure-track faculty positions and early career salaries.

Using data from the National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates and Survey of Doctorate Recipients, this study applies propensity score matching, regression and decomposition analyses to identify the role of postdoc training on the employment outcomes of PhDs in the social science and STEM fields.

Results from the regression analyses indicate that participation in postdoc training is associated with greater PhD research experience, higher departmental research ranking and departmental job placement norms. When the postdocs and non-postdocs groups are balanced on observable characteristics, postdoc training is associated with a higher likelihood of attaining tenure-track faculty positions 7 to 9 years after PhD completion. The salaries of social science tenure-track faculty with postdoc experience eventually surpass the salaries of non-postdoc PhDs, primarily via placement at institutions that offer relatively higher salaries. This pattern, however, does not apply to STEM PhDs.

This study leverages comprehensive, nationally representative data to investigate the role of postdoc training in the career outcomes of social sciences PhDs, in comparison to STEM PhDs. Research findings suggest that for social sciences PhDs interested in academic careers, postdoc training can contribute to the attainment of tenure-track faculty positions and toward earning relatively higher salaries over time. Research findings provide prospective and current PhDs with information helpful in career planning and decision-making. Academic institutions, administrators, faculty and stakeholders can apply these research findings toward developing programs and interventions to provide doctoral students with career guidance and greater career transparency.

Studies of inequality in higher education on both undergraduate and graduate levels have rarely examined experiences of Asians and Pacific Islanders (APIs). In this study, we focus on the experiences and outcomes of API students in doctoral education. More specifically, we examine socialization experiences and research productivity of three groups of students: domestic API, international API, and domestic white students. The results, based on a national cohort of PhD students in biology, reveal notable differences in experiences and outcomes of domestic and international API students. Although variation in socialization experiences explains differences in research productivity in the first year, that is not the case in the second year of doctoral study. In the second year, international API students have publication productivity comparable to their white peers, despite less favorable socialization experiences. Domestic API students, however, have lower research productivity than their white peers, even though they have comparable socialization experiences. Given the presumption of APIs’ success, especially in the STEM fields, findings for domestic API students are surprising and not aligned with the model minority stereotype. Contributions to research on API students, doctoral education, and socialization theory are discussed.

In the past 20 years, doctoral programmes have become the focus of policy initiatives. This has led to considerable changes in their structures and consequently student experience. In this essay, the author explores some of the changes by situating an examination of doctoral education-past, present, future-within the broader context of academic life, and the nature and role of research in developed economies. This analysis provides the context in which to draw out some implications for the future study of doctoral education.

The essay draws on a synthesis of the research on doctoral education, early career researcher trajectories, research structures and academic work environment.

The analysis suggests the following: doctoral education reform is being driven largely by policy concerns, rather than by evidence or disciplinary intention; and academic work environment is becoming less and less attractive due to increasing demands for productivity and accountability.

The author concludes with a call to action: unless we, as academics, take action on several fronts, we may find that the PhD becomes purely a policy instrument, and that in the long-term, life of an academic will no longer be attractive to PhD graduates.

This paper critiques institutional whiteness and racial categorisation in UK higher education. This is done through the representation of the complex narratives of “mixed race” women navigating their PhD experiences in predominantly white institutions, when their identities have proximity to whiteness.

This study introduces five vignettes of “mixed race” women, gathered from a wider study of 27 PhDs and early career researchers in UK higher education. The paper employs Yuval-Davis’ framework of belonging and bell hooks' approach to chosen versus forced marginality to create a conceptual framework based on fluid agency and empowerment, recognising belonging as an ongoing process.

The findings reveal how “mixed race” women can occupy a liminal space between belonging to and rejecting racial categorisation, as they attempted to situate their self-identifications within the boundaries of institutional whiteness.

The study only utilises a small sample size of five counter-stories from a larger study on PhD career trajectories, limiting its empirical claims. It also only engages with “mixed race” women who have proximity to whiteness, encouraging research on different “mixed race” intersections.

This paper encourages more discussion around “mixed race” experiences of UK higher education and critical engagement with higher education’s reliance on statistical data to understand racialised communities.

This paper contributes new empirical insights into how whiteness is experienced when “mixed race” women negotiate their relation to it in UK higher education. It also provides theoretical advancements into understanding of institutional whiteness and critically engages with racial categorisation.