An International Comparison of Doctoral Student Support Programs: Similarities and Differences across National Contexts

Author(s):

Çalışkan Ömer(presenting / submitting)Karri Holley(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

22. Research in Higher Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

22 SES 04 A, Postdoctoral Researchers: Working Conditions and Career Prospects

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-09

09:00-10:30

Room:

393. [Main]

Chair:

Hugh Busher

Contribution

The shared need to support doctoral students across national contexts reflects the significance of the degree across higher education system (Powell & Green, 2007). Doctoral degree recipients comprise the future faculty and researcher workforce across higher education institutions as well as industry, government, and not-for-profit arena. The purpose of this study was to compare doctoral student support programs at two research universities, one in the United States and one in Turkey. The similarities and differences between these programs provide insight into how PhD programs are conceptualized around the world.

Background

The decision to pursue a doctoral degree is a highly complex and individual one. A consistent factor across academic disciplines, institutions, and individual demographics is the interaction between the individual student and faculty member. Doctoral students are more likely to persist to graduation and report higher degrees of satisfaction with their program when they engage in a meaningful relationship with a faculty mentor or advisor (Bair & Haworth, 2004). Other relationships emerge through contacts with individuals across the campus, professional associations, or industry. Engagement with a mentor offers the opportunity for doctoral students to interact with role models and garner support for their professional development and socialization experiences. These interactions vary not only across academic discipline, but also across institutional types and national contexts. In 1981, Turkey experienced a radical re-organization of its higher education system, resulting in increased state coordination and restricted student access (YOK, 1981). For doctoral students, the centralization of the system influences access to financial resources and other forms of academic support (Er & Bayazit, 1999). The average time to degree for PhD students in Turkey is 6-9 years, which includes the completion of a master’s degree (Akiroglu & Akiroglu, 2003). Comparatively, the rate of student attrition from doctoral degree programs remains a troubling aspect of the American higher education system. Half of the students who begin a doctoral program ultimately fail to complete their degree (Bair & Haworth, 2004). Given these and other challenges, how might different institutions within different countries structure a program to support degree completion among doctoral students?

Method

The purpose of this study was to compare doctoral student support programs at two research universities, one in the United States and one in Turkey. Ten American doctoral students and eight Turkish doctoral students were interviewed. First, the ten American participants were doctoral students at a research-extensive university located in the United States and participants in the university-sponsored doctoral student mentoring program. The program includes peer mentoring, faculty mentoring, and professional networking opportunities. Students receive small stipends to support their conference travel. Second, the eight Turkish participants were all doctoral students at a Turkish research-extensive university. The students all take part in the institution’s faculty development program, designed to socialize students to future faculty careers and encourage timely degree completion. Participants are offered a large stipend, part of which must be spent to support the student studying outside of Turkey. After IRB approval, the semi-structured, individual interviews were audiotaped with the participant’s consent and later transcribed verbatim. One researcher conducted interviews with the American participants; the other researcher conducted interviews with the Turkish participants, and translated those interviews into English. Data analysis was guided by the analytic approach outlined by Corbin and Strauss (2008). Researchers first assigned conceptual codes individually for each respective set of data. Collaborative coding across the multiple sets facilitated the development of categories which spanned the multiple participants and countries. Subsequent axial coding (Corbin & Strauss, p. 195) related the concepts and categories to each other while comparative analysis facilitated a focus on emerging similarities within the data.

Expected Outcomes

We structure our data in two sections—a brief summary of findings related to US and Turkish doctoral students, and a comparison between the two groups. Given the brevity of this proposal, we only offer limited selections of data. The full paper will consider the data in more detail. First, for American doctoral students, the opportunity to interact with faculty mentors from outside the home department was a positive aspect of the program. Teresa emphasized the ability to learn not only from faculty advisors, but also from peers in the mentoring program. “I wanted to build positive peer relationships as an additional means of support and learning, and [be able] to access different perspectives on professional and academic matters,” she concluded. Doctoral students participated in monthly workshops, which participants also found of value. Several events were offered over a two-semester period including bi-weekly brown bag sessions on such topics as writing a literature review, working with the IRB, developing a research poster, securing an academic position, and delivering an oral presentation. “People are sharing what has to be done, and those that don’t already know are learning from others,” Melanie concluded. Their Turkish peers reflected on the influence of prestige in terms of their program participation. Omer, an engineering student, commented, “I chose [this university] because of my professors and the department… [this program] will make me more competitive for a faculty position in this country.” Other participants reflected on the lack of social opportunities or ability to engage with peers from other departments, although the financial benefits provided by the program were acknowledged as positive. Emir, a mathematics student, offered, “[My friends not in the program] always fear that whether they will be able to complete their PhD and find a position or not.”

References

Akiroglu , E., & Akiroglu, J. (2003). Reflections on teaching education in Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26(2), 253-264. Bair, C., & Haworth, J. G. (2004). Research on doctoral student attrition and retention: A meta synthesis. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research XIX (pp. 481–534). New York, NY: Agathon. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (Eds.). (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage. Er, H. A., & Bayazit, N. (1999). Redefining the "Ph. D. in Design" in the periphery: Doctoral education in industrial design in Turkey. Design Issues, 34-44. Powell, S., & Green, H. (2007). The doctorate worldwide. McGraw-Hill International. YOK [Higher Education Council]. (1981). Yuksekogretim kanunu. [The Law on higher education].Retrieved from http://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/29816/2547+say%C4%B1l%C4%B1%20Y%C3%BCksek%C3%B6%C4%9Fretim+Kanunu/f439f90b-7786-464a-a48f-9d9299ba8895

Author Information

Çalışkan Ömer (presenting / submitting)

Middle East Technical University, Turkey

Karri Holley (presenting)

The University of Alabama, USA

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.