Embarking in a doctoral journey: insights from a longitudinal study on decision-making along the PhD

Author(s):

Viviana Meschitti(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

22. Research in Higher Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

22 SES 10 D,

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-24

15:30-17:00

Room:

K5.19

Chair:

Carolina Guzmán-Valenzuela

Contribution

This paper aims at investigating how the doctoral journey unfolds, by following a small cohort of PhD students from their first to the third year of doctorate. The focus is on how individual decision-making processes develop along the PhD. The broader objective is to understand which processes support such decision-making and help PhD students to find their way throughout the doctoral journey. Theoretically, we aim to contribute to the literature on higher education, career choices, and identity.

Representing the doctorate as a journey is quite a widespread metaphor (Wisker et al., 2010). It well depicts that a doctorate is mostly an individual challenge, a complex learning process characterised by more steps and unpredictable events. More scholars are worried that completion rates are low, and often data regarding doctoral attrition and completion are not even regularly collected by universities (Elgar & Klein, 2004; Green & Powell, 2005). A HEFCE (2007) report shows that in the UK the completion rate is higher for full-time when compared to part-time students (76% vs. 48%). Moreover, there is a difference among disciplines: in the UK the completion rate goes from 62% in architecture to 85% in biology. Consequently, more scholars and institutions have called for a better structuring of PhD programmes (Bitusikova, 2009; Kehm, 2007).

We contend that an in-depth understanding of the individual experiences of doctoral students is paramount to study issues of attrition and completion, and also, to comprehend how the doctoral journey is impacting on PhD students’ personal development. In the literature there is a paucity of studies focusing on the lived experiences of individual PhD students from a longitudinal perspective.

Literature on PhD students’ experiences has developed recently, initially in the US and subsequently in Europe. More US literature is focused on the study of attrition and completion, but the focus is especially on understanding the process of socialisation, i.e. how students learn to fit into the new environment, than on how they actively interpret their situation and act on themselves and on others (Austin, 2002; Boyle & Boice, 1998; Gardner, 2010: Golde, 1998). These studies usually rely on big samples, and their theoretical grounding is quite poor. Remarkably, even literature grounded in a different epistemological perspective, i.e. Lave and Wenger’s (1989) communities of practice framework, conceptualises the doctoral journey as a process of getting socialised into a group or department (Meschitti & Carassa, 2014; Teeuwsen, Ratković, & Tilley, 2012).

The studies by McAlpine and Akerlind (2010), and McAlpine, Amundsen and Turner (2014), represent an exception: their research undertakes a longitudinal and biographical approach to study the experiences of PhD students, post-doc, and junior lecturers, in the UK and Canada. They stress the active role played by individuals in designing their own path, and underline how the doctoral journey is a process of identity construction. Their approach is close to our standpoint: because our focus is on individuals and their decision-making practices, it is much more consistent to look at our data through the concept of identity work (Brown, 2015): this is a useful metaphor for analysing professional identity. It underlines how individuals are constantly engaged in a process of interpretation, sensemaking, enactment and change. This metaphor can inspire the analysis of the complexities of an individual’s doctoral journey: this is a process of building one’s own identity, and it is characterised by continuous movements of interpretation and action. By focusing on identity work, we aim also to add to the literature in the area of career studies, by possibly looking at new ways to conceptualise careers.

Method

To understand how decision-making unfolds along the doctoral journey, we opted for a longitudinal research design: three rounds of biographical interviews took place between 2015 and 2017 (first round October 2015, second round March 2016, third round January 2017) with a group of 7 PhD students coming from the same College, but from different disciplines. At the time of recruitment, the PhD students were in their first year (or beginning of the second). Among them, 2 are part-time mature students, who rely on their own funds. Recruitment occurred through formal channels: the PhD programme administrators have been contacted by the research team and asked to send an invitation email, together with an information sheet to explain objectives, details, and methods of the research. PhD students who volunteered have been individually contacted by the research team to further go into the research methods and objectives, and talk about ethical implications. Initially, 8 students volunteered; one among them withdrew. Interviews have a narrative form. The first round of interviews started with open questions related to: personal and professional path, and how these intersect; experiences as a PhD student, main activities and daily routines; the actors (internal or external to the College) who have some influence on the PhD trajectory; the most important steps, decisions and achievements (both in their professional and personal life), the future challenges. The following interviews have been focused on developments, recent achievements, new challenges, changes in the participant's life. Participants were free to develop these topics. In fact, these interviews resembled an informal conversation. They have always been conducted by the author. The analysis aims to unveil themes, similarities and differences across the narratives. We look for recurring topics emerging in the interviews and we observe how these topics are developed by different participants. Through an iterative process of contrasting and comparing, we aim to develop insights to understand decision-making process along the doctorate.

Expected Outcomes

We expected that the role of individual agency was especially important in the doctoral pathways of the research participants. In fact, this emerged even stronger from the interviews. Participants are characterised by high motivation and high initiative in guiding their own career path. They show a learning trajectory, where they progressively become aware of their position inside the academic world, of the challenges in front of them, but also, of what they have learned and what they are able to do. We could detect some practices that clearly help PhD students in their path: regular meetings with the supervisor are paramount; having the opportunity to present a research proposal early in the doctoral path; participating to reading groups and giving seminars; having the opportunity to submit to conferences. We could find interesting differences between part-time and full-time students: part-time students show a much lower level of integration in their department, however, they have a strong internal motivation and also, they find support from other areas of their life. In all the cases, not only PhD students show a strong agency, which could be even defined as entrepreneurial spirit; but more importantly, they are constantly involved in a dense identity work, where they define and redefine themselves in front of their circumstances. We aim to further compare the accounts to find differences between the students’ attitudes and perceptions at the beginning of their doctorate, and now. The aim is to understand if we can give a contribution to practice, through highlighting which processes support PhD students and can be promoted by academic institutions. Also, we aim to give a contribution to theory by refining our work on the concepts of identity and agency.

References

Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94-122. Bitusikova, A. (2009). New challenges in doctoral education in Europe. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.), Changing Practices of Doctoral Education (pp. 200-210). London & New York: Routledge. Boyle, P., & Boice, B. (1998). Best practices for enculturation: collegiality, mentoring, and structure. In M. S. Anderson (Ed.), The experience of being in graduate school: an exploration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Brown, A. D. (2015). Identities and identity work in organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(1), 20-40. Elgar, F. J., & Klein, R. M. (2004). What You Don't Know: Graduate Deans' Knowledge of Doctoral Completion Rates. Higher Education Policy, 17(3), 325-336. Gardner, S. K. (2010). Contrasting the socialization experiences of doctoral students in high-and low-completing departments: A qualitative analysis of disciplinary contexts at one institution. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(1), 61-81. Golde, C. M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: explaining first-year doctoral attrition. In M. S. Anderson (Ed.), The experience of being in graduate school: an exploration (pp. 55-64). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Green, H., & Powell, S. (2005). Doctoral study in contemporary higher education: McGraw-Hill Education (UK). HEFCE. (2007). PhD research degree: update. Entry and completion. Kehm, B. M. (2007). Quo vadis doctoral education? New European approaches in the context of global changes. European Journal of Education, 42(3), 307-319. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1989). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Palo Alto, CA: Institute for Research on Learning. McAlpine, L., & Akerlind, G. (2010). Becoming an academic: Palgrave Macmillan. McAlpine, L., Amundsen, C., & Turner, G. (2014). Identity‐trajectory: Reframing early career academic experience. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 952-969. Meschitti, V., & Carassa, A. (2014). Participation as a form of socialization. How a research team can support PhD students in their academic path. In J. Brankovic, M. Klemencic, P. Lazetic & P. Zgaga (Eds.), Global Challenges, Local Responses in Higher Education. The Contemporary Issues in National and Comparative Perspective (pp. 149-170). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Teeuwsen, P., Ratković, S., & Tilley, S. A. (2012). Becoming academics: experiencing legitimate peripheral participation in part-time doctoral studies. Studies in Higher Education. Wisker, G., Morris, C., Cheng, M., Masika, R., Warnes, M., Trafford, V., et al. (2010). Doctoral learning journeys: Final report. Higher Education Academy.

Author Information

Viviana Meschitti (presenting / submitting)

Birkbeck, University of London

Management

London

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.