Motivation plays a crucial role in success and satisfaction in higher education, particularly in doctoral studies (Sverdlik et al., 2018). The evolving role of doctoral education in society and the increasing diversity of the student body highlight the importance of understanding the motives that drive students to pursue a PhD (Taylor, 2012; Skakni, 2018). This study aims to explore the motivational profiles of doctoral students, focusing on the Russian context, where doctoral education faces unique challenges, such as widespread non-academic motives and structural issues in the organization of programs (Bednyi et al., 2023; Terentev et al., 2020).

Doctoral education is often regarded as a key mechanism for producing human capital for both academia and knowledge-intensive sectors (Altbach, 2007; Servage, 2009). However, questions remain about why students choose to enroll in doctoral programs, how their experiences shape career aspirations, and whether those who begin with non-academic motives can develop a research orientation during their studies. These questions are particularly relevant in Russia, where many doctoral students combine their studies with work (Bekova & Dzhafarova, 2019) and do not remain in academia after graduation (Slepykh et al., 2022). 

This study addresses three main research questions:

• RQ1: What are the motivational profiles of Russian doctoral students?

• RQ2: How are these motivational profiles related to the individual characteristics of doctoral students?

• RQ3: Which elements of the doctoral experience foster research career aspirations among students who initially enrolled with non-academic motives?

The research employs Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as its theoretical framework to analyze motivation, which is defined as the psychological forces driving behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2012). Motivation exists on a continuum from intrinsic, driven by genuine interest and enjoyment, to extrinsic, driven by external rewards or obligations. Intrinsic motivation sustains students through genuine interest, while extrinsic motivations, such as career advancement or academic identity, complement these intrinsic drivers. Doctoral students’ motivations often combine intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions, forming unique motivational profiles that influence their commitment to research. Some researchers emphasize the importance of fostering intrinsic motivation to enhance persistence and achievement.

In addition, this study applies the concept of liminality to explore the transformative nature of doctoral education. Liminality, originally a concept from anthropology, refers to an intermediate stage of transition characterized by uncertainty, low regulation, and the guidance of mentors (Van Gennep, 2019). In the context of doctoral studies, this transition involves shedding previous identities and adopting new roles within the academic and professional community (Galimberti, 2023). The ability to navigate this liminal space is particularly important in shaping a stable research orientation, especially for students who begin with motives unrelated to academic careers.

This research highlights the challenges and opportunities inherent in the Russian doctoral education system, which has been undergoing significant changes in recent years. Declining enrollment, high dropout rates, and low completion rates indicate systemic issues that threaten the development of a qualified workforce for academia and knowledge-intensive sectors (Kobzar & Roshchin, 2020; Terentev et al., 2021). Understanding the motivations of doctoral students and the factors influencing their career trajectories can help address these challenges and provide insights for improving doctoral education in Russia.

1. The novelty of this study lies in its holistic examination of doctoral students’ motivational profiles and its analysis of the relationship between motivation and various elements of the doctoral experience. By linking motivational profiles with educational outcomes and exploring how the doctoral environment fosters a research-oriented career trajectory, this research provides a comprehensive perspective on motivation in doctoral education and its implications for policy and practice.

This study draws on data from a nationwide survey of 1267 Russian doctoral students from 154 universities. To examine enrollment motives, participants answered the multiple-choice question: “What were your goals for enrolling in the doctorate?”. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to construct motivational profiles, as this method identifies coherent profiles rather than analyzing motives in isolation. Based on goodness-of-fit statistics and interpretability, a four-class model was selected. The resulting classes are: “Academic Orientation,” “Unconscious Motives,” “Topic-Devoted,” and “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” Chi-square tests were applied to explore the relationship between motivational profiles and individual characteristics. The identified classes were then used as predictors in four regression models: 1) Satisfaction with Doctoral Studies: The first model explores the association between motivational profiles and overall satisfaction with doctoral studies. 2) Confidence in Dissertation Completion: The second model examines profiles in relation to students’ self-assessed likelihood of defending their dissertation. A variable, “lack of confidence,” was constructed using categorical principal component analysis (CatPCA) (Zhuchkova et al., 2023). 3) Plans for a Research Career: The third model investigates the link between motivational profiles and students’ plans to pursue research careers post-graduation. 4) Impact of Doctoral Experience on the ‘Unconscious Motives’ Group: The fourth model focuses on students with unclear or non-academic motives, analyzing how components of the doctoral experience influence their intention to pursue research. Aspects of the doctoral experience were assessed using the question: “To what extent are the following aspects present during your doctoral studies?” (Scale: 3 – “To a great extent,” 2 – “To some extent,” 1 – “Not at all present”). The question included 19 statements, which were grouped into components using categorical principal component analysis (CatPCA) on a polychoric correlation matrix. Promax rotation was applied, as correlations were expected between components. A six-component model was selected, explaining 78% of the variance in the original variables. The components reflect distinct aspects of the doctoral experience: 1) Interaction with supervisor; 2) Research activities; 3) International activities; 4) Interaction with peers; 5) Interaction with department; and 6) Educational workload.

The analysis demonstrates that doctoral students with academic orientations achieve the most favorable outcomes, including higher satisfaction with their studies, greater confidence in defending their dissertations, and a stronger likelihood of pursuing research careers. In contrast, students with unconscious motives face significant challenges, such as lower satisfaction, reduced confidence, and weaker intentions to pursue research careers. These findings highlight the impact of non-academic motives — such as military service deferment or unclear goals at enrollment — on doctoral outcomes. They also raise questions about alternative models of doctoral education, including industrial or professional doctorates, which could better address the diverse needs of students. The results align with the Matthew effect: leading universities attract the most motivated doctoral students, exacerbating educational inequality. The concentration of doctoral education in Russia’s leading universities, coupled with the amotivation of students in non-elite institutions, poses challenges for regional human capital development. Employment in non-academic sectors is more common among amotivated students, while the widespread practice of combining work and study in Russia further hinders full engagement in the university environment. This dynamic, stemming from insufficient funding for doctoral education, impedes the development of intrinsic motivation necessary for persistence and achievement. A separate analysis of students with non-academic motives reveals that interaction with the department is the sole factor fostering research career intentions. It is hypothesized that these students are often “pushed out” of academia due to opaque rules, excessive bureaucratization, and unpredictability. However, if faculty members act as gatekeepers, helping students internalize implicit academic norms, even amotivated students might develop research-oriented aspirations.

Altbach, P. G. (2007). Doctoral education: Present realities and future trends. In International handbook of higher education (pp. 65–81). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Bednyi, B. I., Rybakov, N. V., & Khodeeva, N. A. (2023). [On the question of the demand for professional postgraduate studies in Russia: Analysis of data on the thesis defenses in technical sciences]. Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, (4), 25–54. https://doi.org/10.17323/vo-2023-16712 Bekova, S., & Dzhafarova, Z. (2019). Who is happy in doctoral programs: The connection between employment and learning outcomes of PhD students. Educational Studies, (1 (eng)), 87–108. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. In Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 416–436). Galimberti, A. (2023). PhD graduates’ professional transitions and academic habitus. The role of tacit knowledge. Studies in Higher Education, 48(10), 1563-1575. Kobzar, E., & Roshchin, S. (2020). Russian doctoral education. Trends and issues in doctoral education: A global perspective, 127–151. Servage, L. (2009). Alternative and professional doctoral programs: What is driving the demand? Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 765–779. Skakni, I. (2018). Reasons, motives, and motivations for completing a PhD: A typology of doctoral studies as a quest. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 9(2), 197–212. Slepykh, V. I., Lovakov, A. V., & Yudkevich, M. M. (2022). [Research career after thesis defence: The case of four fields of study in Russia]. Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, (4), 260–297. https://doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2022-4-260-297 Sverdlik, A., Hall, N. C., McAlpine, L., & Hubbard, K. (2018). The PhD experience: A review of the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and well-being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 361–388. Taylor, S. E. (2012). Changes in doctoral education: Implications for supervisors in developing early career researchers. International Journal for Researcher Development, 3(2), 118–138. Terentev, E., Bekova, S., & Maloshonok, N. (2021). Three challenges to Russian system of doctoral education: Why only one out of ten doctoral students defends thesis? International Journal of Chinese Education, 10(1), 22125868211007016. Terentev, E., Rybakov, N., & Bednyi, B. (2020). Why embark on a PhD today? A typology of motives for doctoral study in Russia. Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, (1 (eng)), 40–69. Van Gennep, A. (2019). The rites of passage. University of Chicago press. Zhuchkova, S., Terentev, E., Saniyazova, A., & Bekova, S. (2023). Departmental academic support for doctoral students in Russia: Categorisation and effects. Higher Education Quarterly, 77(2), 215–231.