Self-Determination and Persistence

The key difference between Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and other motivational theory is that SDT acknowledges that motivation can either be self-determined or can be intentionally regulated or controlled. When a behaviour is intentionally regulated or controlled, the regulatory process for the individual is that of compliance, whereas when the behaviour is self- determined, the regulatory process for the individual is that of choice (Deci et al, 1991). This is presented as a distinction of the classifications of motivation being either intrinsic or extrinsic, work which was further developed by Tremblay et al., (2009). In their quantitative study of work-related motivation, they supported SDT as being articulated on a continuum in order to predict ‘optimal functioning’ (Tremblay et al., 2009, p214). At one end of the scale is intrinsic motivation, which garners the most positive consequences; and at the other extreme is amotivation, which results in the most negative consequences, such as withdrawal. The limitation of this study in light of the present thesis is twofold: firstly, the study was conducted with employees, rather than students, and secondly, the study relied on self-reporting from employees in a work environment, and this could have skewed the results. Nevertheless, the study does provide some support for the SDT in terms of its linkage with consequences and experiences, and these could be potentially relevant in doctoral completion.

SDT may also have an impact on how recently completed doctoral candidates could reflect on their experiences. This theory relates to social context which satisfy three basic innate

59

psychological needs of ‘competence’ (enabled by interpersonal events and structures during the action, ‘autonomy’ in their behaviour being self-determined, and ‘relatedness’ in terms of being authentically associated with others (Deci & Ryan, 2010). In Deci et al (1991) the concept of self-determination was first explored in relation to school education (in children up to the age of 20). The study focused on how to embed a natural interest in learning and to achieve confidence in students’ own abilities, which are the manifestations of being intrinsically motivated to learn. Deci et al (1991) also discuss the socio-contextual factors that affect the individual’s educational outcomes, such as the relationship between teacher and student, an argument supported by Elliot & Kobayashi (2018). In their qualitative study, the supervisors interviewed expressed the need for doctoral students to become ‘self-regulated learners’ but often this is hindered by students’ inability to culturally adapt, for example, in their comfort with different styles of supervision. However, in contrast to this argument, Deci et al., (1991) state that in tightly controlled environments, where the individual may feel they have limited choices available, there may be a loss in motivation; whereas students that are more intrinsically motivated to perform academic tasks (with good self-regulation) are more likely to demonstrate stronger conceptual understanding and consequently appear more self- determined. In other words, Deci et al., (1991) argued that performance is optimised in contexts that provide people the opportunity to satisfy their own psychological need for autonomy, and thus self-regulation. Whether or not this is the case for non-native English-speaking doctoral candidates, where they may be more comfortable with clearly defined goals being set, has not been documented in the literature.

The multi-dimensional nature of doctoral completion is therefore complex; it is associated with various personal characteristics such as aptitude, aspiration, family, work, financial status, and background (Hwang et al., 2015) and this leads to the lack of any generalised model of doctoral

60

persistence throughout the journey. However, in Hwang et al., (2015), the theoretical framework adopted included the work of Tinto (1993). Tinto’s persistence theory in doctoral education was an extension of his previous work with undergraduate students (1975) on the interactions in the academic environment to explain dropouts of undergraduate students. The 1993 work conceptualised a theoretical model for doctoral candidates with three phases – transitional, leading to candidacy and dissertation; and Tinto postulated several challenges that can be overcome in each phase, with persistence (Tinto, 1993; cited in Hwang et al., 2015).

Tinto’s 1993 work on persistence and integration theory was also studied in Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw (2012). This qualitative study was conducted in the US with 76 participants who held earned doctorates, with the aim to examine persistence factors associated with the successful completion of a doctorate in education. The participants were interviewed with a standard set of open questions, including what the best part and hardest part of their study had been. The interviews were analysed thematically, and the authors found that whilst the participants had demonstrated persistence in completing their study, they had made personal sacrifices, had endured intervening life experiences and overcome dissertation challenges during the course of their study. Note that this study was conducted in the US, where doctoral candidates complete two years of structured classes before embarking on the ‘dissertation’ phase of the doctorate (Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012).

It can be argued that doctoral candidates must possess what Denicolo et al., (2018) describe as ‘grit’ especially in the context of international candidates that are experiencing a different cultural environment in their doctoral education, with much more autonomous learning, leading to the requirement that students possess more self-discipline (Elliot & Kobayashi, 2018).

61

Denicolo et al., (2018) state that perseverance is an essential characteristic for research students; that having the tenacity to see the project through to the end demonstrates endurance, contending that students gain a doctorate by not giving up.