Resources and study progress of part-time doctoral students
Miia Martinsuo
Helsinki University of Technology, Industrial Management P.O. Box 5500, FI-02015 HUT, Finland
tel. +358-50-4302723, [email protected]
Abstract
Universities set high expectations towards their doctoral education in management and business administration, for instance, in terms of time goals. Typically, a doctoral candidate is expected to defend her dissertation within four years of admission.
Demand from industries has generated novel challenges for doctoral education in management departments. An increasing number of doctoral candidates pursue their studies on a part-time basis. Four-year throughput times and tightly scheduled doctoral programs do not necessarily apply for part-time doctoral studies.
Earlier research has examined success and progress with doctoral studies primarily with full-time doctoral candidate samples. The success and progress of part- time doctoral studies has not received much research attention, yet. This study
examines the relationship between doctoral students’ resources and study progress in delayed, part-time doctoral studies. The research question is: how are personal
backgrounds and resources (time-spending and support) of part-time doctoral students related to their perceived study progress? The empirical study is based on a survey questionnaire among the delayed, part-time doctoral students of one department at Helsinki University of Technology.
The results show that time spent on research work, support received from the employer, and the student’s own capabilities are associated with and explain a significant proportion of perceived study progress. Contrary to earlier studies with full-time doctoral studies, the support from faculty or peer groups, and time spent on studies are not directly associated with perceived study progress. The paper will discuss success factors for part-time doctoral studies, as well as avenues for further research on part-time doctoral education.
Introduction
How should modern information societies respond to an increasing number of part- time doctoral students? Should universities only support a four-year program of full- time, research-career oriented doctoral studies and screen the most likely researcher candidates to the programs? Or should universities also acknowledge a less intensive, longer-term study path for people working in different industry sectors and seeking in-depth knowledge in their field of expertise? Today, the co-existence of full-time and part-time doctoral students is an everyday reality, whereas the evaluation and education system only acknowledges one set of degree requirements and typically a four-year time goal.
Typically, a doctoral candidate should familiarize with the research field, learn appropriate methodologies, deliver relevant results and defend the dissertation within four years of admission. However, more and more of doctoral candidates hope to remain employed by other organizations than the university, either due to career aspirations within industry, lack of proper research funding, or fear of temporary employment. They participate in doctoral studies to strengthen their expertise in a given area on a part time basis, by the side of their actual employment. For many part- time doctoral students the four year goal is too ambitious, and they are rapidly
considered as delayed.
Many studies on full-time doctoral students have identified the importance of the doctoral candidate’s own resources and faculty support for degree progress and success. Similarly, reasons for delays have been found from the students’ own characteristics and resources, or mismatch with faculty. Earlier research has not examined part-time doctoral students sufficiently.
The purpose of this study is to identify factors that can explain the perceived research progress for delayed part-time doctoral students. The intent is to raise discussion on the opportunity for part-time doctoral students, identify improvement areas in doctoral curricula, and in this way develop improved opportunities for industry-university cooperation. This study centers to the students’ own resources in terms of time consumption, and the support they receive. We hope to raise discussion on how part-time doctoral students should be dealt with and supported.
Literature review
Resources in doctoral studies
Earlier research on doctoral studies has identified and examined primarily four types of resources and their association with progress in doctoral studies: the student’s own resources, support for doctoral studies and thesis research, financial support (Seagram et al. 1998, Ferrer de Valero 2001), and external influences such as the department faculty characteristics or alternative job opportunities (Ferrer de Valero 2001, Golde 1998, 2005). Similar types of frameworks have been used also in studies concerning undergraduate and graduate degree progress (e.g. Kurri 2006). Girves and Wemmerus (1988) have presented a conceptual framework on study progress covering student characteristics, her experiences with department faculty, department characteristics, and financial support. Their empirical study verifies only part of such factors’
association with degree study progress. In some studies, the mentioned areas have been included in various “fit” concepts, for instance fit between department characteristics and individual’s expectations, or fit or misfit between the instructor and doctoral candidate (e.g. Golde 2005, Sorenson and Kagan 1967). This study centers to the resources at the close range of the doctoral candidate: her own resources in terms of time, and perceived support.
Many recent studies on the progress or delay with doctoral studies emphasize that the doctoral candidate’s own personal characteristics and tendencies have an important role in completing the dissertation (e.g. Green 1997, Seagram et al. 1998, Stack 2004, Gordon 2003). Especially factors related to delays have been examined quite much. Green’s (1997) study emphasized the lack of self-esteem, perfectionism, and procrastination in connection with delays. Also Lenz (1997) focused on
perfectionism as the central individual level factor slowing down progress, although her case study revealed that perfectionism had positive effects on those who had already completed their thesis and negative effects on those whose progress has been delayed. Also sex has been noticed to have an impact on progress through the fact that women’s progress is often delayed due to having and bringing up children, and having different expectations towards post-graduate studies (Seagram et al. 1998, Stack 2004, Lenz 1997). Many individual basic resources should be evaluated already when
applying for doctoral studies (Gordon 2003) because they cannot necessarily be influenced later, at all.
Research on the doctoral candidates’ support emphasizes supervisory relationship as an important factor to the study progress. Research, for instance, concludes that the relationship between the student and her instructor is in a central role in thesis and study progress (Bargar and Mayo-Chamberlain 1983, Seagram et al.
1998). This relationship can be examined both from the viewpoint of the instructor and the student in a variety of ways. Also interaction between the student and her tutor has been considered important, as well as the students’ connection with and socialization to the academic and professional community (Bargar and Mayo-
Chamberlain 1983, Golde 1998, 2005, Austin 2002, Ferrer de Valero 2001, Weidman and Stein 2003). Furthermore, different forms of emotional and social support have been explored and identified as important (Lenz 1997, Kluever 1997). Expectations for support may be particularly high for doctoral students who have completed their graduate studies a long time ago (Lenz 1997). Kluever (1997) has examined different forms of help and hindrance related to doctoral students’ working environment, their own behaviors, and the role of instructors, funding and personal contacts in
supporting doctoral studies. His research emphasized the role of emotional support from family, and the nature of research as lonely work. As Kluever’s study did not use dependent variables on degree success and progress, it is difficult to conclude how such support factors are related to progress. He, rather, identified differences in help and hindrance factors between those who had completed their thesis and those that had not.
Progress in doctoral studies
Progress in doctoral studies has in previously mentioned research been treated in many different ways. The variables concerning resources and support may have been compared across different groups – those with completed thesis vs. those still in progress – or within a group. Performance and progress have been estimated e.g. in terms of time spent for a degree (Seagram et al. 1998, Ferrer de Valero 2001), article production (Stack 2004), failure to complete a dissertation, termination of studies, share of terminations (Golde 1998, 2005, Green 1997), or number of credits,
completion of a dissertation proposal, and completed degrees (Girves ja Wemmerus 1988).
Conclusions from earlier research
Research on the personal characteristics of doctoral students has brought important information on factors through which the delayed studies of procrastinators could be supported and advanced. Emphasis has been on end results – degrees, credits, and article production – more than on perceived progress during studies. Earlier research has not, yet, covered the ways in which factors in doctoral students’ own control such as time consumption and other support forms than personal instruction could be connected to the experiences that the student herself has on her progress.
Secondly, a majority of earlier research has been conducted either among those who have already completed their doctoral degree (Seagram et al. 1998) or by comparing graduated and delayed doctoral students (Green 1997, Kluever 1997, Ferrer de Valero 2001). Even if the comparative setting can be beneficial in revealing improvement opportunities in support systems and teaching, they implicitly assume ideal conditions for studies. In reality, however, the life conditions for graduated doctors differ from those of delayed doctoral students, which is reflected in the study premises and responses for the groups. Therefore, some research should be oriented to delayed doctoral studies in their specific settings.
Thirdly, earlier research has centered to full-time, programmed doctoral studies and has hardly examined part-time doctoral studies at all. Full-time and part- time doctoral studies differ, at least in terms of the pace of progress (Ferrer de Valero 2001). Full-time studies usually assume and expect that all doctoral candidates finish their degree in a four year time period. Earlier research does not really cover the realities in part-time doctoral studies. As an exception, Carey and Dorn’s case study (1998) looked into a group of part-time doctoral students completing their studies by the side of full-time teaching jobs. Doctoral studies were supported with many practical ways such as teleconferencing, e-mail tutoring, and weekend courses.
Although students had some difficulties with using the technologies, Carey and Dorn reported that peer support helped to overcome such obstacles. Furthermore, Girves and Wemmerus (1988) noticed that full-time employment as part of a research community was directly associated with degree progress. They justified the finding
through socialization into the community which influenced progress through a significant involvement variable.
Fourthly, earlier research has concentrated on ideal, absolute output variables:
credits, degree completion, and article production. Such measures fit well to a
program-like study approach with consistent goals and a similar time frame. However, the progress of part-time doctoral studies cannot be estimated with similar measures only. Instead, such measures should be developed that are relative to the students’
own goals, expectations and capabilities. In particular, the delayed doctoral student’s own satisfaction with her progress could be considered as a measure that allows a less-than-ideal study conditions and still portrays favorable intermediary results relative to the students’ own input.
Research problem
The purpose of this study is to find out what factors explain doctoral candidates’
perceived progress in delayed part-time doctoral studies. Based on the literature
review, three topic areas were covered as possible explaining factors:
a) person’s background, e.g. sex, number of children, and time from starting doctoral studies;
b) person’s resources, particularly time consumption and relation between doctoral studies and actual full-time job;
c) person’s perceived support, e.g. from instructors and peer groups.
The study concentrates on doctoral students who can be considered delayed in that their studies have lasted over four years and their thesis is not yet complete. The delay is understandable and even normal in the context of part-time studies. The target university department in question allows part-time studies, and most doctoral students work permanently outside the research community either in industry or the public sector. Flexible studies have been enabled through personal doctoral study packages, individualized assignments, and evening classes.
Research methods
Research setting and material
The research was conducted in the form of a survey questionnaire targeted at the doctoral students of one department in Helsinki University of Technology. The doctoral students in the sample have started their doctoral studies in the year 2001 or before and have not completed their dissertation by December 2005. 460 such candidates were identified in the student register. Of these, 183 (40%) were enrolled as present and 277 (60%) had not enrolled as present for the study year 2005-2006.
From the entire sample 77 questionnaires (16,7%) were returned to sender with the remark “address unknown” or “address changed”. A similar loss has been identified also in an earlier study (Seagram et al. 1998).
Altogether 98 doctoral students returned the completed questionnaire (21% of the sample, 26% of those that reached the respondent). The number of responses can be considered extremely good for a mailed questionnaire although the respondent group may be biased as compared to the entire population of delayed doctoral students. Table 1 introduces some background information on the respondents. The profile of the group as male-dominated, middle-aging, with over 10 years from the graduate degree and below 10 years from starting doctoral studies is likely to
represent the more active and young part of the population. Yet, the respondents also represent the targeted group of delayed and distanced students well: over 70% of the respondents have completed their graduate degree over 10 years ago. It is likely that non-respondents and those not reached by mail represent the passive and absent side of the population, many of whom have even chosen to terminate doctoral studies voluntarily and without note to the university register.
Table 1. Background information on the respondents, and scales used in the analyses of control variables.
Sex % Age group %
Number of
children %
0=Male 60.2 1=20-30 years 4.1 0 39.8
1=Female 38.8 2=31-40 years 41.8 1 18.4
n.a. 1.0 3=41-50 years 29.6 2 28.6
4=51-60 years 17.3 3 7.1
5=over 60 years 6.1 4 2.0
n.a. 1.0 n.a. 4.1
Time since
graduation %
Time since starting doctoral
studies %
1=below 5 years 5.1 1= below 5 years 36.7 2= 5-10 years 24.5 2= 5-10 years 37.8 3= 11-20 years 33.7 3= 11-20 years 18.4 4= 21-30 years 20.4 4= 21-30 years 3.1 5= over 30 years 15.3 5= over 30 years 2.0
n.a. 1.0 n.a. 2.0
Variables and data analysis
The survey was developed for the practical need to find ways to support the part-time students whose doctoral studies have clearly been delayed. We developed the
questions in collaboration between the department personnel and found support to many of the variables in earlier research on doctoral studies. Each variable was measured with 3 – 5 items. Dependent and independent variables were mostly
measured on a Likert scale of 1 (totally disagree) through 5 (totally agree). The scales for control variables are presented in Table 1, and scales for resource variables are ordinal as presented in Table 3. All the items included in the aggregate variables are presented in Appendix 1.
The dependent variable is Research progress that means the doctoral candidate’s own perception of how her research has proceeded. The variable was covered through four items, e.g. “My research has proceeded according to my plans”, and “I am satisfied with the results of my research so far”.
Independent variables can be divided into two groups: variables concerning personal resources and those concerning perceived support. Resource variables are single questions used to examine the student’s real chances to spend time on doctoral studies and doing research. Such variables were: Time spent in main employment, Time spent in doctoral studies, Time spent in doctoral research, and Employment time spent in study and research. The scales were categorical and ordinal (1..3 or 1..4) and they were based on how many hours the student spent on each topic weekly (Table 3).
Variables concerning perceived support asked about the availability of four different forms of support. Instructors’ support covers support received from
supervisor, instructor and manager in the employing firm, and it includes four items.
Peer support deals with the support received from other doctoral students and the academic community, and it includes four items. Employment support covers the benefits from the students’ permanent employment to studies and research, and it includes four items. Skill support includes the researcher’s own effort to advance her studies, solve problems, and adopt necessary information, and it includes five items.
These variables resemble closely the conceptualization and question setting presented e.g. in help-hindrance scale (e.g. Kluever 1997) and some other earlier studies (mm.
Seagram et al. 1998, Ferrer de Valero 2001, Girves and Wemmerus 1988, Weidman and Stein 2003).
Of background factors mentioned in chapter “Research setting and material”, the personal characteristics of sex, age group, number of children, time since graduate degree and time since starting doctoral studies are taken into account as control variables.
The validity of the variable structure was tested with exploratory factor
analysis (Principal Components Analysis with Varimax rotation), and the reliability of variables was evaluated through internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha). The initial factor structure worked well, it explained almost 70% variance, and this gave support to using the intended aggregate variables. Some overlap was identified between Research progress and Skill support variables, which encourages us to develop the variables further in future studies. For this study, we used the factor structure in Appendix 1 to generate aggregate variables whose scores were calculated as averages of the items included. The Cronbach Alpha coefficients for the variables ranged from
0.82 (Research progress) to 0.92 (Employment support), which shows a very high internal consistency for the variables.
The data is analyzed through descriptive statistics and frequencies, and step- wise linear regression. The data fit well to linear analysis: the initial scatterplots showed evident linear associations between the independent and dependent variables, and there were no indications of problems with multi-collinearity.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Table 2 presents descriptive statistics on the data, and Table 3 includes frequencies for the resource variables of time consumption. Table 3 shows that the respondents have reserved little time for doctoral studies and research. Over 86% of the respondents spend less than one work day (0-8 hours) for studies in a week, and over 76% spend less than one work day for research. Over 60% of respondents have jobs that require more than 40 hours of weekly time. Only 15% can spend over a day’s worth of their employment time for studies and research.
Table 2. Means, standard deviations ja Pearson correlations. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, ***p<0.001.
N Mean s.d. Sex Age group Number of children Time since graduation Time since starting doc studies Time spent in employment Time spent in studies Time spent in research Employment time spent in S&R Instructors' support Peer support Employment support Skill support Research progress
Sex 97 0.39 0.49
Age group 97 2.79 0.99 -0,24*
Number of children 94 1.10 1.10 0.05 -0.20
Time since graduation 97 3.16 1.12 -0.08 0,75** -0.07
Time since starting doc studies 96 1.94 0.94 -0.06 0,32** 0.04 0,30**
Time spent in employment 95 2.64 0.85 0.04 -0.04 0.12 0.06 0.13
Time spent in studies 94 1.12 0.38 -0.03 -0.07 -0.16 -0.16 -0.09 -0.13
Time spent in research 95 1.27 0.59 0.13 -0.13 -0,24* -0.12 -0,31** -0,33** 0.19
Employment time spent in S&R 94 0.82 0.88 -0.06 -0.03 -0.16 -0.17 -0.19 -0,29** 0.10 0,30**
Instructors' support 93 2.58 1.40 -0.19 -0.13 -0.04 -0.13 -0,36** 0.01 -0.11 0.19 0.18
Peer support 94 2.63 1.16 -0.06 -0.17 -0.04 -0,24* -0,39** -0.12 0.06 0,36** 0,33** 0,46**
Employment support 94 3.02 1.40 -0.06 -0.03 -0.10 0.00 -0,38** 0.07 0.15 0.07 0,28** 0,35** 0,51**
Skill support 83 2.66 1.12 -0.07 0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0,24* -0,27* 0.01 0,37** 0,29** 0,46** 0,45** 0.20
Research progress 83 2.07 1.20 -0.01 -0,22* -0.14 -0,23* -0,30** -0,25* 0.02 0,48** 0,38** 0,44** 0,55** 0,43** 0,74**
Table 3. Frequencies of resource variables in time consumption (n=98).
Weekly time spent in
employment %
Weekly time spent in
studies %
1= 0-19 hours 11.2 1= 0-8 hours 86.7
2= 20-39 h 24.5 2= 9-19 h 7.1
3= 40-59 h 49.0 3= over 20 h 2.0
4= over 60 h 12.2 n.a. 4.1
n.a. 3.1
Weekly time spent in
research %
Employment time spent in Studies and
Research %
1= 0-8 hours 76.5 0= none 39.8
2= 9-19 h 15.3 1= below 8 h 40.8
3= over 20 h 5.1 2= 9-19 h 8.2
n.a. 3.1 3= over 20 h 7.1
n.a. 4.1
The respondents feel that they receive low to moderate degrees of support in their study and research (Table 2). Employment support is rated slightly higher than instructors’, peer groups’ or skill support. The respondents also report fairly low degrees of satisfaction towards their research progress.
Control variables do not much correlate with other variables (Table 2). As an exception, Time since starting doctoral studies correlates significantly and negatively with all support variables and research progress. This indicates that the distance between the student and the academic community increases in many ways as time passes: the longer it is from starting doctoral studies, the harder it is for the doctoral student to join the community and the weaker perceptions of progress. Resource (time consumption) variables have some significant correlations with support and progress variables. For example time spent in research correlates significantly and positively with peer support, skill support and research progress. Investments in research time manifests itself in this manner as the researcher’s own work.
Factors explaining perceived research progress
The associations between different control, resource, support and progress variables were examined with a three-step linear regression analysis (Table 4). Research
progress was used as the dependent variable. The first model included only the control variables. The model is almost significant but its explanatory power is low. Only Time since starting doctoral studies can be identified as a significant factor contributing to Research progress: the longer it is since starting the studies, the weaker is the perceived progress.
The second model added the students’ own resources in terms of time consumption. The model is very significant and already explains 28% of variance in Research progress. Time spent in research appears as a significant factor contributing to Research progress. The more time is spent in research, the better is the perceived research progress. In this second model, Time since starting doctoral studies is no longer associated with research progress at a significant level, i.e. the students’
investments in research time pay off and reduce the impact of passing time on perceived progress.
For the third model, variables concerning perceived support were added. The explanatory power of the model is very significant and extremely high (73%).
Employment support and Skill support appear as new explaining factors and their beta-scores are very high. Time spent in research is significant but somewhat lower than in Model 2. In the third model, Time since starting doctoral studies is in positive and almost significant association with Research progress. In other words, the impact of time becomes positive and beneficial when support is available. Instructors’
support and Peer support are not associated with Research progress at a statistically significant level despite their high intercorrelations (Table 2) which suggests that the relationship between the variables is more complex.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Beta t Sig. Beta t Sig. Beta t Sig.
Sex -0.04 -0.33 -0.11 -1.07 -0.01 -0.15
Age group -0.05 -0.30 -0.09 -0.52 -0.14 -1.31
Number of children -0.12 -1.03 -0.02 -0.17 -0.06 -0.89
Time since graduation -0.15 -0.89 -0.10 -0.62 -0.09 -0.88
Time since starting doc studies-0.25 -2.15 * -0.12 -1.07 0.16 2.20 *
Time spent in employment -0.04 -0.37 -0.04 -0.51
Time spent in studies -0.13 -1.29 -0.12 -1.79
Time spent in research 0.41 3.52 ** 0.28 3.60 **
Employment time spent in S&R 0.20 1.86 0.05 0.77
Instructors' support 0.10 1.30
Peer support 0.07 0.92
Employment support 0.34 4.48 ***
Skill support 0.49 5.93 ***
R2 0.15 0.37 0.77
Adjusted R2 0.09 0.28 0.73
F 2.45 * 4.39 *** 16.71 ***
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001
Discussion
This research was based on the increased attractiveness of doctoral studies for those working full-time in industry, and the increased number of delayed and part-time doctoral students. As the literature review revealed, delayed studies had received some attention in earlier research, but part-time studies had not. The title question concerning the opportunities and myths partly refers to the high potential seen in experts working in industry and partly shows a concern for the high support needs and poor progress with such students. Is a part-time student always a delayed,
unproductive and dissatisfied student that just consumes university resources but does not make progress? The intent was to find out factors that would explain delayed doctoral students’ perceptions of their progress.
Personal characteristics and progress
The results of this study suggest that such personal characteristics as sex, number of children and time since graduation are not associated with perceived research progress. Earlier studies suggested that women would have lower research progress due to their life conditions and different expectations (Seagram et al. 1998, Stack 2004, Lenz 1997). The dependent variable in this study took a relative viewpoint, i.e.
it took into account perceived progress in comparison to the person’s own
expectations. The results show that both men and women, with and without families,
degree progress despite delays from an idealistic timetable.
In contrast, our research shows that Time since starting doctoral studies weakens perceptions of degree progress. This negative association is removed if the doctoral student invests her own time and energy into research. Furthermore, a long work experience turns into benefit if the doctoral student perceives sufficient support from her employment and her own skills. The results support earlier research that emphasizes the need for support especially by those who have a long time from their prior studies (Lenz 1997). Our results suggest that also slower-progressing doctoral studies by the side of employment can be considered as satisfactory and that the student herself can promote the emergence of favorable conditions for studying and research.
Resources and progress
Part-time doctoral students have little resources for doctoral work in the form of time consumption. The survey results reveal that full-time employment requires time and energy and leaves little space for studies and research, compared to full-time doctoral programs. The reality of spending only a few weekly hours in study and research illustrates the myth of part-time studies and declares the four-year goal as an illusion.
Part-time doctoral students need time and performance goals that are relative to their resource investment. The results, however, raise several questions: should the studies be allowed to stretch over 10-20 years’ time, can the lengthened path of part-time studies enable the kind of knowledge creation expected from dissertation work, and will the study provide such scientific capabilities usually expected from graduated doctors.
The results show that time spent in employment, time spent in studies and employment time spent in studies or research are not associated with research progress, but time spent in actual research work is. Where resources are concerned, the results strongly emphasize that the part-time doctoral student has to take her research into her own list of priorities, reserve hours of time for it, and engage in practical work that advances the thesis directly. As self-evident as this finding may sound, it does not seem to be self-evident to doctoral candidates working full-time for demanding employers and having possibly other interests during their spare-time.
Part-time doctoral students tend to assume that participating in a lecture or seminar
not the case.
Support and progress
Doctoral students in this study felt they received low to moderate degrees of support and had made fairly poor progress in their doctoral studies. Contrary to earlier studies carried out with full-time doctoral studies (Bargar and Mayo-Chamberlain 1983, Golde 1998, 2005, Austin 2002, Ferrer de Valero 2001, Weidman and Stein 2003), the results do not directly associate support from instructors or peers with research progress. In turn, the mutual support between employment and doctoral studies and support through the student’s own skills were in positive relation with research progress. Interestingly also, this support mediated the relationship between time since starting doctoral studies and research progress, and time spent on research and
research progress.
These findings bear two important messages regarding the special nature of part-time doctoral studies that may have delayed beyond the idealistic four-year goal.
Firstly, it appears that the student’s own effort – spending time in research, seeking employment that supports studies, and investing in her own skills development - is central in allowing her access to the support by instructors and peers and, thereby, gain benefits from the community’s support. Whilst earlier studies have centered to different forms of external support, our findings suggest looking more closely at the personal conditions and capabilities of the doctoral student as sources of support. As no direct link was found between external sources of support and research progress, it is possible that this relationship is more complex than suggested in prior studies.
Secondly, the survey results reveal an apparent opportunity for forthcoming part-time doctoral students by encouraging them towards uninterrupted resource prioritization and investment for doctoral work. The student’s own activeness, and skill and
employment support can help in gaining access to external forms of support, which in turn may provide feedback and repeated positive progress experiences that will the student in her long study path.
Conclusions
Theoretical contribution
This study has examined factors explaining doctoral candidates’ perceived progress in delayed part-time doctoral studies. The main theoretical contribution is expansion of research on doctoral studies towards delayed studies and part-time doctoral students.
This study suggests that delayed and part-time studies should not be compared to ideal conditions of full-time studies only but, rather, their unique, flawed and problematic conditions should be acknowledged and covered in appropriate research constructs.
Also the goals and performance measures of delayed and part-time doctoral studies should reflect the less-than-ideal ambitions and research conditions of the students.
The second contribution is the emphasis on part-time doctoral students’
resource investment and effort to generate favorable conditions for study progress both through supportive employment and one’s own skill base. The findings
contradicted earlier studies that have tended to emphasize instructors’ and faculty’s support and, rather, assigned responsibility for progress to the student herself. Whilst earlier studies have addressed causes of delays, personal features and various forms of fit, this study suggests putting more effort in understanding the practical resources and conditions that the student invests in her progress.
As the third contribution, the study revealed the interesting role of time elapsed since starting doctoral studies and its relationship with research progress in different conditions of resource investment and support. As the respondents were part- time doctoral students, the time variable indicated both the access to the research community and the students’ work experience outside the university. This study showed that this experience is by no means a hindrance to perceiving doctoral research as beneficial, but, quite the contrary, if resources and right forms of support are in place. Despite such a finding, universities will need to set their priorities concerning research results vs. degree results. With productive, publication-oriented research as the priority, universities need to consider possible limitations to delays, and how they share their resources between research-oriented full-time doctoral students and industry-oriented part-time doctoral students. Therefore, future research should perhaps include also alternative measures of time resource: e.g. time left for productive research before retirement.
Practical implications
A starting point for this study was the need to solve challenges and suggest
improvements in how delayed part-time doctoral students are supported on their way towards scientifically ambitious but time-wise perhaps less than optimal long-term goals. As a practical implication, the results suggest conscious choices. The studied department as well as universities in general could on the one hand take a negative stance towards part-time studies and concentrate their limited resources on serving the needs of full-time doctoral students pursuing a career in professional research. This option would mean limiting candidate intake to those that have a job in a research community and developing a full-scale four year program to support both the studies and the research work of the candidates. On the other hand, universities could take a stronger position in serving both research communities and industries and developing two alternative study paths (full-time and part-time), each with their own educational solutions, support and resourcing.
The results in this study suggest that the part-time study path should be differentiated from the full-time study path. The part-time study path should contain in-built and even compulsory mechanisms of personal skills development and easy access to the academic community regularly. Especially during the first years of study, resources should be invested on building a sufficient knowledge and skill base for the students to strengthen her resources. This could mean, for instance, allowing the student to focus on studies only and not, yet, feeling pressure about the
dissertation research. With such scientific basic skills and knowledge, the student would gain sufficient readiness to reach a personal intent and ambition for research.
The student should learn and adopt a routine by which the faculty and peer support is easily available, once she starts making progress in her own research. Also, shorter- term intermediary goals should be set so that the student can achieve preliminary results and positive feedback already much before the long-term dissertation goal.
Furthermore, the two-path model requires that the system is flexible to the potential uncertainties caused by the employing firm and families. For example, the possibility for formally interrupting or terminating doctoral studies should be acknowledged, and studies prior to termination should be acknowledged.
Future research ideas
Based on this study, future research is suggested to support the development of modern university systems both for those who seek a university career through full- time doctoral studies and those who seek strong expert competence through part-time doctoral studies. The simple resource and support-centered framework in this study suggests a more general question on the success factors of part-time studies. What factors included in or missing from this study together contribute to successful part- time study? What are such factors that should be paid attention to in developing university curricula for part-time doctoral study? Both students’ and faculty’s viewpoints would open fruitful research avenues. In particular, we are interested in how the student’s individual intent and ambition for research is generated and how can this be supported in part-time doctoral study.
Variables used in this study were developed for a practical purpose, and their definitions and item contents will require further development, testing, and data collection in different contexts. As our results questioned many aspects emphasized in full-time doctoral studies, the complex relationships between different support and resource variables would deserve further attention in future research.
References
Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: graduate school as socialization to the academic career. Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 73 (1), 94 – 122.
Bargar, R. R. and Mayo-Chamberlain, J. (1983). Advisor and advisee issues in doctoral education. Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 54 (4), 407 – 432.
Carey, K. T. and Dorn, S. M. (1998). Overcoming obstacles through use: a case study.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning. Vol. 76 (Winter), 67 – 78.
Ferrer de Valero, Y. (2001). Departmental factors affecting time-to-degree and completion rates of doctoral students at one land-grant research institution.
Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 72 (3), 341 – 367.
Girves, J. E. and Wemmerus, V. (1988). Developing models of graduate student degree progress. Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 59 (2), 163-189.
attrition. New Directions for Higher Education. (101, Spring), 55 – 64.
Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition: lessons from four departments. Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 76 (6), 669-700.
Gordon, P. J. (2003). Advising to avoid or to cope with dissertation hang-ups.
Academy of Management Learning and Education. Vol. 2 (2), 181-187.
Green, K. E. (1997). Psychosocial factors affecting dissertation completion. New Directions for Higher Education. (99, Fall), 57 – 64.
Kluever, R. C. (1997). Students’ attitudes toward the responsibilities and barriers in doctoral study. New Directions for Higher Education. (99, Fall), 47 – 56.
Kurri, E. (2006). Opintojen pitkittymisen dilemma. Tutkimus opintojen sujumattomuustekijöistä yliopistoissa ja niihin vaikuttamisen keinoista.
Opiskelijajärjestöjen tutkimussäätiö Otus rs 27/2006, Helsinki.
Lenz, K. S. (1997). Nontraditional-aged women and the dissertation: a case study approach. New Directions for Higher Education. (99, Fall), 65 – 74.
Seagram, B. C., Gould, J. and Pyke, S. W. (1998). An investigation of gender and other variables on time to completion of doctoral degrees. Research in Higher Education. Vol. 39 (3), 319 – 335.
Sorenson, G. and Kagan, D. (1967). Conflicts between doctoral candidates and their sponsors: a contrast in expectations. Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 38 (1), 17 – 24.
Stack, S. (2004). Gender, children and research productivity. Research in Higher Education. Vol. 45 (8), 891 – 920.
Weidman, J. C. ja Stein, E. L. (2003). Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms. Research in HIgher Education. Vol. 44 (6), 641 – 656.
Appendix 1. Variables, items included in them, factor structure and reliability coefficients.
Cronbach's Alpha
Factor loading
Instructors' support 0.85
I receive enough support from my manager 0.70
I receive enough support from my supervisor 0.89
I receive enough support from my instructor 0.74
Upon request, I have received support for study planning 0.74
Peer support 0.86
I know other doctoral students well 0.90
I am actively involved with other doctoral students 0.86
I know persons of influence in the research community of my field 0.56 I am actively involved in the research community of my field 0.65
Employment support 0.92
Studies bring clear benefits to my current job 0.83
Doing research brings clear benefits to my current job 0.91
My current job helps advance my studies 0.89
My current job helps advance doing research 0.83
Skill support 0.83
I have spent enough time in doing research 0.59
I have been able to solve the problems emerged during research 0.78 All the information relevant to my research is available to me 0.66
I have all the methodical knowledge needed for my research 0.86
I have received the content guidance that I need in my research 0.71
Research progress 0.82
My research has progressed according to my plans 0.88
I am satisfied with the progress of my research 0.92
I am satisfied with the results of my research so far 0.89
My supervisor has been satisfied with the content of my research 0.56