Dimensions of Doctoral Education: A Review of the Literature

Le Shorn S. Benjamin
Central Michigan University

Abstract

Positioning doctoral education within historical, academic, and economic contexts, this article showcases the development of the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree and sheds light on challenges affecting doctoral students and Ph.D. programs currently. To this end, this thematic review of the literature explores issues pertaining to doctoral student socialization, attrition, and time-to-degree; the role of academic, social, and financial support in doctoral student success; and the inequitable experiences of underrepresented doctoral students. By examining these pervasive challenges, the article presents numerous opportunities for the student affairs and academic professionals who support the educational pursuits of doctoral students. The article closes with emergent trends in the field, particularly highlighting the need for broadened preparation of doctoral students. These contemporary approaches call for increased transferrable skill development in addition to customary research training. Not only does this approach differ from traditional pedagogical practices, it also illuminates the type of transformation needed in preparing doctoral students for the jobs that await them.

Keywords: dissertation, doctoral students, Ph.D. education, student support

As the epitome of educational achievement, the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree has sustained an incomparable level of academic prestige since its origin (Jairam & Kahl, 2012). Indeed, many other graduate programs require students to investigate a research problem; however, Ph.D. programs further this requirement, mandating that students make a novel knowledge contribution, either by augmenting existing knowledge or pursuing a novel sphere of inquiry (Clarke & Lunt, 2014). Given the complexities of this academic mandate, institutional systems of student support at the Ph.D. level often appear lacking and render many doctoral students defenseless to the myriad threats against their success (Bair, Haworth, & Sandfort, 2004; Pruitt-Logan & Isaac, 1995). Such a reality is particularly harmful to students whose access to support may appear infinitesimal in comparison to the herculean academic challenges they face (Gardner, 2009a; Sanford, 1962).

As a critical commentary, “Dimensions of Doctoral Education” presents a thematic review of literature on Ph.D. programs and aims to highlight some of the most pressing challenges doctoral students face. As such, the article sheds light on issues pertaining to doctoral student socialization, attrition, and time-to-degree; the role of academic, social, and financial support in doctoral student success; and the inequitable experiences of underrepresented doctoral students. Finally, the review closes with insights on emergent trends and provides recommendations for addressing the highlighted concerns. Although this overview does not, nor does it attempt to, provide granular insights into specific academic disciplines, it does, succeed in offering valuable findings applicable to student affairs practitioners, faculty, and other institutional personnel who support doctoral students.

Understanding Doctoral Education and the State of the Field

The doctoral degree has transformed significantly since its 19th century introduction to the United States of America (Golde & Walker, 2006). Surprisingly, even though newer versions of the degree – “taught professional doctorates, doctorates by published works, doctorates by portfolio and practice doctorates” (McKenna, 2005, p. 246) – have gained notoriety, the number of traditional Ph.D. degrees awarded each year continues to grow (Lederman, 2014). While degree conferment has expanded exponentially, research on doctoral education has only witnessed a modicum of comparable growth.

Limited national statistics (Lovitts & Nelson, 2000) and outdated references tell a tale of research scarcity, practical obsolescence (Boud & Lee, 2009), and a dire need to rethink the practice of doctoral education (Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, & Hutchings, 2012). Similarly, institutional approaches to doctoral student support currently in use appear neglected, unchanging, and in need of reform (Bair et al., 2004; Gardner, 2009a; Pruitt-Logan & Isaac, 1995). Recognizing that institutional stakeholders have erroneously assessed the needs of graduate-level learners, Pruitt-Logan and Isaac (1995) have argued that higher education institutions continuously view post-baccalaureate students as having “developed to the point where they can handle the new responsibilities of graduate study on their own” (p. 1). Such an unfounded perspective has made countless graduate students feel isolated, unsupported, and – specifically at the doctoral level – resulted in the departure of many students (Gardner, 2009b; Lovitts & Nelson, 2000; Patterson, 2016).

Challenges of Doctoral Education

Compared to other graduate programs, doctoral education presents increased academic challenge for students and bestows unique expectations and responsibilities upon institutions. While Lovitts and Nelson (2000) highlighted attrition as the main crisis in Ph.D. programs, the challenges discussed in this review will explore some of the factors which contribute to this student departure.

Student Socialization, Attrition, and Time-to-Degree

Many doctoral students decide to leave their Ph.D. programs because they are unable to adapt to departmental and disciplinary norms (Lovitts & Nelson, 2000). Such premature departure does not appear to be anomaly, as program withdrawal continues to be a reality for as many as half of the students who enroll in a doctoral program (Council of Graduate Schools, 2008). The cost of Ph.D. student departure, otherwise known as attrition, is particularly debilitating because its burden is carried not only by the student, but their faculty, and institution as well (Ampaw & Jaeger, 2011; Gardner, 2009a, 2009b).

To combat such attrition, student socialization often plays a major role in the successful integration of doctoral students into programs, disciplines, and careers (Ampaw & Jaeger, 2011; Ellis, 2001; Gardner, 2008, 2009a). In building on the seminal works of Pascarella and Terenzini (1977), and Gardner (2008), Bagaka’s, Badillo, Bransteter and Rispinto (2015) highlighted the value of socializing experiences in enhancing doctoral students’ persistence and success. Bagaka’s et al. showed that students who successfully acclimated to their academic department did so by developing strong student-faculty relationships and by internalizing the values and practices of their discipline.

With only 41% of students earning their doctoral degree within a seven-year period (Council of Graduate Schools, 2008), it is safe to assume that the persistence and completion of Ph.D. students require further investigation. Interestingly, Pacheco, Noel, Porter, and Appleyard (2015, p. 6) argued that, “students with strong scores and impressive grades” still ended up parting ways from their Ph.D. programs, suggesting that in-program experiences may be more influential to student success than the abilities students bring with them upon entry (Patterson, 2016).

Even for students who successfully complete the doctorate, they too, often grapple with the program duration measure known as the time-to-degree. Lengthy completion times pose a challenge to students and institutions alike, leading researchers to investigate the impact of student demographics (Ellis, 2001), cohort sizes (Groen, Jakubson, Ehrenberg, Condie, & Liu, 2008), student-faculty relationships (Lovitts & Nelson, 2000), and sources of financial aid (Ampaw & Jaeger, 2011; Ehrenberg & Mavros, 1995; Gardner, 2009b) on time-to-degree. Unfortunately, with so many concurrent factors possibly influencing a student’s time-todegree (Ferrer de Valero, 2001), exploring completion time may rightfully constitute a literature review of its own.

Academic, Social, and Financial Support

A variety of challenges jeopardize degree completion and can result in students reaching as far as the All-But-Dissertation (ABD) stage, but never seeing their dissertation through successful defense. When a student progresses this far and is unable to complete, it highlights the difficulties caused when the academic challenge a student faces is in disequilibrium with institutional support available (Sanford, 1962). In such cases, students are impeded from completing their degree requirements and are ultimately hampered from realizing their full potential.

Dissertation writing has been reported to be both an academic and emotional challenge with which doctoral students often grapple (Klocko, Marshall, & Davidson, 2015; Maher, Feldon, Timmerman, & Chao 2013). Specifically, Maher et al. (2013) highlighted that although doctoral students represent an elite class of thinkers, those who are unfamiliar with conventions of scholarly writing will undoubtedly require additional support to master the technique (Klocko et al., 2015). In addition to the academic challenge associated with the dissertation writing process, authors have also noted the isolation inherent at this stage of Ph.D. completion. This isolation often occurs because students do not have the same collegial support afforded by peers during the coursework phase (Ali & Kohun, 2006; West, Gokalp, Peña, Fischer, & Gupton, 2011). Continued support by a student’s social and peer networks has been shown to serve as a buffer between the student’s abilities and accumulating stress caused by program requirements. As a result, strategies such as the formulation of doctoral writing groups offer a valuable approach to supporting doctoral students through dissertation completion (Aitchison, 2009; Jairam & Kahl, 2012).

Apart from the academic and social support required for students to persist in doctoral programs, financial support often becomes necessary, as many students require financial assistance to cover the cost of degree attainment (National Science Foundation & National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2018; Weissman, 2014). Whereas the availability of funding may affect a student’s decision to enter a program, the type of assistance received can also impact the student’s persistence and completion (Ampaw & Jaegar, 2011; Ehrenberg & Mavros, 1995). For example, Ampaw and Jaeger noted “that although financial aid as a whole is important, the type of financial aid received is even more significant” (p. 640). These authors were able to make such an assertion because of the non-pecuniary benefits and varying completion rates associated with different the categories of financial assistance in their study. Notably, Ampaw and Jaeger concluded that students who held research assistantships (compared to other forms of financial support) were exposed to additional opportunities for social bonding and mentorship, which produced the greatest likelihood for completion.

Inequitable Experiences of Underrepresented Doctoral

Students, Social, and Financial Support

While it is possible for impediments to affect the degree attainment of any student, inprogram challenges disproportionately hamper underrepresented groups (Ampaw & Jaegar, 2011; Ellis, 2001; Graham, 2013; National Science Foundation & National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2018). Comprising smaller group numbers in doctoral programs than in their respective U.S. national population groups, students of color (specifically, Hispanic/Latino/a/x and Black), and first-generation students represent only two of many underrepresented groups in doctoral programs (Kniffin, 2007). “Lack of clarity around the process to degree and campus cultures… negatively impact” learners who are not traditionally represented within doctoral programs (Graham, 2013, p. 78). Gardner (2013) highlighted several difficulties to which first-generation doctoral students are generally predisposed, and since underrepresented minority students are often subsumed into this category, it justifiably allows readers to extend these findings to characteristically similar, minoritized groups as well. Further, Gardner acknowledged the nexus formed when a Ph.D. student who has limited knowledge of program expectations also fails to reflect the demographic norm within Ph.D. programs. In examining this relationship, Gardner alluded to the negative effects students of underrepresented socio-economic demographics experience due to their otherness and restricted access to the cognitive maps that facilitate programmatic success.

It is important to note that inherent disparities in doctoral education affect majority and nonmajority student groups differently. Gopaul (2014) shed light on these differences by revealing the effects of power differentials and inequality within doctoral education and highlighting how underrepresented doctoral students generally had less knowledge of the rules that govern Ph.D. education. Gopaul noted that students of non-dominant backgrounds often fell victim to further marginalization during their program and had less success with doctoral norms surrounding research publication.

Characterized by their relegated positions within academic systems and institutions, minoritized doctoral students “encounter distinctive challenges” that require deliberate preventative strategies (Graham, 2013, p. 77). In response to these challenges, Graham charged minoritized and underrepresented students to utilize all resources and support services at their disposal to facilitate productive in-program experiences and successful post-graduation career transition. Notably, Graham found that by allocating specific resources to the needs of minority students, elite research institutions fostered inclusive academic environments, ripe with opportunities for publishing, mentorship, professional association membership, and healthcare. In Graham’s study, such support provided minoritized students with a host of amenities to which they often faced restricted access and which, ultimately, contributed to their success.

Emergent Trends and Recommendations for Doctoral Education

Traditionally, many have viewed doctoral education as preparation for the professoriate (Austin, 2002; Golde & Walker, 2006; Maki & Borkowski, 2006); however, the shortage of tenure-track faculty positions, along with recent demands for trained Ph.D.s in various employment sectors, has initiated a transformation in this perception (Boud & Lee, 2009). Additionally, research that illuminates and eliminates the factors leading to doctoral student attrition can assist many students, and the institutional stakeholders who support their quest for achieving the doctoral prefix.

Whereas former approaches to doctoral training focused mainly on honing strong research skills and producing a rigorous research project, contemporary approaches to Ph.D. education have emphasized broad developmental training (Boud & Lee, 2009). Therefore, it is important for student affairs professionals, program directors, and dissertation supervisors to assume responsibility for providing developmental opportunities, outside of those required for conducting empirical research.

“Critics both within academia and in [non-academic] industry argue that new educational approaches are needed to prepare doctoral students for the jobs … that await them” (Aanerud, Homer, Nerad & Cerny, 2006, p. 109). This statement suggests that the types of jobs that currently await students may differ significantly from those of yesteryear. With a highly competitive academic job market for Ph.D. holders, the post-graduation employment options for doctoral degree holders have transformed vastly in past decades (Aanerud et al., 2006; Boud & Lee, 2009; Cassuto, 2016). Although doctoral education has been known to be the “training ground for scholars and researchers,” many doctoral graduates have transitioned into non-academic jobs after successful dissertation defense (Pifer & Baker, 2016, p. 1).

Doctoral program departments are now encouraged to develop and adhere to learning outcomes that produce graduates who are capable of advancing national and international imperatives (Pifer & Baker, 2016). Lee and Boud (2009) have advised institutions to provide students with opportunities to develop competencies that enhance and supplement research skills and which equip their students with the skills for viable job candidacy in a variety of sectors. To do so, learners need exposure to instruction that develops leadership, administrative, and interdisciplinary research capabilities, and that prepares them for both academic and non-academic careers (Aanerud et al., 2006). Additionally, the transforming instructional environment for doctoral programs (Cassuto, 2016) also requires academic leaders to modify program assessments, by updating and expanding instruments and methods used to evaluate student learning (Maki & Borkowski, 2006). If these changes are made, students will be able to better demonstrate and articulate the fullness of their learning and more extensively prepared for the professional and societal roles which await them (Denecke, Kent, & McCarthy, 2017).

Conclusion

In developing “Dimensions of Doctoral Education,” it became abundantly clear that while doctoral education, as a field of inquiry, has existed for over four decades (Jones, 2013; McCulloch, 2018), contemporary research will provide greater insights for improved doctoral student support. By exploring and summarizing sources of literature on the various challenges doctoral students face, this article has provided a foundation for future research and more inclusive and responsive student support of doctoral students. Finally, given the evolving role of doctoral education in society and the economy, this publication constitutes a timely addition to a dated body of literature; a contribution which is needed more than ever, given the inextricable link between doctoral education, knowledge production, and the valuable research required to improve societies and standards of living globally.

Le Shorn S. Benjamin is an Assessment Graduate Research Assistant and Ph.D. candidate of the Educational Leadership program at Central Michigan University. Her research explores the public value and design of Ph.D. programs and marginalized educational experiences of minoritized students.

 

References

Aanerud, R., Homer, L., Nerad, M., & Cerny, J. (2006). Paths and perceptions: Assessing doctoral education using career path analysis. In P. L. Maki & N. A. Borkowski (Eds.), The assessment of doctoral education: Emerging criteria and new models for improving outcomes. (pp. 109-141). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Aitchison, C. (2009). Writing groups for doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(8), 905-916. doi:10.1080/03075070902785580

Ali, A., & Kohun, F. (2006). Dealing with isolation feelings in IS doctoral programs. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 1, 21-33. Retrieved from http://www.ijds.org/Volume1/IJDSv1p021-033Ali13.pdf

Ampaw, F. D., & Jaeger, A. J. (2011). Completing the three stages of doctoral education: An event history analysis. Research in Higher Education, 53(6), 640-660. doi:10.1007/s11162-011-9250-3

Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94-122.

Bagaka’s, J. G., Badillo, N., Bransteter, I., & Rispinto, S. (2015). Exploring student success in a doctoral program: The power of mentorship and research engagement. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 323-342. Retrieved from http://ijds.org/Volume10/IJDSv10p323-342Bagaka1713.pdf

Bair, C. R., Haworth, J. G., & Sandfort, M. (2004). Doctoral student learning and development: A Shared responsibility. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 41(4), 709-727. doi:10.2202/19496605.1395

Boud, D., & Lee, A. (Eds.). (2009). Changing practices of doctoral education. London, UK: Routledge.

Cassuto, L. (2016, January 3). What will doctoral education look like in 2025. The Chronicle of Higher

Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-Will-Doctoral-Education/234666

Clarke, G. & Lunt, I. (2014). The concept of ‘originality’ in the Ph.D.: How is it interpreted by examiners? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7), 803-820.

Council of Graduate Schools (CGS). (2008). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline demographic data from the Ph.D. completion project. Washington, DC: Author.

Denecke, D., Kent, J., & McCarthy, M. T. (2017). Articulating learning outcomes in doctoral education. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.

Ehrenberg, R. & Mavros, P. (1995). Do doctoral students financial support patterns affect their times to degree and completion possibilities? Journal of Human Resources, 30(3), 581-609.

Ellis, E. (2001). The impact of race and gender on graduate school socialization satisfaction with doctoral study and commitment to degree completion. Western Journal of Black Studies, 25(1), 30-46.

Ferrer de Valero, Y. (2001). Departmental factors effecting time-to-degree and completion rates of doctoral students at one land grant research institution. Journal of Higher Education, 72, 341-367.

Gardner, S. K. (2008). Fitting the mold of graduate school: A qualitative study of socialization in doctoral education. Innovative Higher Education, 33(2), 125-138.

Gardner, S. K. (2009a). The development of doctoral students: Phases of challenge and support. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(6), 1-14.

Gardner, S. K. (2009b). Student and faculty attributions of attrition in high and low-completing doctoral programs in the United States. Higher Education, 58(1), 97-112.

Gardner, S. K. (2013). The challenges of first-generation doctoral students. New Directions for Higher Education, 2013(163), 43-54.

Golde, C. M., & Walker, G. E. (2006). Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline, Carnegie essays on the doctorate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gopaul, B. (2014). Inequality and doctoral education: Exploring the “rules” of doctoral study through Bourdieu’s notion of field. Higher Education, 70(1), 73-88. doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9824-z

Graham, E. (2013). The experiences of minority doctoral students at elite research institutions. New Directions for Higher Education, 2013, 77-87. doi:10.1002/he.20067

Groen, J., Jakubson, G., Ehrenberg, R., Condie, S. & Liu, A. (2008). Program design and student outcomes in graduate education. Economics of Education Review, 27(2), 111-124.

Jairam, D., & Kahl Jr, D. H. (2012). Navigating the doctoral experience: The role of social support in successful degree completion. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 311-329.

Jones, M. (2013). Issues in doctoral studies – forty years of journal discussion: Where have we been and where are we going? International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 8, 83-104.

Klocko, B. A., Marshall, S. M., & Davidson, J. F. (2015). Developing practitioner-scholar doctoral candidates as critical writers. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 15(4), 21-31.

Kniffin, K. M. (2007). Accessibility to the Ph.D. and professorate for first-generation college graduates: Review and implications for students, faculty, and campus policies. American Academic, 3, 39-79.

Lederman, D. (2014). Doctorates up, career prospects not. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered. com/news/2014/12/08/number-PhDs-awarded-climbs-recipients-job-prospects-dropping

Lee, A., & Boud, D. (2009). Framing doctoral education as practice. In. D. Boud & A. Lee, (Eds.), Changing practices of doctoral education (pp.10-25). London, UK: Routledge.

Lovitts, B., & Nelson, C. (2000). The hidden crisis in graduate education: Attrition from Ph.D. Programs. Academe, 86(6), 44-50. doi:10.2307/40251951

Maki, P. L., & Borkowski, N. A. (Eds.). (2006). The assessment of doctoral education: Emerging criteria and new models for improving outcomes. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

McCulloch, A. (2018). The disciplinary status of doctoral education. Higher Education Review, 50(2), 86104.

McKenna, H. (2005). Doctoral education: Some treasonable thoughts. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 42, 245-246.

National Science Foundation & National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2018). Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities: 2016 (Special Report NSF 18-304). Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/ statistics/2018/nsf18304/

Pacheco, W. I., Noel, R. J., Porter, J. T., & Appleyard, C. B. (2015). Beyond the GRE: Using a composite score to predict the success of Puerto Rican students in biomedical Ph.D. program. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(2), 1-7. doi:10.1187/cbe.14-11-0216

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1977). Patterns of student-faculty informal interaction beyond the classroom and voluntary freshman attrition. Journal of Higher Education, 48(4), 540-552.

Patterson, T. (2016, July 6). Why do so many graduate students quit? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https:// www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/why-do-so-many-graduate-students-quit/490094/

Pifer, M. J., & Baker, V. L. (2016). Stage-based challenges and strategies for support in doctoral education: A practical guide for students, faculty members, and program administrators. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11, 15-34. Retrieved from http://ijds.org/Volume11/IJDSv11p015-034Pifer2155.pdf

Pruitt-Logan, A. S., & Isaac, P. D. (Eds.). (1995). Student services for the changing graduate student population. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sanford, N. (1962). The developmental status of the entering freshman. In N. Sanford (Ed.), The American college student (pp. 253-282). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Walker, G. E., Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A. C., & Hutchings, P. (2012). The formation of scholars rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Weissman, J. (2014). Ph.D. programs have a dirty Secret: Student debt. Retrieved from https://www. theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/phd-programs-have-a-dirty-secret-student-debt/283126/

West, I. Y., Gokalp, G., Peña, E. V., Fischer, L., & Gupton, J. (2011). Exploring effective support practices for doctoral students’ degree completion. College Student Journal, 45(2), 310-323.