No abstract

Aim/Purpose: The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive picture of doctoral students’ dissertation journeys using Finland as a case country. More specifically, the article examines (1) the students’ backgrounds, (2) their study motives and experiences, and (3) whether or not these elements are related. Background: Despite the massification of higher education (HE), there is a shortage of detailed mixed-methods studies about PhD students’ backgrounds and their experiences of doctoral study. Existing research does not give a clear indication of the extent to which home background is reflected in PhD applications and whether or not that background is related to the subsequent experience of doctoral students. Methodology: This paper is based on both quantitative and qualitative data. We utilize a person-based register (N = 18,585) and a survey (n = 1,651). Our main methods are k-means cluster analysis, t-test, and directed content analysis. Our theoretical approach is Bourdieuian. We use the concept of doctoral capital when evaluating the backgrounds, resources, and success of PhD students through the dissertation process. Contribution: This study uses a mixed-methods approach and is the first to incorporate quantitative data about the entire doctoral student population in Finland. In addition, open-ended responses in the survey make the PhD students’ own experiences visible. By approaching our research subject through a mixed methods lens, we aim to create a comprehensive understanding about their dissertation journeys. With this study, we also contribute to the debate initiated by Falconer and Djokic (2019). They found that age, race, and socioeconomic status (SES) do not influence academic self-efficacy and academic self-handicapping behaviors in doctoral students. However, in this study, a link was found between the PhD students’ backgrounds (age and parents’ SES), and their study aims and experiences. Findings: Cluster analysis revealed three different groups of PhD students: Status Raisers, Educational Inheritors, and Long-term Plodders. PhD students in these groups have different resources, experiences, and chances to survive in the academic community. There are two main findings. First, the influence of the childhood family extends all the way to doctoral education, even in Finland, which is considered to have one of the most equal HE systems in the world. Some PhD students from low-educated families even experienced so-called imposter syndrome. They described experiences of inadequacy, incompetence, and inferiority in relation to doctoral studies and fellow students. Second, the influence of family background may diminish with age and life experiences. In our study, many mature doctoral students had become empowered and emancipated to such an extent that they relied more on their own abilities and skills than on their family backgrounds. Many felt that their own persistence and resilience have played an important role in their doctoral studies. There were also a few ‘heroic tales’ about hard work and survival in spite of all the hurdles and distresses. Recommendations for Practitioners: PhD students are a very heterogeneous group. Their motives and goals for applying for doctoral studies vary, and their backgrounds and life situations affect their studies. There are three critical points educational practitioners should pay special attention to (1) supervision and support (mentoring), (2) length of funding, and (3) granted research periods. Recommendation for Researchers: Because Finland and the other Nordic countries have a long tradition of equal educational opportunities, we need comparative studies on the same topic from countries with higher educational disparities. Impact on Society: Inequalities in educational opportunities and experiences originate at the very beginning of the educational path, and they usually cumulate over the years. For this reason, the achievement of educational equality should be promoted not only through education policy but also through family, regional, and social policy decisions. Future Research: The Bourdieuian concepts of cultural, social, and economic capitals are also relevant in doctoral education. PhD students’ family backgrounds are reflected in their motives, experiences, and interpretations in the academic community. Future research should explore how to best support and reinforce the self-confidence of doctoral students from lower SES backgrounds.

Impostor syndrome (IS) refers to the inner speech of self-doubt and the belief that you are not as competent as others perceive you to be. The university can be considered a work environment prone to IS, especially because of the requirements of present higher education and science policy, which emphasizes continuous evaluation, a competitive spirit, and a focus on performance and excellence. It is therefore understandable that many doctoral students have begun to experience inadequacy and uncertainty during their postgraduate studies. This study focuses on the prevalence of IS among Finnish PhD students (n = 1694). In particular, attention is paid to the background factors in which experiences of uncertainty and attitudes related to IS are linked. Theoretically, we interpret IS as a phenomenon related to the habitus formed through an individual’s life experiences and the inner speech associated with it. Based on the results of the linear regression analysis, the lack of encouragement in childhood and a low level of planning when applying for doctoral studies explain the emergence of IS in a statistically significant manner.

This article describes and analyses the background and goals of students at the Finnish open university in the beginning of the twenty-first century. The material consists of statistics based on the student records of the Finnish open university in 2000 (n59080) and of the stories, educational autobiographies written by the adult learners (n5106) at the open university. As a result of the quantitative analysis a ''typical'' student at the open university is female, age 25-30, unmarried, childless, working in a service occupation with rather low income, a secondary school graduate and living in a town in the south of Finland. On the basis of the autobiographies the students were classified into four types: (1) career orientated, (2) graduate orientated, (3) seekers of change, and (4) studying as a way of living (students). The quantitative and qualitative results have been synthesised and the results concern the purposes and functions of the open university and the meaning of lifelong learning in a risk society.

In the Nordic countries, a gradual restructuring from a Nordic-Keynesian welfare state towards a more international, Schumpeterian competition state model began in the 1980s and the early 1990s. This transformation affected socio-spatial discourses and ways of thinking about the responsibility of universities. Whereas the strategies of the Nordic-Keynesian welfare state regime aimed towards de-centralized socio-spatial formations based on regional political ideas emphasizing national integrity, the Schumpeterian competition state strategies put less stress on territorial and social equalization processes and focused, instead, on competitiveness, specialization, and a more centralized or urbanized state territory. This chapter aims to investigate the evolution of the meaning of socio-spatially responsible university in Finnish higher education policy from the late 1950s to the 2010s. Firstly, we describe how the idea of spatial (regional) responsibility of universities has been conceptualized during the Nordic-Keynesian welfare state era and the following Schumpeterian competition state period. Secondly, within the above-mentioned spatial and temporal framework, we analyse how changes in the socio-economic background of students and admission processes of university applicants have influenced the redefinition of a socio-spatially responsible university.