Misfits Between Doctoral Students and Their Supervisors: (How) Are They Regulated?

Devos, Christelle; Boudrenghien, Gentiane; Linden, Nicolas Van der; Frenay, Mariane; Azzi, Assaad Elia; Galand, Benoît; Klein, Olivier

doi:10.28945/3621

Cited by 19 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Choosing an advisor is arguably the most critical component to a doctoral student's degree progress and completion (Bair & Haworth, 2004;Barnes et al, 2010;Barnes & Austin, 2009;Devos et al, 2016;Lovitts, 2001;Noy & Ray, 2012;Schlosser & Gelso, 2001;Zhao et al, 2007). Much research has shown that one of the reasons students do not persist in the PhD is a poor relationship with their doctoral advisor (Bair & Haworth, 2004).…”

Section: Artiles and Matusovich Studies In Engineering Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Doctoral Advisor Selection in Chemical Engineering: Evaluating Two Programs through Principal-Agent Theory

Artiles¹,

Matusovich

2022

Studies in Engineering Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Little is known about how doctoral advising relationships form, but understanding the inception of these relationships can be helpful to address doctoral attrition. Chemical Engineering programs highly structure this advisor-advisee selection when compared to other engineering programs.Purpose: This study examines how two programs in Chemical Engineering practice the advisor-advisee selection process from the perspective of their faculty. In particular, our study uses principal-agent theory to address the following research question: How do two Chemical Engineering doctoral programs manage the advisor-advisee matching process? Methods: Through multi-case study methods, we examine faculty perceptions in two large doctoral programs in the U.S. Our coding was informed using Principal-Agent Theory as a framework to help characterize faculty perceptions and develop insight into their interactions with students and the graduate program director.Results: Our findings showed that faculty perceived control could strongly impact whether they adhere to departmental processes and adapt to the existing practices or if they circumvent the process. Our findings also showed the role of transparency and how such impacted faculty engagement. Conclusion:We recommend departments consider how they practice shared governance in their departments regarding the advisor-advisee matching process. We also recommend they continuously engage in conversations about processes and practices to surface implicit and explicit practices and perpetuate good community in their academic units. We also present recommendations for using economics frameworks in studying academic processes.

show abstract

Section: Artiles and Matusovich Studies In Engineering Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Doctoral Advisor Selection in Chemical Engineering: Evaluating Two Programs through Principal-Agent Theory

Artiles¹,

Matusovich

2022

Studies in Engineering Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, compared to all other degrees, the rate of completion in doctoral studies, which is estimated at 50% (e.g., Golde, 2005;Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, & Hutchings, 2008), is the lowest (Ampaw & Jaeger, 2011). Researchers are increasingly concerned about the high number of PhD candidates who fail to graduate as dropping out can have numerous negative consequences on PhD students (Levecque, Anseel, De Beuckelaer, Van der Heyden, & Gisle, 2017;Ali & Kohun, 2007;Bowman & Bowman, 1990) and their advisor (Devos, Boudrenghien, Van der Linden, Azzi, et al, 2016). In this context, one line of research has focused on the factors that influence doctoral completion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Are the Doctoral Students Who Drop Out? Factors Associated with the Rate of Doctoral Degree Completion in Universities

Wollast¹,

Boudrenghien²,

Linden³

et al. 2018

IJHE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The issue of considerable dropout rate in doctoral programs is well documented across a large number of countries. However, few studies address the factors associated with doctoral completion among Non-U.S. countries, multiple universities and fields of research. Nor do they investigate the interactions between these factors. The present paper aimed to overcome these limitations and analyzed the population of doctoral students in all disciplines of the two largest universities of the French-speaking Community of Belgium (N = 1509). Specifically, we focused on several factors: gender, nationality, marital status, master grade, whether students continued at the same university when transitioning to the doctoral degree, whether they continued in the same field, age at registration, research field and funding (i.e., type of funding and associated job requirements). Findings indicate that four factors (marital status, master grade, research field and funding) are directly associated with dropout rate when all factors are considered jointly in the same model. Furthermore, results indicate that some of these factors, such as the marital status and gender, interact. In addition, we found that an accumulation of risk factors leads to a massive increase in dropout rates. Finally, a time course analysis revealed that the highest dropout rate occurs during the first two years and is related to the absence of funding or scholarship. The results, limits and futures perspectives are discussed.

show abstract

“…Doctoral faculty tend to attribute causes of doctoral-student attrition to student-level factors, often not acknowledging the role of departmental factors (Gilmore et al, 2016). This is despite evidence that the departmental climate and advisers play an important role in their students' abilities to complete or not complete their training (Devos et al, 2016). Although other factors such as experiencing mental health and adjustment issues due to the impostor phenomenon (where doctoral students feel like intellectual frauds) have not been documented in the literature on doctoral students' attrition, such factors have influenced student experiences during doctoral training (Chakraverty, 2019;2020a, 2020b, 2020c.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Reasons That U.S. MD-PhD Students Enter and Leave Their Dual-Degree Programs

Chakraverty¹,

Jeffe

Dabney

et al. 2020

IJDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim/Purpose: In response to widespread efforts to increase the size and diversity of the biomedical-research workforce in the U.S., a large-scale qualitative study was conducted to examine current and former students’ training experiences in MD (Doctor of Medicine), PhD (Doctor of Philosophy), and MD-PhD dual-degree programs. In this paper, we aimed to describe the experiences of a subset of study participants who had dropped out their MD-PhD dual-degree training program, the reasons they entered the MD-PhD program, as well as their reasons for discontinuing their training for the MD-PhD. Background: To our knowledge, the U.S. has the longest history of MD-PhD dual-degree training programs dating back to the 1950s and produces the largest number of MD-PhD graduates in the world. Integrated dual-degree MD-PhD programs are offered at more than 90 medical schools in the U.S., and historically have included three phases – preclinical, PhD-research, and clinical training, all during medical-school training. On average, it takes eight years of training to complete requirements for the MD-PhD dual-degree. MD-PhD students have unique training experiences, different from MD-only or PhD-only students. Not all MD-PhD students complete their training, at a cost to funding agencies, schools, and students themselves. Methodology: We purposefully sampled from 97 U.S. schools with doctoral programs, posting advertisements for recruitment of participants who were engaged in or had completed PhD, MD, and MD-PhD training. Between 2011 and 2013, semi-structured, one-on-one phone interviews were conducted with 217 participants. Using a phenomenological approach and inductive, thematic analysis, we examined students’ reasons for entering the MD-PhD dual-degree program, when they decided to leave, and their reasons for leaving MD-PhD training. Contribution: Study findings offer new insights into MD-PhD students’ reasons for leaving the program, beyond what is known about program attrition based on retrospective analysis of existing national data, as little is known about students’ actual reasons for attrition. By more deeply exploring students’ reasons for attrition, programs can find ways to improve MD-PhD students’ training experiences and boost their retention in these dual-degree programs to completion, which will, in turn, foster expansion of the biomedical-research-workforce capacity. Findings: Seven participants in the larger study reported during their interview that they left their MD-PhD programs before finishing, and these were the only participants who reported leaving their doctoral training. At the time of interview, two participants had completed the MD and were academic-medicine faculty, four were completing medical school, and one dropped out of medicine to complete a PhD in Education. Participants reported enrolling in MD-PhD programs to work in both clinical practice and research. Very positive college research experiences, mentorship, and personal reasons also played important roles in participants’ decisions to pursue the dual MD-PhD degree. However, once in the program, positive mentorship and other opportunities that they experienced during or after college, which initially drew candidates to the program was found lacking. Four themes emerged as reasons for leaving the MD-PhD program: (1) declining interest in research, (2) isolation and lack of social integration during the different training phases, (3) suboptimal PhD-advising experiences, and (4) unforeseen obstacles to completing PhD research requirements, such as loss of funding. Recommendations for Practitioners: Though limited by a small sample size, findings highlight the need for better integrated institutional and programmatic supports for MD-PhD students, especially during PhD training. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers should continue to explore if other programmatic aspects of MD-PhD training (other than challenges experienced during PhD training, as discussed in this paper) are particularly problematic and pose challenges to the successful completion of the program. Impact on Society: The MD-PhD workforce comprises a small, but highly trained cadre of physician-scientists with the expertise to conduct clinical and/or basic science research aimed at improving patient care and developing new diagnostic tools and therapies. Although MD-PhD graduates comprise a small proportion of all MD graduates in the U.S. and globally, about half of all MD-trained physician-scientists in the U.S. federally funded biomedical-research workforce are MD-PhD-trained physicians. Training is extensive and rigorous. Improving experiences during the PhD-training phase could help reduce MD-PhD program attrition, as attrition results in substantial financial cost to federal and private funding agencies and to medical schools that fund MD-PhD programs in the U.S. and other countries. Future Research: Future research could examine, in greater depth, how communications among students, faculty and administrators in various settings, such as classrooms, research labs, and clinics, might help MD-PhD students become more fully integrated into each new program phase and continue in the program to completion. Future research could also examine experiences of MD-PhD students from groups underrepresented in medicine and the biomedical-research workforce (e.g., first-generation college graduates, women, and racial/ethnic minorities), which might serve to inform interventions to increase the numbers of applicants to MD-PhD programs and help reverse the steady decline in the physician-scientist workforce over the past several decades.

show abstract

Misfits Between Doctoral Students and Their Supervisors: (How) Are They Regulated?

Cited by 19 publications

References 36 publications

Doctoral Advisor Selection in Chemical Engineering: Evaluating Two Programs through Principal-Agent Theory

Doctoral Advisor Selection in Chemical Engineering: Evaluating Two Programs through Principal-Agent Theory

Who Are the Doctoral Students Who Drop Out? Factors Associated with the Rate of Doctoral Degree Completion in Universities

Exploring Reasons That U.S. MD-PhD Students Enter and Leave Their Dual-Degree Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About