PhD Candidate Expectations: Exploring Mismatch with Experience

Abstract

This paper identifies the nature of initial expectations of PhD candidates, the prevalence and type of mismatch between expectations and experience, and to what extent mismatch is reflected in satisfaction with candidature. The data were drawn from telephone interviews with a sub-sample of 104 PhD candidates from an initial online national survey of 1,374 candidates at Australian universities. Based on the interviews, eight categories of initial expectations coalesced into three dimensions: the doctoral 'Task', the 'University' (including supervision), and 'Personal' factors. The relationships between candidates' initial expectations and subsequent experience were examined, with specific reference to mismatches that were positive, neutral, or negative (most being negative). Where there was mismatch, this was primarily in relation to what was involved in the 'Task' and the associated emotions. The negative mismatch codes were consistently related to candidate satisfaction with supervision, with department/university provision, and with their own preparation for the degree. Further analyses of experience indicated that negative mismatch caused candidates to question, not necessarily productively, their preparation, purpose, fit, and persona.

Improving Doctoral Success by Matching PhD Students with Supervisors

“…This demonstrates their need for structure and organization in their research process; on the other hand, the need for autonomy does not stand out among their needs. This result is consistent with studies by Holbrook et al (2014) and K. Grant, Hackney, and Edgar (2014) or Woolderink, Putnik, van der Boom, and Klabbers (2015).…”

“…Other researchers have supported these categories in recent years (Bøgelund, 2015;Egan, Stockley, Brouwer, Tripp, & Stechyson, 2009;Holbrook et al, 2014;Taylor & Beasley, 2005;Zhao, 2003;Zuber-Skerrit & Roche, 2004). …”

“…This relationship is influenced by a variety of factors, among which are the characteristics of both supervisor and student (including interests, experiences, and prior knowledge at the onset of the research), supervisor roles, and supervisory styles. Effective supervision of researchers during the training stage is a multifactorial process that involves not only issues such as the relationship between students and supervisors at all levels, but also the infrastructure available, institutional and government policies, structures, and procedures (Abiddin, Ismail, & Ismail, 2011;Green, 2005;Holbrook et al, 2014;Jiranek, 2010;Jones, 2013).…”

A Preliminary Examination of Doctoral Student Retention Factors in Private Online Workspaces

“…Doctoral students feel ill-equipped for the rigors of the doctoral program or they lack of adequate financial resources; therefore, they fail to complete their dissertation (Van der Haert, Ortiz, Emplit, Halloin, & Dehon, 2014). Doctoral programs are demanding, and, frequently, students are surprised to find they are not prepared for the dissertation process (Baker et al, 2013;Golde & Dore, 2001;Holbrook et al, 2014;Lovitts, 2001). The dissertation stage is complex, involving independent scholarship that entails selecting a topic that contributes new knowledge to the field, designing a feasible study, synthesizing large amounts of empirical literature, successfully collecting data, and correctly analyzing the data.…”

Doctoral Supervision At Nova Lisbon University: An Exploratory Study

“…Simultaneously an inter-relational process between supervisor and student is construct and supervision depends on how they manage their relationship (Styles & Radloff, 2001;Ives & Rowley, 2005;Woolderink, Putnik, van der Boom & Klabbers, 2015;Holbrook, Shaw, Scevak, Bourke, Cantwell & Budd, 2014). During this period the student grows not only as a researcher (acquiring investigative competence, developing networks, and constructing knowledge) but also as a person.…”