Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards

Confronting the mysteries of withdrawal and delayed submission / completion at

doctoral level

Shane Dowle, Senior Academic Quality Officer (Postgraduate)

Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards

Submission and completion rates – why are they important?

• Financial Risks• REF • Research Council Awards (DTCs and Research Funding)• Costs of prolonged registration

• Reputational Risks• HEFCE Projections• International league tables• PRES

• The most vulnerable– the doctoral researcher

Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards

Whose definition?

• Different measures:

• REF (Headcount – HESA completion date)• RCUK Bids (4 year submission rates)• RCUK Completion survey (Pass/minor corrections date)• HEFCE Projections (7 and 20 years)• Overseas funders (three year submissions)• Institutional regulations (PhD vs Practitioner Doctorates)• Part-timers?

• How should we measure ourselves?

Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards

What do we know about withdrawal and completion in the UK?

• Not a lot…

• HEFCE: 09/10 starters - 70.9% projected to complete in 7 years

10/11 starters - 72.9% projected to complete in 7 years

• HEFCE (2005): Younger, funded, overseas, natural sciences most successful

• Park (2005): Older, UK-domiciled, part-time, humanities and social sciences most likely non-completers

• Time to take a closer look at this?

Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards

What do we know about completion and withdrawal outside of the UK?

• A lot more…

• Numerous studies from US and Australia BUT they each relate to one institution

• Discrepancies between institutions and departments within an institution – De Valero (2001)

• No easy answer “factors related to TTD [time to doctorate] are intertwined and involve a complex interplay of institutional and personal factors” Wao & Onwuegbuzie (2011)

Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards

Thesis Completion Triangle

Jiranek (2010)

Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards

Supervision• Positive factors (de Valero, 2001; Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011;

Green & Bowden, 2012):

• Involved• Nurturing • Supportive

• Negative factors (Golde, 2000): • Personality clash• Indifference towards project• No time for doctoral researcher

Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards

Student Qualities and Personal Circumstances

• Student characteristics• Age• Gender• Attitudinal factors • Socio-economic factors?

• Registration characteristics • Fee status• Funding status• Registration status (FT/PT)• Previous qualifications

Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards

Research Facilities and Resources

• Additional support outside of the supervisor team (Jimenez y West, 2010):

• ‘Graduate School’ – Focal point for doctoral researchers• Cohort building through workshops, weekend retreats and

emotional support

• Resources are least important factor in determining success (Green and Bowden, 2012)

Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards

Further discussion• We need to learn more

• Which side of the Jiranek’s triangle is most important?

• What can we do to identify and prevent “at risk” doctoral researchers from non-completion?

• Is a local or institutional approach best? Or both?

• What can we do to ensure part-timers are not overlooked?

• Do we need a consistent way of measuring the problem?

• What role could a central “Graduate School” play?

Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards

Bibliography 1• de Valero, Y. F., 2001. Departmental factors affecting time-to-degree

and completion rates of doctoral students at one land-grant research institution. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(3), pp. 341-367.

• Golde, C. M., 2000. Should I stay or should I go? Student descriptions of the doctoral attrition process. The Review of Higher Education, 23(2), pp. 199-227.

• Green, P. & Bowden, J., 2012. Completion mindsets and contexts in doctoral supervision. Quality Assurance in Education, 20(1), pp. 66-80.

• HEFCE, 2005. PhD Research Degrees, Swindon: HEFCE.• HEFCE, 2012. Rates of qualification from postgraduate research

degrees: Projected study outcomes of full-time students starting postgraduate research degrees in 2008-9 and 2009-10, Swindon: HEFCE.

Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards

Bibliography 2

• HEFCE, 2013. Rates of qualification from postgraduate research degrees: Projected study outcomes of full-time students starting postgraduate research degrees in 2010-11, Swindon: HEFCE.

• Jimenez y West, I. et al., 2010. Exploring effective support practices for doctoral students' degree completion. College Student Journal, 45(2), pp. 310-323.

• Jiranek, V., 2010. Potential predictors of timely completion among dissertation research students at an Australian Faculty of Sciences. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 5(1), pp. 1-13.

• Jump, P., 2013. Times Higher Education. [Online] Available at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.aspx?storyCode=2006040 [Accessed 1 December 2013].

Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards

Bibliography 3• Park, C., 2005. War of attrition: patterns of non-completion amongst

postgraduate research students. Higher Education Review, 38(1), pp. 48-53.

• Rodwell, J. & Neumann, R., 2008. Predictors of timely doctoral student completions by type of attendance: the utility of a pragmatic approach. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(1), pp. 65-76.

• van de Schoot, R., Yerkes, M. A., Mouw, J. M. & Sonneveld, H., 2013. What took the so long? Explaining PhD delays among doctoral candidates. PLoS ONE, 8(7), pp. 1-11.

• Wakeling, P. & Hampden-Thompson, G., 2013. Transition to higher degrees across the UK: an analysis of national, institutional and individual differences, York: HEA.

• Wao, H. O. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J., 2011. A mixed research investigation of factors related to time to doctorate in Education. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 6(1), pp. 115-133.