Search

UTokyo Research掲載「研究の情熱よりキャリア上昇志向が強い博士課程生が学業に満足か」 URI: http://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ja/utokyo-research/research-news/career-focus-more-engaging-for-phd-than-passion-for-research.html, UTokyo Research "Career focus more engaging for PhD than passion for research?" URI: http://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/utokyo-research/research-news/career-focus-more-engaging-for-phd-than-passion-for-research.html

We explored doctoral students’ writing profiles using a person-centred approach. We also studied differences between profiles in terms of experienced well-being and perceptions of the learning environment. The participants of our study (n = 664) were PhD students from three faculties at the University of Helsinki, Finland. The Writing Process Questionnaire (Lonka et al. Journal of Writing Research, 5(3), 245-269 2014) was used to measure writing conceptions and problematic writing. Well-being was measured by MED NORD, adapted to the doctoral context (Lonka et al. Medical Teacher, 30, 72-79 2008; Stubb et al. Studies in Continuing Education, 33(1), 33–50 2011), and Perceptions of the learning environment, using specific items from Dahlin et al. Medical Education, 39, 594–604 (2005). PhD students with similar patterns of writing variables were identified through latent profile analysis (LPA). We conducted one-way ANOVAs to examine group differences with respect to well-being and perceptions of learning environment. We identified three writing profiles: Growth-Transforming (51%), Ambivalent (40%), and Fixed-Blocking (9%) groups. The Fixed-Blocking group reported a lack of interest the most often and also reported receiving the least feedback. The Growth-Transforming group was the most and the Fixed-Blocking group the least satisfied with their studies. It appeared that epistemic beliefs related to research writing were most decisive in differentiation among PhD students. Blocks were related to beliefs in innate ability. We concluded that although problems in writing are quite common, epistemic beliefs may be even more decisive in terms of successful research writing.

The post-doctoral phase is characterized by a high level of competition and even a risk of unemployment due to the increasing number of PhDs. This study explores the function of social support or lack of it in post PhD researchers’ engaging and disengaging experiences from the beginning of their careers as researchers. The data were collected from 40 post PhD researchers from STEM disciplines through semi-structured interviews and qualitatively content analysed. Receiving socio-emotional and informational support was perceived as highly significant for experienced engagement and disengagement, while instrumental support was rarely reported. Also a fourth form of social support, that is,. co-constructional support was identified. The results indicate that various forms of social support provide a significant mechanism that mediates post PhD researchers’ engagement and disengagement in their early careers.

Although supervision has been identified as one of the central determinants of the doctoral experience, there is still an insufficient understanding of the ways in which supervisors and doctoral students perceive supervisory activities. The study focuses on exploring the fit between doctoral students’ and supervisors’ perceptions of who are involved in supervision, the frequency of supervision and the main task of the supervisor, and further, how the perceived fit contributes to students’ satisfaction and resilience in studies. Altogether, 1184 students and 431 supervisors from all the 11 faculties at the University of Helsinki completed the survey. The results suggest that the fit between the students’ and supervisors’ perceptions of the supervisory activities in different faculties was related to the students’ satisfaction with their studies and the supervisory relationship.

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to explore doctoral students' engaging and disengaging experiences among a group of students whose doctoral processes had been prolonged for more than seven years. Design/methodology/approach – The participants were 16 doctoral students in the behavioural sciences. The data were collected with interviews employing a visualisation of their doctoral journeys, and were content analysed qualitatively. Findings – The results suggested that the students described their engagement in doctoral work in terms of dedication, vigour and occasionally absorption. In turn, disengagement was described in terms of insufficiency, cynicism and sometimes exhaustion. Interestingly, the source of engagement was typically a sense of belonging in the scholarly community, whereas the students often reported a lack of autonomy and a lack of belonging as sources for disengagement. Research limitations/implications – Further longitudinal studies are needed to explore the development of engagement in doctoral work among students from different contexts. Practical implications – In terms of developing more engaging learning environments, the findings imply that by enhancing students' sense of belonging to their scholarly community and their experiences of autonomy within it their engagement in doctoral work, and further, development as researchers can be fostered. Originality/value – This study extends the understanding of what may engage or disengage students from their doctoral studies and the essential relationship between the sense of autonomy and that of belonging in doctoral student engagement, in particular in the context of prolonged doctoral studies in the behavioural sciences.

Aim/Purpose: The primary aim of this study was to better understand the individual variations in supervisory and researcher community support among doctoral students by analyzing the social support profiles of Finnish doctoral students. The differences among the profiles, in terms of satisfaction with supervision, experienced burnout, time to candidacy and disciplinary background were also examined. Background: This study explores social support profiles and their association with the experienced burnout, satisfaction with supervision, drop-out intentions, disciplinary background, and form of dissertation among doctoral students by employing a person-oriented approach. Methodology: In total, 402 doctoral students from a Finnish university completed a Doctoral Experience survey. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was used to group doctoral students according to social support from supervisors and the researcher community. Contribution: The present study is among the first quantitative studies to explore doctoral student social support profiles and their association with burnout, drop-out intentions, and time to candidacy. It brings into focus the importance of supervisory and researcher community support as one of the most crucial assets of doctoral education in researcher communities. Findings: Two social support profiles, a) sufficient support from supervisor and researched community, and b) insufficient support from both of these, were identified. Further investigation suggested that the doctoral students who received sufficient support were less likely to suffer from burnout and were less likely to develop drop-out intentions than students who received insufficient support from their supervisor and the researcher community. Recommendations for Practitioners: A recommendation deriving from this research is to identify students at risk as early as possible and assist them with sufficient support.

Introduction Pursuing a PhD is always a highly inspiring and challenging journey. Earlier research on the doctoral experience has shown that while many students find their doctoral process rewarding, some face serious challenges including personal sacrifices, intervening life experiences, departmental problems, lack of support, difficulty in completing the dissertation, as well as a lack of funding (Appel & Dahlgren, 2003; Jairam & Kahl Jr., 2012; Protivnak & Foss, 2009; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). For instance, Lee (2009) found that nursing students enrolled in doctoral studies perceived multiple responsibilities, financial issues, difficult relationships with faculty members or advisors ,as well as a lack of academic self-discipline and negative academic self-image as detracting factors in their study process. The challenges provided by doctoral studies are not necessarily negative; in fact, solving complex ill-defined problems can be seen as essential to creating new knowledge. At best, such challenges can be positive forces that encourage students to progress in their doctoral process. They may, however, also become stressors if adequate support is not given to the student. At worst, they can become insurmountable obstacles that lead to delays or even dropping out from doctoral studies. Some evidence shows that problems in doctoral studies often originate not from the research process itself but from the relation between the doctoral student and the scholarly community (Pyhalto, Stubb, & Lonka, 2009). For instance, doctoral students' experiences of social isolation from their scholarly communities, with respect to overlapping communities, groups of supervisor-students dyads, other senior researchers, or academics within and across departments, faculties, or institutions (Ali & Kohun, 2006; Lovitts, 2001), and mismatches between students' expectations and those of the community, have been suggested to cause withdrawal from doctoral studies (Golde, 2005; Hoskins & Goldberg, 2005; Tinto, 1993). Moreover, there is also evidence of doctoral students often experiencing reduced wellbeing and distress while pursuing their PhDs (Hyun, Quinn, Madon, & Lustig, 2006; Kurtz-Costes, Helmke, & Ulku-Steiner, 2006), and a remarkably high number of students, 30-50% or even more in different contexts and countries, decide to leave their studies (Golde, 2005; McAlpine & Norton, 2006). Previous studies on the doctoral experience have provided information about factors associated with students' persistence, time-to-the-doctorate, and attrition (Golde, 1998, 2005; Hoskins & Goldberg, 2005; Lovitts, 2001; Tinto, 1993; Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011). Moreover, there is an extensive body of literature on disengagement among undergraduate students (Pekrun, Goetz, Frenzel, Barchfeld, & Perry, 2011; Salanova, Schaufeli, Marti'nez, & Breso, 2010; Schmitt, Oswald, Friede, Imus, & Merritt, 2008; Schreiner, Noel, Anderson, & Cantwell, 2011) as well as among employees in work settings (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002). However, little is known about what disengages (and ultimately withdraws) doctoral students from their studies and the kinds of episodes that are associated with disengagement. Accordingly, there is a need for a better understanding of the nature of the experiences that reduce doctoral student engagement during the doctoral process and the dynamics that contribute to disengagement. Analyzing these disengaging episodes will make it easier to identify the central developmental objectives in doctoral education. This may help to prevent the disengaging experiences that may be associated with delays and even students abandoning their doctoral studies. The present study focuses on exploring doctoral students' experiences of disengagement from the doctoral process in various environments within and outside academia. …

PurposeThis article is intended to contribute towards furthering the understanding of researcher development as demonstrated by doctoral students' learning within scholarly communities. The article does this by reporting the findings of a study that explored the students' key learning experiences during their doctoral journey.Design/methodology/approachThe 19 participants were natural science doctoral students from a top‐level research community in Finland. The data were collected through interviews that were qualitatively content analysed.FindingsThe participants emphasised the significance of participation, development as a scholar, developing specific research competences as well as learning to balance between doctoral research and other institutional tasks. They situated the key learning experiences in collaborative academic contexts such as research activities, taking courses, and academic meetings. The participants generally perceived their experiences as positive and enhancing.Originality/valueSignificant learning experiences identified by natural science doctoral students themselves are rarely studied. The results of the study reported in this article may be used by doctoral trainers, supervisors and students to create environments that foster students' learning and researcher development through their participation in scholarly communities.

This study explores the fit between doctoral students and their working environment by analyzing students’ and supervisors’ perceptions of resources and challenges involved in the doctoral process. The data were collected using online surveys. Altogether 1184 doctoral students and 431 supervisors completed the survey. The results suggest that the fit between the doctoral students’ and supervisors’ perceptions of resources and challenges is linked to the doctoral students’ satisfaction with their studies and the supervisory relationship. In faculties where the students’ and the supervisors’ perceptions of resources and challenges were similar, the students reported being more satisfied with their overall study process and supervisory support. The findings indicate that the fit between students and their working environment is related to how the students’ experience their doctoral process.

Doctoral studies are about learning to create new knowledge and to become a researcher. Yet surprisingly little is known about the individual learning patterns of doctoral students. The study aims to explore learning patterns among natural science doctoral students. The participants included 19 doctoral students from a top-level natural science research community. The data were collected through interviews and qualitatively content analysed. Five qualitatively different learning patterns were identified: 1) active knowledge creator, 2) active producer, 3) active project manager, 4) passive producer and 5) conformist. The patterns differed from each other in how the participants approached their learning regarding conducting research and becoming a researcher, learning strategies and their perceptions of learning objects. This indicates that learning environments need to be adjustable to different doctoral student learning patterns. At best, by designing practices in congruence with doctoral students’ ways of learning, scholarly communities can provide flourishing environments in which doctoral students are able to become autonomous scientists who conduct high quality research. To our knowledge, doctoral students’ learning patterns have not been previously reported in doctoral education literature. This study contributed to the literature on doctoral student learning and provided new insight into the complexity of learning processes among natural science doctoral students by identifying five qualitative different learning patterns.