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-todegree and completion rates of doctoral students at one landgrant 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. 113.
• Jump, P., 2013. Times Higher Education. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.aspx?storyCode=20
06040
[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.
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards