Collaborative Study: Students’ Perceived Costs and Benefits of
Pursuing the Doctoral Degree at Indiana University
Y611 Qualitative Inquiry in Education
Dr. Lara Lackey
Indiana University
Andrew Barrett
Lanaya Ethington
Jon Macy
Dana Umscheid
March 15, 2005
Students’ Perceived Costs and Benefits of Pursuing the Doctoral Degree at Indiana University
Introduction to the Study
Multiple studies have confirmed that only 40-60% of those who enroll in a doctoral
program persist to completion of the degree (Bair & Haworth, 1999). Compare this to 10-20%
of undergraduates who fail to complete their degrees at these same institutions. The Ph.D.
degree has been touted the “crown jewel” of the American educational system, and requires
considerable investment of resources from institutions (Golde, 2005). Further, the future of
some disciplines is critically reliant on the next generation of scholars to fill vacancies in faculty
and research positions (Anderson & Swazey, 1998, p.12). Although some studies have sought to
understand what drives doctoral students to drop out of their degree programs, few have looked
at what factors influence students’ decision to persist to degree completion.
The purpose of this study is to explore persisting Indiana University doctoral students’
individual perceived costs and benefits of obtaining the doctoral degree. This phenomenological,
qualitative study utilizes interviews, observation of doctoral student interaction, and personal
journals kept by doctoral students to gather data on this issue. This design is most appropriate
because it seeks to understand the experience from the subjects’ perspectives and generate
themes rather than test hypotheses about the doctoral education experience. Moreover, findings
from this study can be used to formulate specific policy changes by academic departments and
institutions to improve the learning experience for doctoral students.
Study Context
Anderson and Swazey (1998) utilized a series of questions from the Acadia Institute’s
Project on Professional Values and Ethical Issues in the Graduate Education of Scientists and
Engineers Survey to assess students’ experiences in their graduate programs. This quantitative
instrument concluded with suggestions for non-curricular ways to improve doctoral student
1
experience, specifically: access to better mentor relationships, extended training in teaching, and
the need to develop ways to balance home and work responsibilities.
Golde (2005) investigated the role of departmental practices and culture on doctoral
student attrition by comparing four different departments at the same Midwestern institution. He
spent considerable time observing, interviewing, and member checking students affiliated with
each case study department in 1995. Once certain he had a good understanding of the
experience, he interviewed 58 of the 111 attritors who had discontinued the PhD program
between 1984 and 1989. From the analysis, six themes emerged across department as primary
reasons why doctoral students drop out of their programs. These are: (1) research practices not
matched with student’s strengths; (2) poor fit of expectations between student and department;
(3) mismatch between advisor and student; (4) student perceives research university faculty life
as incompatible; (5) student perceives job market to be poor; and (6) structural isolation of
student.
In 1998, Golde published a study regarding what happens to the nearly one-third of
doctoral students who drop out in the first year of their program. Although this “bad beginning”
was usually attributed to individual failings, he concluded that it was rather the disciplinary
norms and departmental structures that could ultimately prevent the majority of attrition in the
first year.
In addition to common reasons for attrition, the literature search uncovered other
important variables in doctoral degree persistence: support of the faculty and balance between
personal and professional priorities. Kurtz-Costes, Helmke, and Űlkű-Steiner (2006) looked at
how gender differentiates doctoral student perceptions of the academic experience:
All students reported the importance of supportive faculty mentors and
that financial worries, time pressure and the uncertainty of future
employment were sources of stress. Family formation and striving toward
2
personal as well as professional goals were particularly of concern for
women, as were perceptions of differential treatment. Women students
valued women faculty mentors, although female faculty were perceived as
less supportive than male faculty of family concerns when these women
had themselves sacrificed family formation for the sake of their careers.
Both men and women experienced less stress and reported greater career
commitment when faculty in their departments exhibited less traditional
values regarding the balancing of personal and professional goals (p.137).
Bair and Haworth (1999) produced a meta-synthesis of 118 research studies conducted
between 1970 and 1998 regarding doctoral student attrition. Their qualitative document analysis
deduced six common themes across all studies: (1) attrition and persistence rates vary widely
across disciplines and departments; (2) departmental culture affects student persistence; (3)
dissertation difficulties influence attrition; (4) the GRE is the only effective academic predictor
of degree completion; (5) employment and financial factors are poor predictors of persistence;
and (6) retention rates vary widely from institution to institution.
Research Questions
1. To what extent do doctoral students’ perceptions of costs and benefits of pursuing the
degree effect their decision to persist and complete the degree?
2. What, if anything, do doctoral students perceive as short-term costs of participating in
a PhD program?
3. What, if anything, do doctoral students perceive as long-term costs of participating in a
PhD program?
4. What, if anything, do doctoral students perceive as short-term benefits of participating
in a PhD program?
5. What, if anything, do doctoral students perceive as long-term benefits of participating
in a PhD program?
3
6. To what extent does the “reality” of participating in a doctoral degree program match
students’ prior expectations of the experience?
Research Methods
The four person research team utilized multiple methods of data collection.
Phenomenological qualitative method requires researchers to assess the experience from the
point of view of the subject (Merriam, 2002). To achieve this goal, researchers conducted
interviews and observations, and kept individual journals.
Members of the research team conducted one-on-one interviews using a convenience
sampling strategy . Subjects were chosen for their status as students enrolled in doctoral
programs at Indiana University in the Spring 2006 semester. The subjects were all current
acquaintances/fellow students with members of the research team. Researchers used a semistructured question format. The interviews lasted an average of 30 minutes each and were tape
recorded with the subjects’ permission. All interviews were conducted in campus buildings at
Indiana University. Subsequently, members of the research team transcribed the interviews.
Additionally, researchers made observations in several settings to ascertain the common
experiences of the subjects. Sites for these observations included doctoral classes, meeting
spaces, computer labs, doctoral offices, and casual areas where the students tended to
congregate. Each observation lasted roughly 30 minutes. The research team reviewed field
notes to extrapolate common themes and insight into the day-to-day experience of doctoral
students.
Lastly, the four members of the research team, who were themselves enrolled in doctoral
programs at Indiana University, kept personal journals. Specifically, the students were instructed
to maintain a daily journal reflecting on their personal experience of being a doctoral student.
Again, the research team reviewed and discussed journal entries to find common themes.
4
The research team was concerned with potential ethical issues and discussed them prior
to data collection. Specifically, researchers were aware that subjects may be more inclined to
consent to the interviews and observation as a result of their relationships with the researchers.
Additionally, researchers acknowledged some bias towards an increased awareness of “costs” of
participating in doctoral programs from their own personal experience. The research team
attempted to remain objective during the interviews and withhold personal stories that might bias
the subjects’ responses to the interview questions.
Validity of the Study
The short duration and small scope of the data gathering phase limits the study in several
ways. The students interviewed and the observations conducted are all from three schools within
the university. It could be argued that the experiences of the PhD students in these three schools
do not reflect the experiences of PhD students in other schools. A more rigorous study could
focus on purposely selected students that met predefined criteria instead of the convenience
sampling method used in this study. The criteria used for selecting students could include
gender, race, age, length of time in a PhD program, GRE scores, etc. The use of more systematic
selection criteria could have two advantages. First, the study could focus more specifically on
the experiences of students with an explicitly defined background that is tied to the purpose of
the study. Second, the study could ensure a more balanced representation of students. For
example the current study did not include any minorities, students whose first language is not
English, or disabled students. The absence of students with a specific background was not
intentional but a consequence of the sampling method used.
All the people interviewed are currently enrolled in a PhD program. They have all
decided that, at this point in time, the benefits of doing their PhD outweigh the associated costs
of doing their PhD. While there was a diversity of opinions on what constituted benefits and
5
costs of the PhD program among those interviewed, it is not clear from the data gathered in this
study why a significant number of people decide to leave PhD programs. The literature does
present reasons why students decide to drop out of their PhD programs but additional interviews
with those who have decided to leave a PhD program would help fill in the gaps present in the
current study.
Further, the level of stress and work activity that a student experiences can vary
significantly over the course of an academic term. The end of a term may be the most stressful
time as students must complete final projects and take exams. The data for this study was
collected during the beginning and middle of the spring term. Ideally, the data would be
collected over a longer period of time that would include at least a full term. By collecting the
data over a longer period of time it may be possible to find trends in the data related to the
growing or shrinking of perceived costs and benefits of a PhD program and how these
perceptions are influenced by other factors.
Students are the primary data source for this study. From many of the interviews, it is
clear that the relationships that PhD students have with family and friends influence the
perceived costs and benefits of doing a PhD. Given additional time and resources it would have
been valuable to conduct interviews with the family and friends of PhD students in order to
examine their perspective and how it relates to the view of the PhD student. Interviewing the
family and friends of PhD students would also help validate information gathered directly from
the students. For example, in many students expressed concern about how their family and
friends view their decision to do their PhD but we don’t have the data to determine if their
concerns are based on an accurate assessment their friend’s and family’s perceptions or if they
are unfounded.
6
Regarding data collection and analysis, this study could have benefited from member
checking the transcripts of the interviews, additional analysis time, and efforts to increase the
inter-rater reliability. The participant-observer role of the research team members may have
influenced the data collected. For example, where the observations took place reflected the
university affiliation of the research member. In order to make the familiar strange and the
strange familiar, the researchers attempted to become aware of their experience as they collected
the data (Glesne, 2006). However, the research members used their knowledge of where
doctoral student activity occurs, their association with doctoral students, and the formulation of
the research questions to determine where the observations were completed. There was an
inherent connection between the researchers and the data collected; thus, as participantobservers, the researchers may have influenced the nature of the data. The influence of the
researchers on the data collection relates to the analysis of the data as well. Although qualitative
methods address the subjectivity of the researchers, it is possible that the concomitant roles of
“researcher” and “doctoral student” may have introduced an inextricable bias into the
interpretation of the data.
While not all the interviews were completely transcribed, it would have been valuable to
present the transcripts of the interviews to those interviewed to validate the accuracy of what was
captured during the session. Member checking the transcripts would also provide those
interviewed with a chance to remove any portions that they did not want to include in the study.
The researchers in this study met several times to analyze the data collected. Many
themes were identified by members of the research team as the data was analyzed but the
detailed analysis was done by individual researchers. The requirements of the group and
individual portions of the collaborative case study clearly influenced this division of work.
7
Additional analysis time at various stages of the study may have lead to the research team
deciding to shift the direction of the study to areas highlighted during the analysis.
The number of researchers conducting interviews and gathering observation data is
relatively high for the amount of data collected. With more than one researcher collecting data
there is the risk that the data collected may be influenced by differences among researchers.
Inter-rater reliability could be increased by either decreasing the number of researchers collecting
data or minimizing the differences in how interviewers collect data. Efforts that may result in a
more consistent interview and observation approach could include conducting practice data
collection sessions that are observed by other researchers and providing opportunities for
feedback and reflection. Materials could also be developed for either data collection or to guide
the researcher’s behavior in attempts to increase inter-rater reliability.
References
Anderson, M.S., & Swazey, J.P. (1998). Reflections on the graduate student experience: An
overview. New Directions for Higher Education, 101 (Spring), 3-13.
Bair, C.R., & Haworth, J.G. (1999). Doctoral student attrition and persistence: A meta-synthesis
of research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Association for Study of Higher
Education, San Antonio, TX: November 20, 1999. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 437008).
Glesne, C. (2006) Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction, 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson.
Golde, C.M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition:
Lessons from four departments. Journal of Higher Education 76(6), 669-700.
Golde, C.M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition. New
Directions for Higher Education, 101 (Spring), 55-64.
Kurtz-Costes, B., Helmke, L.A., & Űlkű-Steiner, B. (2006). Gender and doctoral studies: The
perceptions of Ph.D. students in an American university. Gender and Education, 18(2),
137-155.
Merriam, S. (2002) Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8