Successful studying within Ph.D. education is a complex matter. Though Ph.D. students are a highly selected group, some of them never finish. This paper explores Ph.D. students’ ideas about the problems during their doctoral studies. Students’ experienced well-being in relation to studying engagement is also explored. The study is a part of larger research project, including data (N = 939) from three large universities. The problems doctoral students’ perceived during their studies were related to the learning of academic expertise, supervision and the scholarly community. There was a clear relationship between experienced well-being and study engagement. More effective means are needed to foster students’ abilities to overcome the problems during Ph.D. studies.

Summary

Introduction

Successful study in Ph.D. education is a complex matter. Although Ph.D. students are a highly selected group, there are still a large number of students who never finish their doctoral thesis (Boice, 1993; Authors, 2008c). Accordingly, there is a need to gain a better understanding of the nature of the Ph.D. process and the problems doctoral students face during their thesis process. After this we may be able to develop Ph.D. training practices and tools for guiding the meaningful learning process and prevent withdrawal from studies. The present study explores the kinds of problems and challenges that doctoral students themselves perceive as typical for Ph.D. studies in relation to their well-being and study engagement.

The learning environment of Ph.D. studies

Ph.D. education is a complex interactive and systemic entity. Success in the Ph.D. process is therefore affected by several complementary elements simultaneously such as recruitment system, supervision, resources, knowledge, learning and assessment practices. On the basis of previous research on graduate and undergraduate students, it may be assumed that the experience of Ph.D. training is highly dependent on the learning environment provided by the scholarly community (e.g. Authors 2008b; Authors 2008c; Kurtz-Coestes, Andrews & Ulku-Steiner, 2006). The dynamic interplay between the learner and their learning environment may either enable or inhibit meaningful learning (Vermunt & Verloop 1999; Watkins 2001). It may also promote well-being and satisfaction or encourage dysfunctional emotions and withdrawal from studies (Authors, 2008c).

Meaningful learning is assumed to be efficiently promoted in open learning environments requiring the student’s own initiative, planning, experimentation and reflection in collaboration with peers and senior members, and based on shared control (e.g. Biggs 1999; John-Steiner 2000; Mandel, Gruber & Renkel, 1996; Moss, G. & Kubacki, 2007; Rothe et al. 2007; Soini, 1999). This kind of learning environment could create constructive friction (cf. Vermunt & Verloop, 1999), the urge to gradually develop more and more sophisticated academic skills and knowledge (see also Authors, 2000). In turn, destructive friction may inhibit meaningful and self-regulative learning and increase the risk of dropping out (Authors, 1999; 2001). Students may experience destructive friction both in an authoritarian and strictly teacher-controlled learning environment as well as in loose environment without enough guidance and support. (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999.)

It is possible that continuous destructive friction between students and the learning environment may lead to study problems. Mental distress may have a negative impact and lead to withdrawal from studies. According to Robotham and Julien (2006), the prevalence of stress is increasing among students studying in higher education (see also Dahlin et al., 2005).

Aims and research task

The present study aims to gain better understanding of the kinds of problems doctoral students face during their studies and whether these problems are related to the study context. Furthermore, doctoral students’ experienced well-being and study engagement are explored.

Data collection

This study is a part of a larger national research project (2006-2008) on Ph.D. education in Finland. This part study included data collected from Helsinki, Tampere and Oulu Universities. Altogether 939 doctoral candidates responded in the baseline survey.

 Ph.D. students’ perceptions of typical challenges and problems within the Ph.D. process were explored with open ended questions. Doctoral students’ well-being was explored by using a modified version of the MED NORD questionnaire (Authors, 2008). Ph.D. students’ well being was measured with 8 items that measured stress (Elo et al., 2003), exhaustion (modified Maslach & Jackson, 1981), and anxiety. Consideration of dropping out and lack of interest (modified Mäkinen et al., 2004) were measured with 3 items.

Analysis

The open-ended questions on problems that students face during the Ph.D. process were content analyzed using an abductive strategy. The analysis constituted three main categories: problems in a) learning of academic expertise, b) supervision and scholarly community, and c) problems with resources. Categories were validated by two independent researchers who classified the data according to each variable.

Statistical analyses on the modified MED NORD questions were carried out to measure the internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha) of the scales. The scales consisted variables based on a principal component analysis performed with Varimax rotation by using SPSS version 15. The categories of the qualitative content analysis were cross tabulated with the study context to find out whether there were any correlations between the problems Ph.D. students perceived and the study context. Relations between the problems and the context were measured with a Chi-square test (significance level p < .05). Correlations between well-being variables were measured using a Pearson product-moment correlation, and differences in study engagement based on well-being were measured with analysis of variance ANOVA (sig level p <.05).

Results

The results showed that there was variation in terms of problems doctoral students’ perceived during their studies. Most (54%) of the problems reported by the students were related to the learning of academic expertise. About one third of the problems described were related to the supervision and scholarly community. One fifth of the problems were regarding the financial preconditions for conducting the Ph.D. studies. There was also significant variation between the research contexts.

The proportion of those students who had considered withdrawing from their studies, 43%, could be put in plain words as simply alarming. There also appeared to be a clear relationship between experienced well-being and engagement in studying. Those who had considered interrupting their Ph.D. studies were more stressed, and suffered more from anxiety and exhaustion than students who had not considered withdrawing from their studies.

Theoretical and educational significance of the research

The present study provides a better understanding of the factors that may hinder a successful Ph.D. process through exploration of the kinds of problems doctoral students face during their studies. Our results suggest that more efficient means of guiding the meaningful learning process in Ph.D. training need to be developed, especially in terms of facilitating learning of academic expertise and developing supervising practices.