Tertiary education involves specific perceived issues among PhD candidates that lead to several self-destructive behaviors regarding the research process and the quality of the doctoral thesis. Studying the emotional mechanisms behind the process of doctoral research offers useful insights for both PhD candidates and PhD supervisors. A qualitative approach involving a concept analysis method was used to investigate the concerns about the doctoral process of a group of PhD candidates enrolled in the first year at the Doctoral School of Economics and Business Administration of Iași, Romania. Both spontaneous and induced responses were considered. The order of concerns and the fact that some of them were mentioned together were also taken into account. Most of the concerns are related to time-management. Results are discussed and several recommendations are made.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
1. Ali, A., & Kohun, F. (2007), “Dealing with Social Isolation to Minimize Doctoral Attrition-A Four Stage Framework”, International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 2(1), 33-49.
2. Bøyum, I., & Aabø, S. (2015), “The information practices of Business PhD students”, New Library World, 116(3/4), 187-200.
3. Cantwell, R. H., Scevak, J. J., Bourke, S., & Holbrook, A. (2012), “Identifying individual differences among doctoral candidates: A framework for understanding problematic candidature”, International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 68-79.
4. Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1999), “The Doctorate: Talking about the Degree”, University of Western Sydney, TES, UWS, Nepean, PO Box 10, Kingswood, NSW 2747, Australia.
5. Ehrenberg, Ronald G, Jakubson, George H, Groen, Jeffrey A., So, Eric, Price, Joseph (2007), “Inside the Black Box of Doctoral Education: What Program Characteristics Influence Doctoral Students ‘Attrition and Graduation Probabilities”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(2), p.134.
6. Gaeta, G. L. (2013), “Was it worth it? An empirical analysis of over-education among Ph. D. recipients in Italy” (No. 1302).
7. Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001), “At Cross Purposes: What the Experiences of Today's Doctoral Students Reveal about Doctoral Education”.
8. Hair, M. (2006), “Superqual A tool to explore the initial expectations of PhD students and supervisors”, Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 9-23.
9. Kearns, H., Gardiner, M., & Marshall, K. (2008), “Innovation in PhD completion: The hardy shall succeed (and be happy!)”, Higher Education Research & Development, 27(1), 77-89.
10. Litalien, D., & Guay, F. (2015), “Dropout intentions in PhD studies: A comprehensive model based on interpersonal relationships and motivational resources”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 218-231.
11. Manathunga, C. (2005), “Early warning signs in postgraduate research education: A different approach to ensuring timely completions”, Teaching in Higher Education, 10(2), 219-233.
12. McAlpine, Lynn, Amundsen, Cheryl (2009), “Identity and agency: pleasures and collegiality among the challenges of the doctoral journey”, Studies in Continuing Education, 31(2), pg.109.
13. Murrell, Audrey J, Stewart, Alice C, Engel, Brent T (1993), “Consensus versus devil’s advocacy: The influence of decision process and task structure on strategic decision making”, The Journal of Business Communication, 30 (4), p. 399.
14. Olehnovica, E., Bolgzda, I., & Kravale-Pauliņa, M. (2015), “Individual Potential of Doctoral Students: Structure of Research Competences and Self-assessment”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3557-3564.
15. Perez, A., & Kutugata, A. (2013), “Classroom community in a PhD. blended course of a doctoral program in mexico: a mixed method study”, Edulearn13 Proceedings, 5259-5268.
16. Priem, Richard, Price, Kenneth (1991),” Process and outcome expectations for the dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus techniques of strategic decision making”, Group & Organization Studies, 16 (2), pg.206.
18. Rockinson-Szpakiw, A. J., Spaulding, L. S., & Knight, A. (2015), “Protecting the Marriage Relationship During the Doctoral Journey Strategies for Students and Partners Based on the Strong Marital House Concept”, The Family Journal, 1066480714565106.
19. Schultz-Hardt, Stefan, Jochims, Marc, Frey, Dieter (2002), “Productive conflict in group decision making: Genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(2), p.563.
20. Schwenk, Charles, Valacich, Joseph S. (1994), “Effects of devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry on individual versus groups”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59(2), pg.210.
21. Seagram, B.C., Gould, J. & Pyke, S.W. (1998). “An investigation of gender and other variables on time to completion of doctoral degrees”, Research in Higher Education. 39: 319-335.
22. Thorntorn, R, Nardi, P.M (1975), “The dynamics of role acquisition”, American Journal of Sociology, 30, pg.870.
23. Trafford, Vernon, Leshem, Shosh (2009), “Doctorateness as a threshold concept”, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(3), pg.305.
24. Trocchia, Philip J, Berkowitz, David (1999), “Getting doctored: a proposed model of marketing doctoral student socialization”, European Journal of Marketing, 33(7/8), p.746.
25. Vezzosi, M. (2009), “Doctoral students' information behaviour: an exploratory study at the University of Parma (Italy)”, New Library World, 110(1/2), 65-80.
26. Weidman, John C, Stein, Elizabeth L (2003), “Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms”, Research in Higher Education, 44(6), p.641.
27. Weidman, John C, Twale, D, Stein, Elizabeth L (2001), “Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage?” ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
28. Zaiţ, Adriana (2010). “Quo Vadis Doctoral Marketing Education? Reflection Issues, Controversies and Debates–Focus on the Romanian Case”, GEBA Conference 2010, Iaşi, Romania.