1. Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards Confronting the mysteries of withdrawal and delayed submission / completion at doctoral level Shane Dowle, Senior Academic Quality Officer (Postgraduate)

2. 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

3. 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?

4. 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?

5. 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)

6. Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards Thesis Completion Triangle Jiranek (2010)

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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)

10. 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?

11. Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards Bibliography 1 de Valero, Y. F., 2001. Departmental factors affecting time-to- degree and completion rates of doctoral students at one land- grant 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.

12. 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. 1- 13. Jump, P., 2013. Times Higher Education. [Online] Available at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.aspx?storyCode=20 06040 [Accessed 1 December 2013].

13. 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.