Abstract
Ample literature on the retention of undergraduate students is available. However, information on the retention of postgraduate students in doctoral research is not abundant, especially when the population comprises working adult students studying on a part-time basis. This article aims to explore factors that influence retention in this group of students. The literature identified various factors that could affect the retention of these students. Besides the academic and social integration identified by Tinto, environmental factors (finances, family and employment) and time constraints also play a role in their persistence. The data was collected from PhD students at a Business School in South Africa. The results from the survey confirm the influence of these factors on retention. The inclusion of qualitative responses as part of the survey led to recommendations that consider the finer nuances of the support needed by this group of heterogeneous students.
Keywords
Rockinson-Szapkiw et al. (2016) indicate that the attrition rates of doctoral students in the USA are between 40−70%. Of those that do persist, very few complete their studies within the suggested timeframe. In South Africa, the prescribed time to obtain a PhD is three years, but Mouton (2016) reports an average time to degree of 4.8 years in South African higher education institutions. This data does not necessarily distinguish between full-time and part-time doctoral students. While most of the available studies focus primarily on full-time students, Gardner and Gopaul (2012) bring awareness to the number of students studying part-time. According to their sources, 12% of doctoral students study part-time in the USA, 38% in Australia, and 63% in the UK. Mouton (2016) indicates that between 60−70% of South Africa students are enrolled part-time. Students who study part-time have unique challenges that differ from their full-time counterparts (Mouton, 2016; Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016).
While many studies focus on doctoral students’ persistence, only a few focus on part-time working adult doctoral students (Gardner & Gopaul, 2012). Bean and Metzner (1985) further indicate that this non-traditional group of students is very diverse. As Gardner and Gopaul (2012) and Mouton (2016) suggest, this cohort of students is increasing and consists of a third to two-thirds of the doctoral population . This article focuses on the latter student, working full-time; juggling other responsibilities; studying through distance-learning; and focusing on research as the main component of their studies. With the increase in this number of students, it is essential to identify their challenges. This article explores the factors that influence the retention of this group of students.
Research on Student Retention
Literature on doctoral retention uses various terminology with reference to keeping students in the system until graduation. The following terminology is used: “persistence”, “retention”, “attrition”, “student success”, and “student support”. Retention and persistence are seen as synonymous. However, Tinto (2017) indicates that the correct term is persistence from a student perspective, which is viewed as a form of motivation; from an institutional perspective, the focus is more on retention. Whereas there is no formal definition, there is also no universal model that has been developed for postgraduate retention. Tinto (as cited in Lake et al., 2018) indicates that different factors would influence retention at a postgraduate level. Research by Tinto (as cited in Lake et al., 2018) on student retention should serve as a foundation for studying this topic at postgraduate level.
Theoretical Models on Student Retention at Undergraduate Level
The focus of Tinto’s (1975) original research is on undergraduates. Tinto’s theory on student retention identifies that retention is dependent on the academic, social and emotional integration of the student in the academic environment. He acknowledges that students enter the higher education environment with individual attributes, prior qualifications, and certain personal circumstances that will influence their values, expectations, and level of commitment to the academic environment. All of these will influence their decision to either drop out or persevere (Chrysikos et al., 2017). Tinto’s (1993) contribution lies in the insight of the importance of undergraduate students' academic and social integration towards persistence.
The research of Bean and Metzner (1985) builds on the studies of Tinto (1975). They have also studied undergraduates, but their interest focused on non-traditional (older) students. Bean and Metzner (1985: p. 491) concur with Tinto (1975) on the background and defining variables, namely age, gender, ethnicity, enrolment status, residence, educational goals, and high school performance. In addition, Bean and Metzner (1985, p. 491) agree with Tinto’s identification of academic variables, namely academic advising, course availability, study habits, absenteeism, and major uncertainty. However, they argue that environmental variables are expected to have a larger impact on attrition. In addition to socialization that would influence attrition, they include environmental variables, namely finances, hours of employment, outside encouragement, and family responsibilities, as well as psychological outcomes, namely utility, satisfaction, goal commitment, and stress (Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016).
In a similar vein, the research of Kember et al. (1991) and Kember et al. (1994) focus on non-traditional distance undergraduate students. Kember et al.’s (1991, 1994) research are based on the research of Tinto (1975), as well as on Bean and Metzner’s (1985) research. They argue that academic and social integration are important factors in retention, but they expanded social integration to include the work environment and the influence of employment. Furthermore, Kember et al.’s (1991, 1994) studies emphasize the impact of immediate family on retention. Kember et al. (1994) has subsequently changed the model so that academic and social integration is not viewed separately but as positive and negative factors that contribute to retention (Davidson & Wilson, 2013).
Factors Influencing the Retention of Doctoral Students
Davidson and Wilson (2013) confirm that Tinto (1975), Bean and Metzner (1985), Kember et al. (1991) as well as Kember et al. (1994) have laid the foundation for looking at student retention at an undergraduate level. Tinto’s (1975) research focuses on the traditional student, whereas Bean and Metzner (1985) consider non-traditional adult students, and Kember et al. (1991, 1994) study the influence of distance education on retention. In addition to Tinto’s (1975) emphasis on academic and social integration, Bean and Metzner (1985), and Kember et al. (1991, 1994) introduce the broader variables that are part of the reality of being a non-traditional student.
During the past decade, most studies on persistence in doctorates have reiterated the importance of academic and social integration. However, at a graduate level, Tinto (as cited in Lake et al., 2018) acknowledges that a comprehensive theory on graduate persistence is lacking and that factors influencing academic and social integration are different in the context of doctoral students. According to Tinto (1993), Golde (2005), and Nerad and Miller (1996, as cited in Gardner, 2009), academic and social integration are achieved through institutional initiatives at undergraduate level. However, specific departments and disciplines are of paramount importance at doctorate level. Tinto (1997, p. 600) defines academic integration as the “acquisition of knowledge and development of skills”. At doctorate level, this translates into satisfaction with learning and academic performance; consistent feedback from the promoter; a good relationship with the promoter; preparation for the dissertation process; and integration into a department (Conceicao & Hill, 2019; Gardner, 2009; Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016; Sverdlik et al., 2018; Terrell et al., 2016). The social integration of doctoral students does not necessarily relate to broader institutional extramural social activities, but to academic socialization in the form of peer support (student-to-student support), mentor- and promoter-support, and student-faculty support (Lake et al., 2018; Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2014, 2016; Sverdlik, et al., 2018; Terrell et al., 2016). In the context of doctoral studies, institutional support should relate to the academic task. Dedicated librarians, statisticians, and writing coaches are essential (Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016).
Gardner (2008) indicates a lack of research on doctoral students that do not fit the traditional mould in terms of age, ethnicity, and gender. She argues that individual characteristics such as race, gender, enrolment status, and family background play a role in persistence. Kember et al. (1994) indicate that entry characteristics alone do not explain persistence in undergraduate adult distance education students. Lake et al. (2018), Rockinson-Szapkiw et al. (2014) and Sverdlik et al. (2018) indicate that students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is an essential contributor to persistence.
Environmental factors, as identified by Bean and Metzner (1985), are essential when working with non-traditional (adult) students, also in the context of doctoral students. Furthermore, Bean and Metzner (1985) highlight specific factors, namely finances, family support, employment and associated responsibilities. These were subsequently identified by authors who worked on doctoral students’ experiences of finances (Gardner, 2009; Lake et al., 2018; Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016; Russom, 2017; Sverdlik et al., 2018; Terrell et al., 2016); of family support (Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2014, 2016; Russom, 2017); and of employment and associated responsibilities (Conceicao & Hill, 2019; Russom, 2017).
Russom (2017) identifies stress and a lack of well-being as a factor that influences doctoral students' persistence. Various factors contribute to stress. Rockinson-Szapkiw et al. (2014) indicate that doctoral students with funding, experience less stress than those without funding. Bean and Metzner (1985) have determined that older students experience more stress than their younger counterparts. Students experience structural isolation during the thesis writing process that can lead to feelings of being lonely and of being without support (Conceicao & Hill, 2019; Lake et al., 2018). Kember et al. (1991) and Russom (2017) report that students felt that they had insufficient time to accomplish the demands of the programme. Given the various responsibilities that working adults must uphold, increased pressure on their time while studying, could contribute to stress. The factors identified by the various authors working on doctoral persistence informed the data collection.
Method
The survey consisted of a quantitative and a qualitative section. The quantitative section contained questions related to student and biographical characteristics; academic integration (the academic department and supervision); institutional support (library support, statistician, language); social integration; environmental factors (finances, family, employment); and time constraints. The qualitative section focused on questions related to the challenges that students experience. Excluding the biographical and demographic items, and the open-ended qualitative questions, the statements used a forced (four-point) Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, with no neutral option. After ethical clearance was obtained, the surveys were sent electronically to all registered PhD students (57) at a Business School in a developing context.
The Business School is part of a university in a metropolitan city. The university has approximately 42,000 students distributed over three campuses. Of the total student compliment, 6500 students are enrolled for postgraduate qualifications, with 1000 enrolled for a PhD. In total, the university has 1200 international students and 1300 students from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region. The quantitative data was analysed using descriptive statistics while thematic analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data. A response rate of 45.6% was achieved.
Results and Discussion
The results will be discussed based on the factors identified in the literature, namely student characteristics, academic integration, social integration, environmental factors, time constraints and well-being.
In the South African context, all PhDs consists only of a research component. No structured curriculum is offered as part of the enrolment for a PhD and if it is provided, it does not count towards the credits of obtaining the qualification. The Business School had at the time of the study 57 students enrolled in the PhD programme. All the respondents were in full-time employment and studying part-time. Although the survey was sent out to all students in the various phases of the PhD, 71% of the respondents that responded was in their first to third year of study. Seven percent was in their fourth year with 10% in their fifth year, while 10% discontinued their studies. The data therefore provide a snapshot of students in the various phases of their doctoral journey.
Student Characteristics
The age distribution of the cohort is indicated in Figure 1.
Age of Respondents.
Most of the respondents were older than 35, with only 7% between 25–34 years. While Mouton et al. (2015) report an average age of 39 years for doctoral students in the South African context, in this study 63% of respondents are older than 44.
Gender
In terms of gender, 70% of the respondents were male, which is much higher than the national average of 56% male enrolments (Mouton et al., 2015). This could be contributed to the various responsibilities that females have such as family obligations and being employed, which makes it challenging to continue with doctoral studies (Mouton et al., 2015).
Ethnicity
In terms of ethnicity, there has been progressively more participation by African students with a current enrolment of 70%. This is much higher than the national average of 47% participation by African students (Mouton et al., 2015).
International Students
Two thirds (67%) of the respondents were South African residents with 29% from the SADC region. Mouton et al., (2015) report that in the South African context the completion rate of international students is a bit better than for the South African counterparts, 67% for international students versus 54% for local students.
First Generation Students
Most of the students were first-generation postgraduate students. Respondents were requested to identify the highest qualification of their parents. In terms of formal parental education, only 19% of respondents’ fathers possessed a postgraduate qualification, whereas a mere 4% of their mothers had a similar qualification. Furthermore, 0% of the respondents’ fathers and 11% of their mothers had undergraduate qualifications. Gardner (2008) highlights that first-generation students lack the role model of parents who had had a similar experience. This can translate into a lack of support to assist their children with the integration process of the institution. Moreover, only 15% of respondents were alumni of the university.
Mother Tongue
Only 16% of the respondents reported that English was their mother tongue. The language of instruction at the institution is English, and all theses must be written in English. Academic writing is a problem experienced in the South African context, not only because of a lack of the appropriate academic writing skills but also other related skills. Maasdorp and Holtzhausen (2015) indicate that the readiness for research should not only focus on students' motivation but also on the generic skills that are needed. Some students entering doctoral studies are not ready from an academic writing viewpoint, or they might need a refresher course on statistical methods owing to their interrupted educational paths.
Motivation to Enroll
In the survey, almost three-quarters of the students (74%) indicated that they had enrolled to fulfil a personal dream. Only 22% stated that they had enrolled for career advancement, or to meet the requirements of their job (7%), or for better employment prospects (7%). This contrasts with higher education trends in developed countries that indicate the following forms of career advancement as reasons for enrolment: work-related, up-skilling, career change or a particular interest (McCulloch & Stokes, 2008). Self-development served as driving force for the majority of respondents in this study. A high level of intrinsic motivation contributes to students' retention (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Lake et al., 2018).
In this study, it would be essential to consider the impact of student characteristics, given the South African context. There was a lack of educational opportunities available to certain groups in terms of race and gender in the past. Although it is promising that most of the student cohort is from African descent, there is still a lot to ensure participation from females in doctoral education. Factors that could potentially influence students negatively is a lack of academic writing skills in English, because English is the second or third language for most students. Students will also not be familiar with what to expect, because they are first-generation doctoral students and do not necessarily have the support from family in understanding the journey that they are one. Furthermore, because very few students studied previously at the university, the students will not be familiar with the institution. What counts in their favour is their intrinsic motivation to obtain a doctoral degree. Most of the student characteristics that could potentially influence persistence negatively can be addressed through interventions that is discussed in the recommendations.
Academic Integration
The respondents’ perceptions of the academic department and supervision are discussed in this subsection on academic integration.
The Academic Department
Most of the respondents (96%) agreed that the academic department had a research ambience, and 96% felt that they belonged to the department. Three questions were included to determine whether students felt intellectually challenged (see Table 1).
Results of Perceived Intellectual Challenges.
All respondents agreed that their research challenged them intellectually, and they indicated that it forced them to evaluate their current understanding of the research topic. While the purpose of doctoral research is learning, it is positive to see that these students feel that they are pushed to reach more complex levels of higher-order thinking. Future research needs to identify whether students feel challenged to be productively engaged or whether this challenge is seen as a crippling factor that could make them feel helpless.
Supervision
One of the key elements in the success of any research student is the quality of supervision. Six questions were asked in relation to respondents’ expectations about supervision (see Table 2).
Expectations Related to Supervision.
The majority of the respondents felt that their supervision expectations were met. Most respondents (89%) reported that they received timely feedback, that the feedback supported (92%) them in moving forward, and that they felt that their promoters were challenging their current level of thinking (85%). Most (88%) students thought that the level of support was appropriate and that they would recommend their promoter to other students (88%). Although students felt satisfied with the level of support and the feedback that they received, the frequency of contact with promoters might be an aspect that needs attention.
Respondents were requested to indicate how often they met with their promoter per term (3-month period). The communication could be face-to-face or online. The results are displayed in Figure 2.
Contact With Promoter per Term.
The majority (52%) indicated that they only contacted their promoters once per term, with only 19% reporting that they have more than six times per term contact with their promoters. The promoter is one of the most important contributors to successful completion (Abiddin et al., 2009), even more so when students are studying remotely. It is problematic that students have minimal contact with promoters; this could lead to isolation due to the lack of student-faculty contact. Since part-time students are not in a research environment on a daily basis, unlike their full-time peers, it diminishes the support that they receive on a formal and informal basis. This isolation, combined with other situational factors such as home/work interference, could negatively influence retention (Conceicao & Hill, 2019; Schulze, 2016).
Institutional Support
The institutional support consists of a variety of services. Table 3 provides an overview of the support provided and respondents’ evaluation on each of these.
Various Services Related to Institutional Support.
Respondents were overall satisfied with the services related to institutional support. Some respondents did indicate areas of concern where they could not rely solely on the infrastructure of the university, for example on library access and on access to a suitable workspace. While 92% agreed that they had access to adequate working space, most of the students did not work on their research at the university. Most students (85%) worked on their research at home, 35% at their workplace, and 15% worked at another university. Because most students are not living in the same city where the institution is located, access to a university library that could fulfil their needs is problematic. This is even more problematic in the case of students living outside the country's borders. Currently, 33% of the students are from neighbouring countries. As one participant (P19) put it: “The university will be getting more and more foreign students, so it should structure itself to cater for foreign students.” Whereas universities in South Africa have an agreement to share resources, this is not the case with universities in neighbouring countries. Considering the growing number of international students, this is an issue that needs to be addressed. McCulloch and Stokes (2008) assert that part-time doctoral students are often powerless in the institutional structure; they are not considered a priority in the allocation of resources or whether the allocation does, in fact, address the need. This was further highlighted in a response from the open-ended questions where some students indicated that the workshops were mostly presented on campus or in main South African cities; this made it difficult for students outside South Africa to attend.
Social Integration
Various questions were included to explore students’ peer-to-peer contact despite their various responsibilities. The items and results are included in Table 4.
Social Support.
Most of the respondents (81%) indicated that the department encouraged interaction with others and that the interaction with others enhanced their understanding (77%). Although 69% reported that they participated in a research community that was not part of the academic department, none of them reported that they were part of an informal self-arranged study/support group. Although they are not part of an informal group, 69% indicated that they frequently discussed their research with other students. The respondents reported that interaction do broaden their understanding of the research and that they do discuss their research with different people. The geographical spread of the respondents and the demands made on these students’ time could provide reasons for having external support systems. A way of enhancing support from other registered students could consist of online interventions where support might be established.
Environmental Factors
The discussion on environmental factors includes factors such as finances, family and employment. These factors are interrelated and are difficult to separate from one another.
Finances
Financial support and economic integration are obstacles to student retention (Gardner, 2009; Lake et al., 2018; Mouton, 2016; Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016; Russom, 2017; Sverdlik et al., 2018; Terrell et al., 2016). In this study, respondents indicated that 39% were funding their own studies, whereas 35% stated that they had received a scholarship for their tuition fees only, and 8% indicated that their employers were funding their studies. The financial pressure is confirmed by the respondents’ qualitative responses: P10: “Changes in our economy, especially. The environment is not as conducive as before.” P5: “If more funding can be made to assist PhD students to exit their day to day working environment and focus more on their PhD studies.” P12: “To get affordable accommodation on campus … to meet the promoter and attend workshops is very costly to me.” P14: “I think the charges for language editing are too high for students since some, like myself, are self-sponsoring.”
Abedi and Benkin (1987) found that doctoral students who had to support themselves and/or their families took longer to complete their studies.
Family
The personal/family life challenges identified in the literature are confirmed by the results of this study. Participant responses indicated that challenges related to their personal lives further influenced their families and resulted in a struggle to balance their work and life. In answer to an open question about challenges in their personal lives that prevented them from making progress, the majority of responses reflected compromising family time, followed by a lack of time and work commitments. Comments related to family commitments emphasized that respondents experienced time limitations: P4: “Family time is limited.” P25: “Managing time between my employer, family and dedicating at least four hours a day for [sic] my research journey. However, this is the sacrifice I have taken to achieve my personal goal of being the first PhD graduate in my family and proving that it is doable.” P26: “Ensuring that my marital obligations are fulfilled while busy with my research journey. Especially the fathering role … At times it feels a bit unfair to my triplets having sacrificed their quality time for my own development. I hope they will one day [sic] understand.”
Employment
Students also mentioned their work as a factor that prevented them from making progress as the following responses illustrate. P16: “Work pressure, which means I can only work on the research after hours and on weekends.” P18: “… my current load at work has increased.”
Time Constraints
Respondents were asked to indicate how many hours per week they spent on their studies in order to get a sense of the amount of time available to spend on their research (see Table 5).
Time Spent on Research per Week.
Table 5 indicates that more than two-thirds of the respondents (78%) spent less than 21 hours per week on their studies. In the South African environment, it is expected that a PhD must be completed in three years.
Furthermore, the fact that a doctoral degree consists of 360 credits implies that the average student will spend 3600 notional learning hours to complete the qualification. Considering that these students are working adults and that they are studying part-time, it is understandable why few students complete their studies within their allocated three-year time frame. The most apparent reason for this lack of time is the additional responsibilities that working adult part-time students have. The profile of the group of students confirmed the argument of McCulloch and Stokes (2008) that part-time students are more heterogeneous than homogeneous. They assert that when thinking of the part-time student, one needs to keep the individual student and their specific needs in mind to ensure that these are incorporated. Kember et al. (1994) advise that institutions make students aware of these time expectations and inform them about the academic nature of the programme at the beginning of the course. This is highlighted by one respondent in the following comment: P14: “It is important to provide new PhD students with clear guidelines as to [the]required length of the thesis — i.e. word count and/or page limit. Secondly, there should be clear guidelines as to [the] maximum duration of the PhD. This was not known to me, only to be informed [sic] somewhere during the course of the study that I am not allowed to go beyond five years. I think the rules have to be made clear from the word go.” P5: “Being unable to find time to do research because of my type of work.” P6: “Time. To balance off work and studies.” P18: “Work pressure, which means I can only work on the research after hours and weekends.” P19: “Balancing work with study, time is very limited.”
Well-Being
The combined effect of all these challenges, which are not directly related to the formal academic role of students, add up. These could lead to a negative impact on the well-being of students as mentioned by P8: “To sometimes ask how I as a student cope …” Although a question was not asked specifically that focus on the well-being or stress of the students, the impact of all the factors together could lead to varying levels of stress (Russom, 2017). Greater emphasis should be placed in programmes on monitoring students’ well-being and on providing support beyond the formal academic situation in order to refer students to counselling services, should this be required. Russom (2017) also highlight that postgraduate studies are stressful. However, limited research on this subject is available.
The above research findings confirm the influence of a wide variety of factors and their intersecting nature. Having an idea of the characteristics of the student population can assist faculty in identifying potential interventions to avoid a backlog for some student groups. While some authors indicate that student characteristics are not that important at doctorate level, it is vital to take cognisance of students’ background. From an academic integration perspective, respondents rated the academic integration high, they felt that they belonged and that they were intellectually challenged. Generally, they were satisfied with their interaction with their promoters, but more interaction could be encouraged. In relation to institutional support, respondents identified some challenges. They highlighted some shortcomings in the current support such as access to libraries outside South Africa and the presentation of workshops in the online environment that had been rapidly introduced due to the Covid-19 pandemic. From a social integration point of view, students did not report much peer-to-peer interaction but they created peer support systems in their immediate environment. The influence of environmental factors is confirmed in this study. Students experienced financial challenges in addition to pressure in balancing family commitments and juggling various responsibilities. This was also reflected in the time available for studies. A combination of these factors could affect the well-being of students negatively. Further research is required to identify the psychological impact of doctoral studies on students.
Recommendations
The results of the study support the various factors identified in the literature. But the study highlighted the finer nuances of this heterogeneous student group. Whereas most institutions have some form of support, the heterogonous nature of the working adult, part-time research student needs to be considered.
Student characteristics provide useful information that could assist in understanding the student and that could provide information about the type of support to be considered by the institution. But support interventions should move away from a one-size-fits-all strategy and focus more on identifying the experiences and needs of the individual student. Adult learning principles could further assist in individualising the doctoral experience. A self-directed learning environment needs to be created where the adult learner assesses their situation, and design their learning path and needs in conjunction with their promoters. This process could commence with orientation workshops and it could be continued as part of the supervision relationship. Having discussions on the potential impact of biographical and demographical information could make students aware of their own needs through reflection. By assessing the research readiness for doctoral studies from various perspectives (academic knowledge, writing skills and research skills) the motivation to complete could be harnessed. This would enhance self-efficacy where students could feel competent to attempt their doctoral journey.
From an institutional perspective, care should be taken in designing support strategies that actually enable part-time working adult students to engage in the research journey. When considering the profile of part-time students, it is important not to think about them as part of the traditional student population. Some well-intended strategies such as making support sessions compulsory, could put part-time students under more pressure with unintended consequences. Not only do these students have time constraints related to various other responsibilities in their lives, but some of them do not live close by the institution. Even presenting workshops face-to-face in big cities could be problematic for international students. Online technology needs to be embraced not only to broadcast workshops but also to provide smaller chunks of information to students who have time constraints.
Moreover, part-time doctoral students require more contact with their supervisors. Although the amount of contact does not necessarily equate to quality supervision, supervisors and students need to identify the optimal amount of contact time needed to enable both role players to have a productive relationship. Contact should also be redefined beyond the boundaries of face-to-face interaction. Various technologies and software programmes could be used to create opportunities for online contact.
Furthermore, interventions should not only focus on the academic and social integration of students. The availability of time could influence retention negatively. Students need to be aware of the expectations related to time on task. Enrolling for doctoral studies is demanding and challenging. Students will be challenged, and they will have to self-regulate their learning with the necessary support from the promoter.
A focus on the well-being of part-time students should be included in future research due to the additional responsibilities which they would need to manage and which could influence their studies. Consequently, support should be considered in its broadest form. This should range from formal counselling services at academic institutions to informal academic support groups, which could be provided in peer or research communities, inside and outside the institution. Students also need to be made aware of the importance of other support structures in their lives such as friends, colleagues, spouses, etc. A broader support system provides a buffer against the strains of academic life and life in general.
National policies indicate that completion should not put part-time doctoral students at risk. From a policy perspective, careful consideration should be given to realistic time frames for completion for part-time doctoral students, given the heterogeneity of this group of students. Care should also be taken to think about the availability of resources to international students. Where there are policies in place at national level, for example policies about the sharing of library resources, these should also be considered across borders.
Further research should be undertaken to specifically focus on the factors that are important to part-time doctoral students. Not only should the literature speak, but the experiences of the students should be heard in the form of qualitative data analysis to explore the finer nuances of their lived experience. Given the demands placed on these students, it would be important to focus on their well-being during the doctoral research journey.
It is also important for institutions to take a holistic view of the working adult part-time doctoral student and the factors that influence retention and rethink strategies from a systemic perspective, because a well-intended intervention on an academic level, might have a detrimental effect on the environmental factors (like time constraints or impeding on family time).
Conclusion
The journey of a working adult part-time doctoral student is sometimes a very lonely journey; these students are often invisible in discussions relating to postgraduate level support at institutions. Reflections on support mechanisms identified in literature, which are combined with an individual approach to their needs, are the first steps in helping working adult part-time students to persevere along their doctoral journey.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
