What’s your type? An examination of first-year doctoral student motivation

Abstract

Educators often ask how to motivate PhD students. Before addressing how to motivate students, we should know what motivates prospective doctoral students. Motivational support has been shown to lead to overall satisfaction with the educational process, better engagement, and persistence. Using the interdisciplinary field of library and information science, this research offers insight on doctoral student motivation through quantitative analysis of results from administration of the Academic Motivation Scale. The instrument measures and classifies motivation from the perspective of self-determination theory. Results suggest PhD students are motivated by several types of intrinsic motivation as well as identified regulation, a type of extrinsic yet autonomous motivation. Findings can be used by program administrators, faculty, and other stakeholders to address the “how” of motivation through better alignment of teaching practices, research activities, and student services based on students’ motivation types.

Keywords

Library and information science doctoral education higher degree research motivation faculty support academic motivation scale

1. Introduction

Doctoral degree completion is vital to the continuation of any discipline because PhD recipients are the primary workforce in colleges and universities as instructors and researchers. Toward the aim of successful degree completion, each discipline, in order to better support students, benefits from examining the motivation of its students. Given the time commitment and resources required when pursuing a doctoral degree, gaining insight on students’ motivational influences for earning the degree is even more important. Attention to entering students’ motivation can inform the decisions of program administrators and faculty members in relation to supervision (Is there someone to guide the work of the student?), academic fit (Does the student fit the current aims, scope, and practices of the program?), and socialization or support systems (What support would students need and can the program commit to providing that support within its current form? What about the overall campus community?) – all factors important to overall satisfaction and successful completion of doctoral programs (Golde, 2000; Pyhältö et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2007). Exploration of motivations to enter doctoral study is also valuable for prospective students as the experience in the U.S. can be emotionally taxing lasting a 5- to 10-years; less so in European countries. Hearing the motivations of current students can help prospective students in their own decision-making; similarly, current students reflecting on their initial motivations and decision may find inspiration to draw on when they face challenges and doubts during doctoral study.

A growing body of literature has examined doctoral student motivation (London et al., 2014; Lynch et al., 2018; Mokhtar, 2012) identifying a mix of intrinsic and extrinsic factors (often more than one) leading students to earn a PhD. Even still, discipline-specific research on doctoral students is encouraged because programs differ in format, delivery method, and educational philosophy (Golde & Dore, 2004). For example, Moreno and Kollanus (2013) found that computer science students in structured programs were extrinsically motivated, seeking the degree for career reasons, whereas students in traditional programs expressed intrinsic motivations for initiating doctoral study. In their research “structured” refers to programs with competitive admissions processes, limits on time-to-completion, and a structured curriculum contrasted with “traditional” programs with flexible curricula, rolling admissions, and less restrictive time-to-completion deadlines. Location and type of program were motivational factors among students in Jablonski’s (2001) research. Students were motivated by the cohort-based, no-residency doctoral program designed for working professionals demonstrating that program characteristics helped prospective students determine if doctoral study fit into their life circumstances. While previous scholars have investigated motivation to earn a doctoral degree in disciplines such as biomedical sciences, business, and counselor education and supervision, which may be relevant to library and information science (LIS) because of the broad range of individuals drawn to the discipline, there has not been an empirical study of initial motivations for earning a PhD among library and information science students as conducted by this exploratory research.

In recent years, research related to LIS doctoral studies has taken the form of quantitative studies using citation analysis or bibliometrics to survey the field’s interdisciplinarity as evidenced by publication productivity and dissertation topics. This research tends to lack the student perspective and is a shift from early studies of the field that investigated program characteristics, career and employment outcomes, and student characteristics using data from program administrators, school catalogs, dissertations, and degree recipients. Marking a return to earlier lines of inquiry, the present study investigates the phenomenon of motivation using the Academic Motivation Scale (AMS-C 28), a self-report instrument that will highlight the student perspective often unexamined in LIS doctoral education research.

The work presented here is in conversation with Sugimoto (2012) who called for “more transparency in terms of expectations” (p. 112) so that students and programs are on the same page and setup for a partnership in which both parties thrive. This work is also relevant to the literature that presents the faculty viewpoint of motivation as important to doctoral student success (Gardner, 2009), however as evidenced by comments, has been considered the sole responsibility of the student:

“people have to be organized and self-motivated enough to make it through” (Sugimoto, 2012, p. 107). “If a student can’t figure out [how to succeed] for themselves, isn’t motivated enough to figure it out themselves …they’re just going to sink” (Sugimoto, 2012, p. 108).

Although the present study does not ask students how they would like to be supported by faculty, findings can be used to begin discussions about faculty practices that support motivation based on factors found here. Because knowing motivations at the start of doctoral studies can inform decisions made about one’s career post-PhD, findings reported here also could shed light on concerns and questions raised but left unexplored in the last decade about LIS graduate faculty supply (Seavey, 2005) and the high percentage of LIS doctoral graduates not holding faculty positions (Sugimoto, 2009).

2. Doctoral education in library and information science

In 1925, Sisler and Coulter expressed the need for “more advanced study than that offered in a two-year graduate school” (as cited in Abrera, 1987, p. 39). Their remark that, “The profession needs instructors to staff the university schools of librarianship, it needs librarians who are scholars to assume the directorship of university libraries, and it needs specialists who can speak with authority in a limited field of knowledge” (p. 39) sparked 30 years of debate on the status of library science doctoral study. Library school administrators questioned how to select students competent to undertake doctoral research and the need for subject specialization versus a PhD in library science for those working in academic libraries (Abrera, 1987). This was followed by research on doctoral education that examined program characteristics and objectives, curriculum, time-to-completion, and employment outcomes using school catalogs and surveys completed by school deans as data sources (Danton, 1959; Marco, 1967; Whitbeck, 1991). More contemporary literature has examined publication activity of doctoral recipients and disciplinary development in LIS (Anwar, 2004; Sugimoto et al., 2011). These studies are described in more detail in Hands (2018).

As important as examining disciplinary trends and publication outputs is investigating the perspective and experience of doctoral students in the field. This is an area of LIS doctoral education research in need of further development (Brown-Syed et al., 2008; Sugimoto et al., 2011). Existing literature on the student experience has been illuminating. For instance, Lawley’s (1999) study of students in Canada and the U.S. revealed lack of perceived career usefulness, poor advisor-student relationships, and frustration with policies and procedures as factors influencing LIS doctoral student attrition. In addition to advisor support, peer mentor relationships have been reported as important to socialization for the sample of LIS doctoral students in the U.S., China, and South Korea (Lee et al., 2015). The advisor-student relationship is a frequently cited reason for student dissatisfaction or dropping out of U.S. doctoral programs across disciplines (Hoskins & Goldberg, 2005; Zhao et al., 2007). These relationships and other factors impact students’ motivation and subsequent degree completion, yet little recent attention has been paid overall to motivation as related to LIS doctoral education.

Decades ago, motivation for choice of dissertation topic was included on a questionnaire completed by LIS doctoral graduates at the University of Michigan (Slavens, 1979). Since then, literature has anecdotally discussed why individuals in the U.S. and Australia in library and information science seek to earn a doctoral degree (Achterman et al., 2007; Bruce, 2009) indicating interest in the topic. As noted earlier, comments have been made in the literature pointing a need for a LIS-specific examination to gain a greater understanding of motivation specific to this discipline. Faculty consider motivation to be important for success in academia as noted by faculty in the U.S. who spoke of students needing self-direction and self-motivation to be successful (Gardner 2009; Sugimoto, 2012); however, their role in supporting or hampering students’ motivation sometimes goes unacknowledged.

3. Theoretical framework

This research takes the perspective espoused by Deci and Ryan (1985a) in self-determination theory (SDT), that the regulation of behavior or motivation is impacted by one’s environment, which can either nurture or hinder one’s innate growth potential and personal development (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Attention to the individual’s social-cultural environment made SDT attractive for examining the doctoral experience because it is a growth experience especially attuned to the variances and occurrences within one’s environment, which can make or break a student’s pursuit of the degree. The literature on doctoral student experiences supports SD’s assertation that behavior regulation“can be reliably instigated through exposure to different social environments” (Kemp et al., 2014; Lynch et al., 2018; Mosyjowski et al., 2017; Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 15).

Two of self-determination theory’s (SDT) six mini theories are relevant to this study: cognitive evaluation theory (CET) and organismic integration theory (OIT) (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Cognitive evaluation theory (CET) pertains to intrinsic motivation – behaviors that are inherently interesting wherein the incentive is the “spontaneous feelings of effectance and enjoyment that accompany the behavior” (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 14), irrespective of any reward attached. Intrinsic motivation is enhanced and supported when an individual experiences competence accompanied by feelings of autonomy and relatedness. Proponents of SDT believe strongly in the individual’ need for autonomy stemming from deCharm’ (1968) concept of internal perceived locus of causality or a person feeling that they are the source of their actions and perform freely.

The organismic integration theory (OIT; Ryan & Deci, 2017) expanded the existing binary intrinsic-extrinsic view of motivation with the continuum of relative autonomy shown in Fig. 1. Bookended by amotivation and intrinsic motivation, the continuum emphasizes extrinsic motivation or acting based on a separable outcome such as approval by one’s peer or a promotion. Extrinsic motivation lies at the center of the continuum and is reflected by four regulation types (external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and integrated regulation) based on degree of autonomy or perceived locus of causality (bottom row of Fig. 1).

Table 1
Types of extrinsic motivation based on self-determination theory

Extrinsic motivation type	Description
External regulation	What is traditionally thought of as extrinsic motivation. This is when one engages in an activity based on the rewards offered or to avoid punishment.
Introjected regulation	Refers to actions based on approval from self or others. This rather ego centered regulation can be seen in a person who enrolls in graduate school to prove they can earn the degree.
Identified regulation	Here we see a shift from external perceived locus of causality to a somewhat autonomous or internal perceived locus of causality. While still extrinsic, through internalization the individual finds value in the activity and endorses being engaged in it.
Integrated regulation	The most autonomous form of extrinsic motivation, wherein the action is internalized and integrated into one’s value system.

Figure 1.

Continuum of relative autonomy adapted from Deci and Ryan (1985a).

The extrinsic motivation types are described in more detailed in Table 1. Briefly, external regulation refers to the most external form of motivation energized by outside forces such as pursuing a field because of its income potential. With introjected regulation, behavior is regulated by a desire to avoid guilt or punishment or because one’s sense of self is attributed to external forces such as when one undertakes an advanced degree to prove themselves capable. Identified regulation refers to behavior that is autonomously undertaken and is that for which one finds personal value. For example, though one is driven by external forces to earn a PhD, they acknowledge and believe the degree will broaden their career possibilities, thus it has personal importance. Lastly, with integrated regulation one moves beyond identifying with the value of an activity to internalizing and fully endorsing the activity (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Integrated regulation is most like intrinsic motivation, except there is instrumental value in the activity rather than one being inherently interested in the activity as with intrinsic motivation. Each regulation, from external to integrated, is more autonomous than the previous, signaling more choice-based behavior close to intrinsic motivation or acting based on an autonomous versus controlled regulation.

Research on the doctoral student experience support the use of SDT as a theoretical framework for this investigation of doctoral student motivation. Kemp et al.’s (2014) research based on CET and OIT identified in biomedical students three motivational orientations – instrumental, benevolent interest, and innate interest – that corresponded to categories on the motivation continuum, namely introjected, integrated and identified regulation, and intrinsic regulation. More recently, self-determination theory was employed to examine doctoral students’ motivation when selecting a research topic (Mosyjowski et al., 2017) and in an investigation of interpersonal contexts that promote doctoral student’ internal motivation (Lynch et al., 2018).

Self-determination theory was applied here in the selection of the survey instrument and subsequent data analysis. The instrument, employed and described next, directly relates to the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as manifested in cognitive evaluation theory and organismic integration theory explained above. The theory has been applied in LIS research to examine intrinsic motivation of youth to seek information and health information-seeking in online communities among other topics (Crow, 201; Li & Wang, 2018; Zhang, 2016).

4. Methods

Mayer et al. (2007) identified over 150 instruments related to motivation in use since 1930. Scales span the contexts of work, athletic performance, achievement, and education in addition to numerous frequently used general measures. For the present study, the General Causality Orientation Scale and Aspirations Index were considered based on their connection to the study’s theoretical framework – self-determination theory. The General Causality Orientation Scale, an early motivation instrument based on SDT surveys the strength to which an individual is oriented toward autonomous, controlled, or impersonal or amotivated environments or interactions (Deci & Ryan, 1985b). The Aspirations Index assesses an individual’s aspirations in 7 categories including health, life goals, community contributions, personal growth, and fame; several categories are positioned as intrinsic or extrinsic. Though, not specific to education, one’s motivational factors for earning a doctoral degree could be elucidated by the ‘life goals’ category measured by the Aspirations Index’s prompts such as ‘to grow and learn new things’ or ‘to choose what I do, instead of being pushed along by life’ (Kasser, 2002). Of the three SDT-related motivation instruments the researcher considered, the Academic Motivation Scale (AMS-C 28) most closely aligned with the aim of inquiry of this research. Additionally, the researcher sought to select an instrument reflective of the theoretical framework of this research rather than combine the theory for examining motivation with an unrelated survey tool, thus non-SDT instruments were not considered. Use of the instrument with doctoral or graduate students is in its infancy. Hegarty (2010) suggested further use of the AMS-C 28 to more definitively ascertain the scale’s ability to accurately assess graduate student motivation. Petrelli (2014) echoed this suggestion after employing the AMS-C 28 as a predictor of academic motivation among applicants to Doctor of Pharmacy programs.

Based on its intent to assess motivation types, which served the intent of the research goal to learn motivational factors for earning the doctoral degree, the self-report Academic Motivation Scale was selected for the current study. The 28-item instrument measures 7 subscales that correspond to the motivation types described in Deci and Ryan’s (1985a) motivation continuum (see Fig. 1). The instrument attends to the multidimensionality of motivation measuring three types of intrinsic motivation: motivation to know, motivation toward accomplishment, and motivation to experience stimulation; three types of extrinsic motivation: identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation; and amotivation (Vallerand et al., 1992). The AMS-C 28 has a Likert-type scale with the following rating options: 1 (does not correspond at all), 2 or 3 (corresponds a little), 4 (corresponds moderately), 5 or 6 (corresponds a lot), and 7 (corresponds exactly). The instrument has one question prompt: ‘Why did you decide to enroll in a doctoral program?’ followed by a list of 28 items (or statements) to which participants respond by selecting a rating from 1 to 7. Each item is representative of one of seven motivation subtypes mentioned above. The items relate, in part, to participants’ academic experiences and expected outcomes that are motivating factors for earning a degree. Sample items are shown in Table 2. As the original AMS-C 28 was administered to undergraduate students, words such as high school and college were used in the items. In the present study, those terms were changed to graduate and doctoral, respectively, to reflect the academic level of study of the participants (Hegarty, 2010).

Table 2
Subscales assessed on the AMS-C 28 with a sample item

AMS-C 28 motivation subscale	Sample item
Amotivation (AMOV)	I don’t know; I can’t understand what I am doing in school.
External regulation (ER)	Because I want to have “the good life” later on.
Introjected regulation (INTRO)	Because I want to show myself that I can succeed in my studies.
Identified regulation (IDR)	Because eventually it will enable me to enter the job market in a field that I like.
Intrinsic motivation to know (IMK)	Because I experience pleasure and satisfaction while learning new things.
Intrinsic motivation toward accomplishment (IMA)	For the satisfaction I feel when I am in the process of accomplishing difficult academic activities.
Intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation (IMS)	For the pleasure that I experience when I feel completely absorbed by what certain authors have written.

After receiving ethics approval, participation was solicited via emails to deans, chairs, and advisors at 29 North American doctoral LIS programs Individuals in these positions were selected based on their relationships to students, which was expected to garner them specific knowledge about students’ status in the academic program. The target population was limited to the United States and Canada because of the researcher’s familiarity with the structure of doctoral study in the U.S. and the similarity of Canadian programs to American programs in terms of admissions processes and milestone accomplishments achieved during doctoral study. Application to PhD programs in both countries typically requires possession of a master’s degree and for applicants to provide a research statement, writing sample, recommendation letters, academic transcripts, CV, and sometimes scores from the Graduate Record Exam (GRE). In some instances, admissions approval at both the university and department level are required. After admission, students advance through a sequence of milestones including coursework; comprehensive exams; research proposal; and dissertation defense, public presentation, or examination of dissertation by supervisors or external examiners, in the case of Canadian institutions (Bernstein et al., 2014). Students also complete teaching and research assistantships, oftentimes with funding from the institution.

For participant recruitment, doctoral programs were selected based on their inclusion in the most recent (at the time) statistical report produced by the Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) Research on LIS programs traditionally use data from the American Library Association (ALA), however because ALA does not accredit LIS doctoral programs nor are doctoral programs individually accredited, it was not selected. ALISE was chosen as the primary data source as it has a membership primarily of LIS educators who would have a vested interest in the outcomes of this research. Also, it is within ALISE that conversations about LIS doctoral education take place. Of the 32 programs listed in the 2015 statistical report, 3 were not included in recruitment for this study. One program was eliminated based on language limitations (i.e., French-speaking institution), one program because its PhD is conferred by a partner institution, and a third because based on its website, the doctoral program was no longer being offered. Incentives were not offered to participants.

The survey instrument, the AMS-C 28 was available online from September to mid-December in 2016, during which time 81 clicks were recorded on the online survey tool. Twenty-four surveys were completed with one student completing the survey twice; 18 participants were first-year students, meeting the inclusion criteria. Doctoral students completing the Academic Motivation Scale identified as female ( $n=$ 9), male ( $n=$ 8), and gender queer ( $n=$ 1). Of the 18 participants, 11 were enrolled in programs in the U.S. and 7 at Canadian institutions, representing 12 LIS doctoral programs (37.5%). Unsurprisingly for LIS students, participants entered doctoral study with diverse educational backgrounds. Most participants entered PhD programs immediately after completing a master’s degree with several attending the same institution as where they completed their graduate studies. Demographic details about the small yet heterogeneous participant group are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Demographic characteristics of participants

Characteristic	Category	$n$	%
Age	18–24	1	5.5
	25–34	12	66.7
	35–44	2	11.1
	45–54	1	5.5
	55–64	2	11.1
Gender	Female	9	50
	Male	8	44.4
	Gender queer	1	5.5
Ethnicity	African American	2	11.1
	Asian	3	16.7
	White/Caucasian	13	72.2
Master’s degree discipline ${}^{\ast}$	Library & Info Science	10	55.5
	Education	2	11.1
	Business	1	5.5
	Humanities	5	27.8
	STEM	2	11.1
	Other	1	5.5

${}^{\ast}$ Several students earned more than one master’s degree.

5. Data analysis and results

Before conducting descriptive statistical analysis on the completed AMS-C 28 surveys, Cronbach’s alpha was measured to determine the scale’s internal consistency According to Tavakol & Dennick (2011), an acceptable alpha range is 0.70 to 0.95. Vallerand et al. (1992) determined the AMS-C 28 subscales to have equally adequate levels of internal consistency (0.83 to 0.86) and temporal stability over a one-month period. Cronbach’s alpha for study participants was 0.86, with alpha values for each motivation subscale ranging from 0.76 to 0.93 as presented in Table 4. As mentioned, one participant completed the AMS-C 28 twice. Because the instrument was demonstrated to have temporal stability over a one-month period (Vallerand et al., 1992), this student’s responses, submitted slightly over one month apart, were averaged and the average used in analysis.

Table 4
Internal consistency values (Cronbach’s alpha) of AMS-C 28 subscales

AMS-C 28 subscale	Alpha ( $n=$ 18)
Amotivation	0.76
External regulation	0.81
Introjected regulation	0.87
Identified regulation	0.82
Intrinsic motivation to know	0.87
Intrinsic motivation toward accomplishment	0.93
Intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation	0.87

Participant mean scores of the items on the collective extrinsic and intrinsic subscales were 4.19 and 5.36, respectively, indicating moderate correspondence with extrinsic motivation subscale items and definite correspondence with intrinsic motivation subscale items. Research on motivation levels of doctoral students in health sciences, social sciences, law, and education using the AMS-C 28, reported mean scores indicative of moderate levels of agreement on both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation subscales: 4.51 and 4.83, respectively (Regis, 2014).

By understanding student motivation, program administrators and faculty can work to attract students that align with the program’s mission and services within the structure of the existing program. They can also intentionally address the goals of prospective and current students or help students find programs that match their motivations and are better suited to their needs. Mean responses on individual motivation subscales ranged from 1.38 to 6.24. Results revealed that four motivation types corresponded highly for participants: intrinsic motivation to know, intrinsic motivation toward accomplishment, identified regulation, and intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation. Specifically, participants were motivated to earn the PhD because:

•

of the pleasure and satisfaction perceived to come from learning and exploring new information as reflected by definite correspondence with scale items related to intrinsic motivation to know (M $=$ 6.24, SD $=$ 0.88);

•

earning the degree presented an opportunity to excel academically and accomplish a challenging personal goal demonstrated by definite correspondence with items for intrinsic motivation toward accomplishment (M $=$ 5.11, SD $=$ 1.62);

•

they perceived value in the PhD, viewing doctoral study as necessary career preparation as noted by moderate correspondence with items reflecting identified regulation (M $=$ 4.86, SD $=$ 1.54); and

•

doctoral study was an opportunity to immerse themselves in the work of key thinkers in their chosen field and experience the positive feelings associated with such scholarly engagement as shown by moderate correspondence with items on the intrinsic motivation to stimulation subscale (M $=$ 4.72, SD $=$ 1.51) (see Table 5).

Table 5

Mean levels, standard deviation, and ranges for motivation subtypes

Motivation subtype	Mean	SD	Minimum	Maximum
Amotivation	1.38	0.65	1	3.25
External regulation	3.67	1.75	1	7
Introjected regulation	4.06	1.70	1.25	7
Identified regulation	4.86	1.54	1.5	7
Intrinsic motivation to know	6.24	0.88	4.25	7
Intrinsic motivation toward accomplishment	5.11	1.62	1.25	7
Intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation	4.72	1.51	1.75	7

The mean score for items related to amotivation was 1.38 (SD $=$ 0.65), indicating that participants reported little to no correspondence with those items, while introjected regulation corresponded moderately but less than other moderate scoring subscales (M $=$ 4.06, SD $=$ 1.70) and participants showed little correspondence for items reflecting external regulation (M $=$ 3.67, SD $=$ 1.75).

6. Discussion

The aim in this study was to return to a focus on student-centered LIS doctoral education research and specifically to investigate factors motivating individuals to earn a doctoral degree. Students reported high correspondence with the idea that doctoral study would allow them to fully engage in an area of study of personal interest as well as by the prospect of learning new information. Pursuing and subsequently earning a doctoral degree was an opportunity to experience positive feelings brought on by excelling academically. Participants were motivated by the thought of accomplishing a challenging personal goal as well as by the success that comes from meeting milestones specific to doctoral study. The most corresponding item on the intrinsic motivation to stimulation subscale showed that students saw doctoral study as an opportunity to surround oneself with the work of scholars in the field. Engaging in scholarly discourse is integral to doctoral study; interestingly students were a little less inclined to perceive as stimulating, and subsequently a motivating factor, the chance to share their thoughts with others. This may be attributed to insecurities of new doctoral students as they are in the process of developing their identity as researchers alongside the expectation that they create new knowledge through their dissertations.

Participants corresponded moderately with identified regulation, an autonomous form of extrinsic motivation. The four items comprising the identified regulation subscale point to a greater sense of autonomy toward the behavior (i.e., earning a PhD) and assess whether one’s academic pursuit could be attributed to its perceived value. A mean score of 4.86 indicates participants were motivated by their perceived value of the PhD, particularly as related to future employment. Doctoral students found some correspondence with the idea of doctoral study as valuable to one’s career preparation, as a means for jumpstarting one’s career in their chosen field, and to enable one to make proper career decisions. The utilitarian value of the degree internalized by these students was consistent with the literature. Brailsford (2010) reported that history PhD holders reflected on beginning the degree with some career-related motivations, though exact job outcomes were not clearly defined. Likewise, engineering doctoral students and PhD degree holders expressed career advancement as factors for earning the degree (London et al., 2014; Mokhtar, 2012). Doctoral study was required by the government in one instance and otherwise deemed to give individual’s a necessary advantage for industry positions. Participants in the current study were less motivated to earn the degree to enhance one’s competence in the workplace, which may be due to the likelihood of students pursuing a new work setting post-PhD. However, as evidenced by scores on the intrinsic motivation to know subscale, students here sought to increase their knowledgebase, which likely enhances competence in any workplace.

Doctoral students reported correspondence with all three intrinsic motivation subtypes, which represent autonomous regulation. According to self-determination theory as influenced by deCharms’ concept of perceived locus of causality, autonomous regulation is characterized by individuals acting from self-interest and agency and is known to lead to positive educational outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 2002). The finding that LIS doctoral students were motivated by intrinsic factors is shared by other disciplines. Students pursuing professional doctorates as well as those in STEM fields reported such intrinsic factors as to gain deeper knowledge, as incentive to read theorists in the field, to meet an individual challenge, or for research enjoyment (Guerin et al., 2015; Moreno & Kollanus, 2013).

Existing LIS literature asked what happened to PhD graduates not employed in tenure-track positions (Sugimoto et al., 2009). This question implies an expectation for doctoral degree holders to enter the academy. As shown here and as demonstrated in other disciplines, individuals enter doctoral study with motivations that may lead to myriad career outcomes including but not limited to academic positions. The literature also pointed to a lack of awareness on the part of faculty of the role that can play in student motivation (Sugimoto, 2012). The findings reported here illustrate that faculty can play a vital role in supporting the motivation of students through practices that enhance aspects of intrinsic motivation that may lead to satisfaction and degree completion.

7. Implications

This research set out to bring forth a phenomenon not commonly investigated in LIS doctoral research. It joins a body of research on self-determination theory and doctoral education and serves as a starting point for future research that may examine these motivational factors against the current presentation of LIS doctoral programs. The first practical contribution of the present research is that it provides needed empirical data presenting the LIS doctoral student perspective. This information is important given that other comparable studies date back more than 20 years (Marco, 1967; Whitbeck, 1991). Returning to student-centered investigations allow faculty and program administrators to guide students and manage programs based on actual student wishes and concerns rather than faculty members’ perceptions of how doctoral study should be. For example, taking note of students’ intrinsic motivation toward accomplishment, faculty could be mindful to intentionally acknowledge and celebrate milestones and allow time for students to bask in their achievements before moving on to the next task. Further, noting this particular motivation subtype, faculty advisors could assist students with setting challenging attainable goals that, upon achievement, will boost intrinsic motivation as remarked by Kumar and Kaur (2019): “providing optimal challenges that were achievable and within students’ intellectual abilities is essential to prevent students losing confidence in themselves” (p. 588).

A second implication of this study comes from the finding of participant correspondence with intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation, which refers to being motivated by the pleasure felt when reading interesting authors and subjects. This finding points to co-curricular experiences program administrators can implement that may set apart their doctoral program from others while supporting students exhibiting this motivation type. Students with an intrinsic motivation toward stimulation will appreciate opportunities to converse with noted researchers through on-campus colloquia or even virtually in small class sessions. Similar activities apply to the finding that participants were motivated to earn a doctoral degree by an intrinsic motivation to know – to learn and discover new things and broaden their knowledge. And even though students exhibited less correspondence for sharing their own ideas, they may eventually warm to opportunities for scholarly engagement within or outside the department (e.g., on-campus poster sessions or three-minute thesis competitions where students can present work in progress). LIS professional organizations already support this students’ intrinsic motivation toward stimulation through lightning talks, keynotes, and paper presentations. Additional support of this motivation type might take the form of interactive speed dating-style sessions that allow for multiple one-on-one conversations with experienced researchers. Likewise, invitations to participate can be extended to individuals who are less experienced and who have not presented at previous conferences in order to encourage participation by early career researchers who are motivated by the stimulation of sharing their ideas.

A third implication pertains to professional associations that have a stake in the success and satisfaction of doctoral students who go on to advance the profession through their membership, service, and scholarship. Based on the finding that all three intrinsic motivation subtypes corresponded with participants, associations are recommended to encourage and advance learning about intrinsic motivation through keynote speakers at conferences and professional development webinars for faculty. These activities also support the ongoing pedagogical development of faculty, which may be a goal of professional associations.

A fourth implication stems from participants’ correspondence with the identified regulation motivation subtype. Although on the extrinsic end of the motivation continuum, this motivation type is partially internal and autonomous such that an individual finds value in the activity, in this case earning the degree. With this sense of value in mind, LIS faculty and program administrators can employ pedagogical techniques and programming that explicitly connect material to future career possibilities or other value markers for students.

With the findings from this research, and the position self-determination theory takes that intrinsic motivation enhances learning, performance, and creativity (Ryan & Deci, 2017), stakeholders are encouraged to spend time learning about activities that enhance or undermine intrinsic motivation. For faculty, this can be done through intentional engagement during faculty meetings with motivation literature, which shows that autonomy-supportive educators are responsive, flexible, and encouraging of students’ intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Faculty should engage in practices grounded in autonomy-support, shown to promote “experiences of ownership among students and feelings that they could exercise their own will to share their work” (Kumar & Kaur, 2019, p. 589). Organizational stakeholders are encouraged to adopt into practice actions that energize students’ intrinsic motivation and extrinsic autonomous regulation as presented here.

8. Limitations

Some limitations of this research should be noted. Results are not widely generalizable and are limited to the sample and discipline. Though steps were taken to recruit a larger sample including using the Wayback Machine to identify and invite potential participants, the resulting sample size was smaller than anticipated. Although based on a small number of participants, factors illustrated by the motivation subtypes presented here align with those reported from interviews with first-year LIS doctoral students (Author, 2018). Further, the study focused on first-year doctoral students; results may not hold for students further along in their doctoral studies. Future research should include students in different phases of doctoral study and may also take a longitudinal approach. Lastly, it should be acknowledged that while practical, self-report instruments carry limitations including possible misunderstanding of items and the potential for participants to engage in impression management (Praslova, 2018). Both limitations were addressed through a pilot study to elicit feedback on the clarity of the instrument items and the potential for participants to be led to misrepresent themselves.

9. Conclusion

Similarity of findings to other disciplines notwithstanding, an examination of motivation from the perspective of self-determination theory such as this one, sheds light on aspects of the LIS doctoral education that have long been ignored. Using data generated from administration of the Academic Motivation Scale, this research, part of a broader project (Author, 2018), presented an account of factors motivating individuals in library and information science programs to pursue the PhD. Results of this study add to existing literature on LIS doctoral student education, which in recent years has not focused on the student perspective. This study highlights the value of hearing students’ perspectives on earning a doctoral degree as findings point to motivations other than commonly expected academic career ambitions that have been alluded to in the literature.

Educational attainment is one means through which human capacity is realized. A degree at the doctoral level carries social, professional, and cultural significance, and for some, represents the peak of educational achievement. Though the latter stages of doctoral study are characteristically solitary, there exist a social-cultural aspect to the doctoral experience and one that in library and information science doctoral education research has been overlooked long enough.

References

Abrera

J.B.

(1987). Doctoral programs, dissertations, and graduates: Characteristics of the literature, 1926–80. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 28(1), 38-51.

Achterman

Kasman Valenza

, & Woolls

(2007). Why enter a doctoral program in library and information science? School Library Media Activities Monthly, 23(6), 56-58.

Anwar

(2004). From doctoral dissertation to publication: A study of 1995 American graduates in library and information sciences. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 36(4), 151-157.

Bernstein

Evans

Fyffe

Halai

Hall

Jensen

Marsh

, & Ortega

(2014). The continuing evolution of the research doctorate. In: Nerad

, & Evans

(Eds.), Globalization and its Impacts on the Quality of PhD Education, pp. 5-30. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Brailsford

(2010). Motives and aspirations for doctoral study: Career, personal, and inter-personal factors in the decision to embark on a history PhD. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 5, 15-27.

Brown-Syed

Baker

, & Wicks

(2008). Doctoral recruitment factors: Results of a survey of deans and directors. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, f49(2), 107-115.

Bruce

(2009). Why consider a Ph.D.? Incite, 30(8), 33.

Committee on Accreditation. (2008). Standards for accreditation of master’s programs in library & information studies. Chicago: American Library Association.

Crow

(2011). Exploring the experiences of upper elementary school children who are intrinsically motivated to seek information. School Library Media Research, 14.

10.

Danton

(1959). Doctoral studies in librarianship in the United States. College & Research Libraries, 20, 435-453.

11.

DeCharms

(1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. New York, NY: Academic Press.

12.

Deci

E.L.

, & Ryan

R.M.

(1985a). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

13.

Deci

E.L.

, & Ryan

R.M.

(1985b). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109-134.

14.

Deci

E.L.

, & Ryan

R.M.

(2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

15.

Gardner

(2009). Conceptualizing success in doctoral education: Perspectives of faculty in seven disciplines. The Review of Higher Education, 32(3), 383-406.

16.

Golde

(2000). Should I stay or should I go? Student descriptions of the doctoral attrition process. The Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 199-227.

17.

Golde

, & Dore

(2004). The survey of doctoral education and career preparation: The importance of disciplinary contexts. In: Austin

, & Wulff

(Eds.), Paths to the Professoriate: Strategies for Enriching the Preparation of Future Faculty, pp. 19-45. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

18.

Guerin

Jayatilaka

, & Ranasinghe

(2015). Why start a higher degree by research? An exploratory factor analysis of motivations to undertake doctoral studies. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 89-104.

19.

Hands

A.S.

(2018). LIS doctoral student motivation: An exploratory study of motivating factors for earning the Ph.D. [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Queensland University of Technology.

20.

Hegarty

(2010). Application of the academic motivation scale to graduate school students. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 6(2), 48-55.

21.

Hoskins

, & Goldberg

(2005). Doctoral student persistence in counselor education programs: Student-program match. Counselor Education & Supervision, 44, 175-188.

22.

Jablonski

(2001). Doctoral studies as professional development of educators in the United States. European Journal of Teacher Education, 24(2), 215-221.

23.

Kasser

(2002). Sketches for a self-determination theory of values. In: Deci

E.L.

, & Ryan

R.M.

(Eds.), Handbook of Self-determination Research, pp. 123-140. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

24.

Kemp

M.W.

Molloy

T.J.

Pajic

, & Chapman

(2014). An analysis of reported motivational orientation in students undertaking doctoral studies in the biomedical sciences. BMC Medical Education, 14(38), 1-11.

25.

Kumar

, & Kaur

(2019). Supervisory practices for intrinsic motivation of doctoral students: A self-determination theory perspective. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 14, 581-595.

26.

Lawley

E.L.

(1999). Making sense of doctoral student attrition in library and information science (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection.

27.

Lee

Anderson

, & Burnett

(2015). Peer relationships and mentoring between LIS doctoral students: A qualitative approach. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 49(1), 115-124.

28.

, & Wang

(2018). Seeking health information on social media: A perspective of trust, self-determination, and social support. Journal of Organizational & End User Computing, 30(1), 1-22.

29.

London

J.S.

Cox

M.F.

Ahn

Branch

S.E.

, & Zephirin

(2014). Motivations for pursuing an engineering Ph.D. and perceptions of its added value: A U.S.-based study. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 9, 205-227. Retrieved from http://www.informingscience.us/icarus/journals/ijds/publications.

30.

Lynch

M.F.

Salikhova

N.R.

, & Salikhova

A.B.

(2018). Internal motivation among doctoral students: Contributions from the student and from the studen’s environment. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 255-272. doi: 10.28945/4091.

31.

Marco

(1967). Doctoral programs in American library schools. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 8(1), 6-13.

32.

Mayer

Faber

, & Xu

(2007). Seventy-five years of motivation measures (1930–2005): A descriptive analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 83-103.

33.

Mokhtar

(2012). Intentions and expectations of female Ph.D. students in engineering at one university in Malaysia. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 56, 204-212.

34.

Moreno

, & Kollanus

(2013). On the motivations to enroll in doctoral studies in computer science: A comparison of Ph.D. program models. In: Paper Presented at Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET) 2013 International Conference in Antalya, Turkey, pp. 1-8.

35.

Mosyjowski

Daly

, & Peters

(2017). Drivers of research topic selection for engineering doctoral students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(4), 1283-1296.

36.

Petrelli

(2014). Predictors of academic motivation in pharmacy school applicants (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/36/18/3618976.html.

37.

Pyältö

Vekkaila

, & Keskinen

(2012). Exploring the fit between doctoral students’ and supervisors’ perceptions of resources and challenges visà-vis the doctoral journey. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 395-414.

38.

Praslova

(2018). Self-report inventories. In: Frey

B.B.

(Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation, pp. 1499-1503. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

39.

Regis

(2014). Doctoral students: Attrition, retention rates, motivation, and financial constraints (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (3668539).

40.

Ryan

, & Deci

(2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

41.

Seavey

C.A.

(2005). The coming crisis in education for librarianship. American Libraries, 36(9), 54-56.

42.

Slavens

(1979). A study of library science dissertations accepted by the University of Michigan. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 19(3), 233-240.

43.

Sugimoto

C.R.

(2012). Initiation, cultivation, separation and redefinition: Application of Kra’s mentoring framework to doctoral education in information and library science. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 53(2), 98-114.

44.

Sugimoto

C.R.

Russell

T.G.

Finlay

S.C.

, & Ding

(2011). The shifting sands of disciplinary development: Analyzing North American library and information science dissertations using latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 185-204.

45.

Sugimoto

C.R.

Russell

T.G.

, & Grant

(2009). Library and information science doctoral education: The landscape from 1930–2007. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 50(3), 190-202.

46.

Tavakol

, & Dennick

(2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55.

47.

Vallerand

R.J.

Pelletier

L.G.

Blais

M.R.

Brère

N.M.

Senecal

, & Vallieres

E.F.

(1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003-1017.

48.

Whitbeck

G.W.

(1991). Doctoral programs in library and information science: A descriptive study. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 31(4), 314-328.

49.

Zhang

(2016). Understanding the sustained use of online health communities from a self-determination perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 67(12), 2842-2857.

50.

Zhao

Golde

, & McCormick

(2007). More than a signature: How advisor choice and advisor behaviour affect doctoral student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(3), 263-281.

What’s your type? An examination of first-year doctoral student motivation

Abstract

Keywords

1. Introduction

2. Doctoral education in library and information science

3. Theoretical framework

Table 1 Types of extrinsic motivation based on self-determination theory

Table 2 Subscales assessed on the AMS-C 28 with a sample item

Table 4 Internal consistency values (Cronbach’s alpha) of AMS-C 28 subscales

7. Implications

8. Limitations

9. Conclusion

References

Table 1
Types of extrinsic motivation based on self-determination theory

Table 2
Subscales assessed on the AMS-C 28 with a sample item

Table 4
Internal consistency values (Cronbach’s alpha) of AMS-C 28 subscales