How to survive the doctorate? A meta-analysis of success in PhD Candidates

¿Cómo sobrevivir al doctorado? Un meta-análisis del éxito en doctorandos

Raquel Lozano-Blasco

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

Borja Romero-Gonzalez

Universidad de Valladolid, España

Alberto Soto-Sanchez

Universidad de Valladolid, España

Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional.

In the university scope, the research and teaching career can only be accessed by attaining the title of Doctor. Despite being considered the last step in the educational stage, the doctorate is a job; given the tasks to be performed, the work of a PhD student can be understood as a service profession in three scopes: teacher, student and researcher (Sorrel et al. 2020). Firstly, PhD students take on a teaching role by sharing their knowledge and expertise with other students. This aspect of doctoral work entails the responsibility of transmitting knowledge and guiding others in their learning process. Secondly, PhD students continue to be learners throughout their doctoral program. They participate in courses, workshops, and conferences to expand their knowledge in their specific field of study. Additionally, they must stay updated on the latest advancements in their research area and constantly update their skills and competencies. Lastly, PhD students are researchers in their own field of study. They dedicate a significant amount of time and effort to original research, contributing to the existing knowledge in their field. Their research work is crucial for advancing the understanding and development of new ideas, theories, and practices in their discipline. In addition, getting a Phd is a process that is associated with high pressure, levels of stress and loneliness (Mattijssen et al., 2020). For that reason, success in the doctorate depends on different variables.

Firstly, regarding the socio-demographic variables, previous studies such as those of Castello et al. (2017) and Sverdlik et al. (2018) show that age and gender affect the success and well-being of PhD students (Schmidt & Hansson, 2018). In this way, not only inter- and intra-personal factors or personal goals (Devos et al., 2017; Sverdlik et al., 2018) affect this process, but gender and age also play a relevant role in it (Devos et al., 2017; Ivankova & Stick, 2007; Leonard et al., 2005; O’Meara et al., 2013; Sverdlik et al., 2018). Regarding gender, it has been found that women present greater emotional exhaustion and intentions to drop out of the academic career (Hunter & Devine, 2016). Moreover, it is important to highlight that the academic career is perceived as hierarchical, making it difficult for women to access them (Eslen-Ziya & Murat, 2022).

Age, on its part, is a significant variable in terms of doctorate dropout, in a way that, the greater the age of the PhD student and the lower the social support, the greater the probability of dropping out of the doctorate programme (González-Betancor & Dorta-González, 2020; Hunter & Devine, 2016).

Another variable that impacts the completion or abandonment of the doctorate programme is stress, specifically burnout. This term refers to a chronic response to workplace stress, which leads to a physical, mentally and emotional state of exhaustion (Maresca et al., 2022). In this sense, it has been demonstrated that PhD students with a work overload derived from the prolonged exposure to stressful factors can develop other types of disorders, such as depression or anxiety (Kusurkar et al., 2021). The prevalence of students with burnout who will develop other mental diseases is very alarming, posing, in this case, one of the most important variables that influence the abandonment of the doctorate programme (Sorrel et al., 2020). Some variables related to burnout in doctorate students are: studying the PhD in one’s home city, having a pre-doctoral contract whose aim is the realisation of the doctoral thesis, and having current or past psychological treatments for disorders such as anxiety or depression (Sorrel et al., 2020).

Moreover, personal variables such as resilience and emotional intelligence are usually considered personal factors that influence the way in which stress and burnout are managed (Blanco-Donoso et al., 2015; García-Izquierdo et al., 2018). In this regard, there are specific populations where it has been demonstrated that resilience could reduce burnout syndrome (Healy et al., 2022; Montgomery & Patrician, 2022). As for emotional intelligence, it seems to be mediating career flexibility, coping attitudes as well as self-control, all of them related to burnout (Ahmed et al., 2022; Jahanzeb et al., 2023).

Lastly, social support has been one of the most studied variables in its association with stress. In the academic scope, it has been demonstrated that, when support comes from the family, it is related to greater levels of academic success than when it comes from the thesis director (Song et al., 2015). In this sense, anyone who intends to attain a PhD, with the aim of culminating the educational stage, requires support, aspirations, capacities and skills for research and teaching (Kim et al., 2018). In this way, it has been identified that the lack of perceived social support is related to a lower well-being in the doctorate student and to a greater probability of developing mental disorders (Levecque et al., 2017; Sverdlik et al., 2018). Thus, social support is demanded by PhD students as an important need; they need to feel supported and have someone to talk to (Lech et al., 2018). Moreover, social support is strongly and positively related to self-esteem (Li et al., 2018) and both factors are related to academic success, with a greater probability of adapting to the chosen career when self-esteem and perceived social support are higher (Ataç et al., 2018).

In the light of the above, some authors have proposed some strategies to prevent and mitigate the effect of burnout. As an example, institutional measures should prioritise the establishment of more conducive work environments that mitigate factors leading to burnout and assist students in managing the interplay between their personal and academic lives, which can contribute to feelings of exhaustion (McAlpine et al., 2020). Finally, it is also important to promote team meetings so this measure could increase the perception of social support among peers and supervisors (Gorbenko et al., 2019).

For the above reasons, the main aim of this study was to perform a review of the scientific evidence, through a meta-analysis, to verify which variables are more strongly related to the rate of dropout from PhD studies. In that sense, variables included in this study were socio-demographic variables (age, gender and geographical area) and personal variables (social support, personality factors and burnout).

The research record complied with the principles established by Cochrane in Higgins and Green (2011) and PRISMA (2020). Similarly, the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria responded to the parameters established by Botella and Sánchez (2015) and Moreau and Gamble (2020) (Table 1):

Table 1
Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The search strategy complied with the criteria established by Botella and Gambara (2002), Botella and Sánchez (2015) and PRISMA (2020). The search was conducted in the following databases: WOS, PsycInfo and Science Direct, during March 2021. It is important to clarify the accessibility criterion. This decision responds to the need for transparency and reproducibility of the research, detailed by Lopez-Nicolas et al. (2022). Also, this is a recommendation of the Open Science Collaboration (2015). The results of the Boolean action are graphically represented in a flowchart (Figure 1) and Boolean action can be consulted in Table 2.

Table 2
The Boolean action

Figure 1
Flowchart of the search strategy

The study selection was carried out according to the eligibility criteria established by Cochrane in Higgins and Green (2011) and PRISMA (2020). Thus, the initial sample consisted of n = 1790623 studies, of which 137 were duplicates. To manage this data, the results from each database were downloaded in csv format and unified, specifying the database to which they belonged, the title, the journal, and the abstract. In addition, it is necessary to mark by means of filters those sources that are scientific, such as scientific journals, omitting other sources such as newspapers. Thus, firstly, it was necessary to review systematically and manually each of the studies, paying attention to the information presented in the abstract and in the title. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were then applied, in the flowchart (see Figure 1). During this screening phase, most of the results were omitted for not responding to the study object in a clear or precise manner. In other words, although they talked about the doctorate, they did not offer information on how this process was carried out, nor what variables were relevant. In this sense, many studies spoke of the importance of the doctorate as a generator of science and innovation. The criterion of statistical and methodological rigour led to the rejection of a considerable part of the sample, since, in most of them, the statistical data did not provide a coherent response to the evaluation manuals employed. In addition, much of the research was carried out using qualitative methodology, especially semi-structured interviews, making it impossible to extract statistical data. Moreover, there were no extreme data or data of higher or lower limits that would not correspond to a normal distribution. Finally, it is noteworthy that many studies could not be analysed because they were not open access. This is a difficulty, since for the internal reliability of the systematic review process, it is necessary for any researcher to be able to replicate this process.

The execution of the conversions of statistical values to Fisher’s Z scores was operationalised using CMA software. This decision corresponds to the criteria established by Martin-Andrés and Luna del Castillo (2004) on the importance of selecting a unit of measurement that reduces statistical distortion. The CMA statistical software was used to graphically represent the data through the figures of Forest Plot and Funnel Plot, to calculate the absence of publication bias through Egger’s test and to carry out the statistical analyses of heterogeneity, model comparison and meta-regression on the moderating variables. Regarding the latter, we analysed gender (men and women), age, geographic area, and personal variables (social support, personality variables and burnout).

The aim of this study was to explore the association of the variables of remaining in the doctorate programme and the socio-demographic variables (age, gender and geographical area) with personal variables (social support, personality factors and burnout). The statistical results and those of the systematic review show that remaining in the doctorate programme is favoured by being an older man, and that social support (i.e., family support, institutional support and self-esteem) is the model that better explains permanence in the PhD.

Firstly, it is necessary to describe the relevance of gender. A stronger relationship was found between being a man and remaining in the doctorate programme. There are differences in the professional expectations in terms of gender, thus, even though women show a greater desire to enter the academic world of teaching in higher education, they show a low tendency to access research and integrate into the academic world (Guo et al., 2018). In fact, women claim to be more afraid of being discriminated against when looking for a job compared to their male equivalents (Branigan, 2014; Wang, 2018; Wang et al., 2019). Moreover, some authors have also found that women present greater emotional exhaustion and intentions to abandon their academic career (Hunter & Devine, 2016).

Regarding age, it proved to be a very influential variable in PhD dropouts. However, previous research has stated that the older the age of the doctorate student and the lower the social support received, the greater the probability of abandoning the thesis (González-Betancor & Dorta-González, 2020; Hunter & Devine, 2016). Similarly, in a problematic situation, age was the variable that encouraged the doctorate student to request a change of thesis director (González-Betancor & Dorta-González, 2020). Likewise, emotional exhaustion was also a variable that influenced doctorate dropout, increasing with age (Cornér et al., 2017; Hunter & Devine, 2016). According to our results, we hypothesised that age could be mediating more psychological variables, such as resilience. In that sense, the older a person is, the more resilient (Mauno et al., 2012), buffering the impact of stress and increasing the likelihood of remaining in the doctorate.

Although not all the variables corresponded to the individual differences, the environment in which a human being develops plays a key role in any social process. In this sense, it is necessary to work from three models: a) social support (family, institution and self-esteem), b) personality variables (self-esteem) and c) burnout, which explains the problem very poorly.

According to our results, the model that best explains permanence in doctorate studies is social support. This has been one of the most studied variables in its relationship with stress. As was stated by other authors, doctorate students demand support from their peers, families and institutions to which they are giving their work (Lech et al., 2018; Song et al., 2015; Tompkins et al., 2018). In this sense, our results can be explained by the relevant role of social support as a mediator in the consequences of stress, and this relationship has been widely demonstrated (Levecque et al., 2017; Sverdlik et al., 2018; Tompkins et al., 2018). Moreover, institutional support is of great importance in the case of doctorate studies, as is shown. Positive supervision and support from the thesis directors is positively associated with productivity (Dysthe et al., 2006, Pyhältö et al., 2015), and the latter, in turn, is related to satisfaction and workplace well-being (Hermann & Wichmann, 2017; Miragaia & Aleixo, 2021). In this sense, the feeling of belonging to the scientific community reduces the feelings of loneliness and dissatisfaction (Corner et al., 2017; Hermann & Wichmann, 2017). Similarly, the perception of abusive practices from the institution is considered a discouraging element (Edward et al., 2015). Analogously, it is important to highlight that those students who feel supported by their thesis directors perceive lower levels of stress (Haag, et al. 2018). In this sense, Corner et al. (2017) specified that the empathetic support of the thesis director is essential, with the provision of feedback being a highly valued element. Social support is strongly related to self-esteem, which largely depends on the supported received from the institution (Liu, et al., 2019; Overall et al. 2011) and the social context in which it takes place (Satuf et al., 2018).

The results showed that, indeed, another variable that influences the permanence in doctorate studies is self-esteem. Authors such as Liu et al. (2019) state that self-esteem and self-management are determinant for scientific performance and production within the doctorate programme. Their importance is such that authors like Zahniser et al. (2017) pointed out the need to generate measures that promote self-management and improve self-esteem from doctorate programmes. In this way, the personal variables (or personality variables), with self-esteem as the predominating variable, could be the most influential ones in the abandonment of or permanence in doctorate studies. On its part, the loneliness that doctorate students experience and a highly competitive environment are variables that seem to be mediated by personal and individual traits. In this sense, the social skills of doctorate students, along with their capacity to socialise, constitute a process by which academic skills and competencies are acquired (Hermann & Wichmann, 2017). According to Voitenko et al. (2020), emotional intelligence skills help to manage oneself in a social and working environment. This view points out that high-quality research is not the result of individual discoveries, but synergies (Hermann & Wichmann, 2017). This perspective is in line with previous studies, such as those of Boud and Lee (2005), although it is presented as a minority position against the traditional view of the importance of individualism (Bastalich, 2017; Jara, 2020). That is, it is necessary to recognise the holistic and voluntary practices (Bastalich, 2017; Corner et al., 2017). Furthermore, the frustration that results from the basic psychological needs pushes doctorate students toward unrest and burnout (Kusurkar et al., 2020). Moreover, the authors of the mentioned study state that the perception of low autonomy and self-esteem seems to be mediated by external variables, which poses a challenge to academic institutions (Kusurkar et al., 2020). In this sense, the behaviour of doctorate students seems to be influenced by the leadership style of the university centre, in a way that a leadership based on integrity and ethics increases the confidence of the researchers (Edward et al., 2020). Thus, responsibility, motivation, the feeling of growth, creativity and productivity are positively correlated with the policies of proactive leadership of the university (Edward et al., 2020). On their part, Voitenko et al. (2020) described the importance of not only self-esteem, but also coping strategies, self-realisation and responsibility (Voitenko et al., 2020). In this sense, it was found that coping strategies varied under emotional stress and exhaustion, as well as due to the desire of satisfying the needs of self-realisation (Voitenko et al., 2020). In this respect, Corner et al. (2017) claimed that the experiences of exhaustion are related to the intention of dropping out. Thus, coping strategies can reduce the stress derived from self-realisation, which is adjusted with time and age (Voitenko et al., 2020).

Lastly, burnout was found to be related to PhD dropout. Other authors had already reported this association, highlighting burnout as one of the main difficulties in the realisation of a doctorate (Kusurkar et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2019; Sorrel et al. 2020; Zahniser et al., 2017). As was previously mentioned, a PhD can be understood as a job (Sorrel et al., 2020), which would explain the appearance of high levels of burnout. Moreover, the diversity of roles can cause a conflict of ambiguity, thus generating a source of additional stress (Zahniser et al., 2017). Likewise, burnout was related to other variables that appeared throughout the course of the study, such as self-esteem and social support, finding that a lack of the latter two would increase the risk of suffering from burnout during a doctorate programme (Blanco-Donoso et al., 2019; Hobfoll & Shirom, 2000). This strong relationship can be explained by the possibility that the main stressors of workers would be those aspects that prevent them from attaining their goals and which generate a lack of existential significance. These aspects affect exhaustion and commitment directly, although they also have an indirect effect through certain personal resources (Hermann & Wichmann, 2017).

The present study has a series of limitations that must be pointed out. Firstly, there is an alarming absence of studies conducted in developing countries, except for Nigeria. Analogously, there is a lack of data on Latin America, Southeastern Asia, Middle East and Oceania. Doctorate studies take place in all nations, and it is the beginning of the scientific and academic career, being an essential part of quality science and higher education. On the other hand, the limited information regarding areas of specialisation, average duration of doctoral studies, economic compensation, traditional or compilation-based research models, internationally recognized doctorate programs, affiliation with a funded research group, the availability of continuous education provided by the University or Research Centre, as well as the ownership of the centres, presents social limitations that should be analysed in future research.

Further research should include a correlational and longitudinal study with doctorate students and other types of variables, such as the existence or absence of a working contract, attending to the personal variables presented in this study, although also addressing mental health.

As is demonstrated, doctorate studies have a very specific particularity, which is the fact that, in addition to being considered studies of a higher order, they are also understood as work practice. Thus, variables such as being a man, greater self-esteem and greater social support were related to permanence in PhD studies. Moreover, burnout plays a crucial role, fostering doctorate dropout and being strongly related to the previously mentioned variables. Similarly, the role of the family and the closest environment are not the only relevant elements; universities, as organisations, can also favour a suitable, pleasant and motivating environment through democratic leadership styles and by favouring social activities that allow doctorate students to weave socio-affective relationships that provide them with emotional well-being, a learning network and synergies.

It becomes fundamental to promote support to doctorate students in the universities and institutions in which they carry out these studies, favouring a working environment that enables job satisfaction and the increase of self-esteem. This would contribute to improving the mental health of PhD students, reducing the levels of burnout and advancing toward the creation of quality researchers and faculty members.

How to reference this article: Lozano-Blasco, R., Romero-Gonzalez , B., & Soto-Sánchez, A. (2024). How to survive the doctorate? A meta-analysis of success in PhD Candidates. Educación XX1, 27(1), 105-129. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.36566