Not just a phase: Exploring the role of program stage on well-being and motivation in doctoral students

Abstract

Doctoral students’ well-being and motivation are important factors that are both shaped by, and shape students’ academic experiences in their programs. Existing literature consistently highlights the concerning well-being and maladaptive motivational patterns in doctoral students, but no research to date attempted to explore some of the structural features associated with these wellness and achievement factors in a large-scale study. The present study examined whether doctoral program phase (i.e. coursework, comprehensive examination, or dissertation phase had an effect on 3004 doctoral students’ well-being levels (stress, depression, program satisfaction, and illness symptoms) and motivation (self-determined motivation and self-efficacy). Results revealed doctoral students to report the highest well-being and internal motivation during the coursework phase, while the comprehensive examination phase was found to be the most challenging for most students as indicated by the lowest wellness and motivation scores. A discussion of the present results and their theoretical and practical implications ensues.

Keywords

Doctoral education motivation higher education academic well-being PhD students

Research efforts in higher education to date have focused on understanding and improving the achievement of undergraduate students. As a result, graduate students, and especially doctoral students, have been largely overlooked in the education literature, resulting in fragmented and anecdotal insight into their mental, physiological, motivational, and social experiences (Brus, 2006; Longfield, Romas, & Irwin, 2006). To reconcile this research gap and gain a much-needed, student-centered understanding of the doctoral experience, existing research on doctoral education has largely employed qualitative inquiry approaches (see Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Sverdlik, Hall, McAlpine, & Hubbard, 2018). However, despite the utility of qualitative methods for providing highly detailed, in-depth data on doctoral student experiences, the overreliance on this approach to date has limited researchers’ abilities to draw generalizable conclusions and generate evidence-based best-practices for large-scale doctoral program applications.

One aspect of the doctoral experience on which large-scale data can be found is attrition. Despite a 57 and 64% increase in doctoral enrollment between 1998 and 2010 in the United States and Canada, respectively (OECD, 2013), doctoral student attrition has remained at a staggering 50% over the past 50 years (Lovitts, 2001; MELS, 2013). Existing research on predictors of doctoral student attrition has explored the influence of varied social and structural antecedents, ranging from the relationship with one’s supervisor (e.g. Ellis, 2001; Ives & Rowley, 2005; Murphy, Bain, & Conrad, 2007; Solem, Hopwood, & Schlemper, 2011; Walsh, 2010; Zhao, Golde, & McCormick, 2007) to departmental structures and socialization efforts (De Welde & Laursen, 2008; Herzig, 2002; Lovitts, 2001; Stubb, Pyhalto, & Lonka, 2011). Additionally, although recent studies have increasingly examined the role of psychological variables in doctoral student persistence such as lack of motivation (Gardner, 2009; Herzig, 2002; Kinman & Jones, 2003; Lovitts, 2001) and mental health challenges (e.g. Gardner, 2009; University of California, Berkeley, 2014), how such internal processes interact with external program-related factors (e.g. study phase) has unfortunately remained largely unexplored.

The present study aims to add to the doctoral education literature by exploring the interplay between doctoral students’ external programmatic factors (i.e. study phase) and internal psychological processes (i.e. well-being and motivation) by way of large-scale quantitative analyses. Specifically, the present study examines the specific assumptions proposed by Weidman and Stein (2001, 2003) and Gardner (2007, 2008, 2010) who suggest that the development of a scholarly identity, as well as integration into departmental and scholarly communities occur in a sequence of stages that typically include admission to comprehensive examination (i.e. the coursework stage), the comprehensive examination stage, and the dissertation stage. These authors argue that these phases of the doctoral experience present students with specific sets of challenges, demands, and responsibilities and should thus be explored discretely (Gardner, 2007; Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001). Accordingly, the present study evaluated the extent to which psychological processes in addition to scholarly identity, namely motivation and well-being, could also vary as a function of students’ phase in their doctoral program.

Psychological well-being in doctoral students

Despite the deterioration of doctoral students’ mental health and overall well-being having been consistently addressed in informal higher education literature and commonly accepted as part of the doctoral education process (Jaschik, 2015; Walker, 2015; Wilcox, 2014), the prevalence and antecedents of psychological health in doctoral students has to date not received significant research attention. Moreover, existing research on doctoral student well-being has typically been conducted in the absence of an operational definition of well-being and relied largely on participants’ personal interpretation of the term (Trenberth, 2005; University of California, Berkeley, 2014), making it difficult to generate a uniform and generalizable understanding of the concept. Juniper, Walsh, Richardson, and Morley (2012) propose that optimal evaluations of doctoral students’ well-being assess all the aspects of their lives that are impacted by their role as doctoral students. This description supports the notion that well-being in academia is best understood not as a narrowly defined construct, but as comprised of various elements reflecting happiness, health, and success that have been identified in the research literature on doctoral education as being affected by doctoral program elements (e.g. coursework, writing, supervisor, etc.).

Recent research has consistently found doctoral students to report high stress levels (Kernan, Bogart, & Wheat, 2011; Vekkaila, Virtanen, Taina, & Pyhältö, 2018; Wyatt & Oswalt, 2013), mental health concerns (e.g. depression; Hyun, Quinn, Madon, & Lustig, 2006; Pallos, Yamada, & Okawa, 2005), and alarming physical health symptoms (e.g. upper respiratory infections; Juniper et al., 2012; Kernan et al., 2011; Pallos et al., 2005). Concerning North American data, a 2014 report from the University of California at Berkeley found 47% of PhD students could be classified as exceeding the threshold for depression, including 64% in the arts and humanities, and 43–46% in natural sciences, engineering, and professional programs. The lowest frequencies of doctoral student depression were found in law, social sciences, and business, with depression rates of 37, 34, and 28%, respectively. Given a prevalence rate for depression of 15% in the general North American population (World Health Organization, 2017), these trends are a cause for concern regarding potential antecedents and interventions.

A study by El-Ghoroury, Galper, Sawaqdeh, and Bufka (2012) provides further insight into the unique wellness barriers that graduate students face. In a sample of 387 American psychology students, 68.1% indicated that their functioning was disrupted by academic pressures and responsibilities, 63.9% cited debt or financial issues, and 58.7% reported work–life balance to be a significant stressor. Additionally, when inquiring into the barriers for seeking to improve their wellness (e.g. through social interactions, exercise, hobbies, etc.), the authors found that 70.6% of the graduate student participants reported lack of time, while 46.5% indicated financial constraints as their major barrier. Thus, although students were able to identify which coping strategies were most likely to improve their psychological and emotional well-being, they reported encountering obstacles to utilizing those strategies.

International data on doctoral student well-being are also concerning. For example, findings from Pallos et al. (2005) with 219 graduate students from 12 universities across Tokyo, Japan, showed 53% to suffer from emotional disturbances with four main factors accounted for 51% of the variance in distress including “anxiety and insomnia” (29%), “social dysfunction” (11%; e.g. social isolation), “symptoms of depression” (6%), and “feelings of incompetence” (5%). Similarly, a study of 3659 Belgian doctoral students across various disciplines (social sciences, humanities, biomedical sciences, and applied sciences) found 51% to report psychological distress, with 32% evidencing specific risk of developing a common psychiatric disorder (Levecque, Anseel, De, Van, Gisle, 2017). Study findings further showed students’ most prevalent concerns to include feelings of being under constant stress, general unhappiness and depression, sleep disturbances (due to worries and anxiety), an inability to enjoy daily activities, and an inability to overcome difficulties.

Concerning the relationship between psychological health and doctoral program outcomes, Pyhäitö, Vekkaila, and Keskinen (2012) found students who had considered interrupting their PhD studies (e.g. taking a leave, dropping out) to also report being more stressed, anxious, and exhausted than their peers. This finding is also consistent with a large body of qualitative literature in which maladaptive indicators of well-being are consistently reported by doctoral students (e.g. stress, depression, low life satisfaction). Thus, data from limited existing studies clearly indicate that stress, depression, and other physical illness symptoms (e.g. sleep problems, exhaustion) are very much prevalent among doctoral students and commonly cited as salient reasons underlying program duration and completion. However, the small sample sizes and anecdotal approaches adopted to date pose significant challenges with respect to generalization and interventions (e.g. Brailsford, 2010; Brown & Watson, 2010; Golde, 1998). Further larger-scale research is needed to better elucidate the relationships between programmatic challenges and psychological and physical health in doctoral students in order to develop meaningful directions forward.

Motivation in doctoral students

Doctoral students’ motivation (or lack thereof) is commonly cited as a leading contributor to student attrition (Gardner, 2009; Herzig, 2002; Kinman & Jones, 2003; Lovitts, 2001) as well as achievement and persistence in doctoral education (Brown & Watson, 2010; Dewett, Shin, Toh, & Semadeni, 2005; Hegarty, 2011; Ivankova & Stick, 2007; O’Meara, Knudsen, & Jones, 2013; Onwuegbuzie, Rosli, Ingram, & Frels, 2014; Pauley, Cunningham, & Toth, 1999). Motivation in doctoral education is often explored through the lens of meaning, or the reasons underlying why students pursue their doctoral degrees, with corresponding findings generally categorized according to internal as opposed to external motivating factors. With respect to internal motivations, these typically include valuing of intellectual development (Dust, 2006; Leonard, Becker, & Coate, 2005; Patchner, 1982; Wellington & Sikes, 2007), interest in the field (Austin, 2002; Brailsford, 2010; De Welde & Laursen, 2008; Walford, 2006), as well as a desire to gain research experience (De Welde & Laursen, 2008; Dust, 2006; Stubb, Pyhalto, & Lonka, 2012) or make a life change (Dust, 2006; Wellington & Sikes, 2007). Examples of external factors often cited as motivating doctoral studies include employment prospects (Brailsford, 2010; Fish & Fish, 2010; Leonard et al., 2005; Patchner, 1982; Stubb et al., 2012; Wellington & Sikes, 2007), as well as the prestige associated with obtaining a doctoral degree (Dust, 2006; Leonard et al., 2005; Stubb et al., 2012). Furthermore, findings suggest that doctoral student motivation can be influenced by external social variables such as family support while pursuing the degree (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2014; Tanaka & Watanabea, 2012), scholarly socialization (Gardner, 2010; Lovitts, 2001), collaborative learning (Ferguson, 2009; Hancock, 2007), and fit with one’s doctoral supervisor (Gearity & Mertz, 2012).

With respect to the influence of specific external factors on motivational outcomes, one common feature of doctoral programs found to consistently impact doctoral student motivation is the progressively ill-structured nature of tasks in PhD programs (Flynn, Chasek, Harper, Murphy, & Jorgensen, 2012; Gardner, 2010; Ivankova & Stick, 2007; O’Meara et al., 2013). During the early doctoral program stages, students are afforded frequent and predictable sources of motivation such as supervisor feedback on research questions and course grades. In contrast, students in later stages of their doctoral programs tend to experience greater isolation due to less frequent performance feedback and the solitary nature of comprehensive examinations as well as data collection, analysis, and writing for one’s dissertation (Ali & Kohun, 2006, 2007). Given that self-motivation is an explicit requirement in becoming an independent scholar and producer of original knowledge (Gardner, 2009; Weidman et al., 2001), student motivation is assumed to represent a critical determinant of doctoral program success, particularly during later program stages.

Research by Geraniou (2010) has further identified two key “survival strategies” used by students to maintain motivation throughout their doctoral studies, the first being “internal survival strategies” that include elements of self-reliance (e.g. reminding oneself of being able to overcome obstacles), interest (e.g. reflecting on the ways one’s scholarly activities are connected to personal interests), and achievement (e.g. focusing on one’s desire to achieve a doctoral degree). In contrast, “external survival strategies” involve discussion, namely social support in the form of purposeful interactions (e.g. seeking advice) with peers, supervisors, or other faculty members, and application, referring to the implementation of relevant literature to improve one’s performance in professional activities (e.g. trying a new teaching strategy) or simply engaging in scholarly activities (e.g. public talks, publications). According to the author, such application approaches should increase doctoral students’ motivation by both socializing them into their disciplinary community and by increasing their competency in a particular professional activity (e.g. teaching, conference presentation). This work thus provides an interesting perspective on the relationship between doctoral achievement and motivation in that while most studies emphasize the role of motivation in scholarly productivity (Dewett et al., 2005) and academic success (Pauley et al., 1999), Geraniou’s (2010) findings suggest that this relationship can be bi-directional with students purposefully engaging in scholarly activities as a means of increasing their motivation. Whereas it is likely that this reciprocal effect highlighting the role of internal motivational strategies is most prominent in the later doctoral program stages affording more opportunities for professional engagement, this assertion has yet to be empirically explored.

Self-determined motivation

A more specific lens through which doctoral student motivation has been explored is self-determination theory (SDT; Litalien & Guay, 2015). According to SDT, individuals’ potential for psychological growth is a function of the extent to which their social context satisfies three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2012). Autonomy refers to people’s need to experience choice and volition in their actions, with competence involving the perception of being able to purposefully and effectively interact with one’s environment. Finally, relatedness refers to the need to engage in meaningful relationships in which the individual is able to both care for others and feel cared for by others (Deci & Ryan, 2012). In the context of doctoral education, the student’s supervisor, other faculty members, and their peers represent the critical social environment in which their basic needs are to be met.

In a study of 422 doctoral students, those who successfully completed their doctoral degree perceived greater support from their academic environment (i.e. supervisor, faculty, peers), and perceived themselves as more competent than those who did not complete their degree (Litalien & Guay, 2015). In other words, students who believed their relatedness and competence needs had been satisfied were more likely to complete their doctoral program. Follow-up research with 1060 doctoral students by Litalien and Guay (2015) revealed that when contrasting the effects of internal motivational variables, such as psychological need satisfaction (competence, relatedness, autonomy) and motivation toward PhD studies (e.g. reasons for seeking a doctoral degree), with external indicators such as publication rate and financial support, perceived competence remained the strongest predictor of dropout intentions. Findings from this study further indicated that this perceived competence was optimal when doctoral students perceived their supervisors to be supportive of their research interests and academic achievement, as well as when their volition levels were high (i.e. their actions reflect personal choices rather than internal or external pressures). These findings thus provide empirical support for the potential motivational benefits of external social and programmatic factors that address doctoral students’ needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competency.

At the core of SDT is the idea that psychological need satisfaction should foster intrinsic or autonomous self-regulation, referring specifically to the perception that one’s behavior is a product of one’s own volition. Accordingly, empirical findings with doctoral students underscore the importance of autonomous regulation in predicting greater levels of both academic achievement and psychological well-being (e.g. positive affect, lower anxiety; Litalien, Guay, & Morin, 2015). Conversely, the lack of satisfaction of the basic needs is assumed to result in controlled self-regulation involving behavior aimed at obtaining rewards (e.g. monetary, social recognition) or avoiding punishment (including unpleasant feelings such as shame and guilt; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2012). These self-regulation patterns, in turn, are proposed to lead to a spectrum of motivational profiles that also range from autonomous (intrinsic motivation) to controlled in nature (extrinsic motivation), including three mid-range motivation types that are increasingly more externally oriented in focus (integrated, identified, and introjected). As doctoral students necessarily rely heavily on their self-regulatory strategies to fulfill programmatic requirements and become independent scholars, particularly during later doctoral phases, SDT provides a useful theoretical framework within which to conceptualize how external factors impact doctoral student motivation and well-being.

Self-efficacy

In addition to research on perceptions of personal competence in doctoral students based on SDT, research based on social learning theory (Bandura, 1993) has similarly explored perceived competence in this population by more directly examining a motivational construct reflecting students’ perceived ability to successfully complete doctoral tasks: self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as an individual’s perceived competencies for attaining desired learning and achievement objectives, and is proposed as both an antecedent and consequence of performance outcomes (Schunk & Pajares, 2009). In the doctoral education context, Forester, Kahn, and Hesson-McInnis (2004) have more specifically defined research self-efficacy as “one’s confidence in successfully performing tasks associated with conducting research” (p. 4). Findings consistently show research self-efficacy to be significantly correlated with both interest in research and the production of scholarly publications (Bishop & Bieschke, 1998; Lambie & Vaccaro, 2011; Pyhäitö et al., 2012). Whereas these relations suggest that self-efficacy may predict greater interest and subsequent performance, the correlational nature of these findings do not preclude higher publication rates and interest contributing to greater self-efficacy in doctoral students (reciprocal relations; Schunk & Pajares, 2009). In sum, research on self-efficacy in doctoral students further underscores the importance of examining variables reflecting perceived competence in doctoral students given significant relations with internal motivational processes and external performance outcomes.

The present study

Limited existing research underscores the critical role of external program demands and social–environmental factors (e.g. professional socialization, institutional support) in student well-being and motivation in the context of doctoral education (e.g. Stubb et al., 2011) with no research to date having explored the specific effects of doctoral degree progress on psychological adjustment. Following from the three-phase model of doctoral completion (e.g. Gardner, 2007; Weidman et al., 2001) and theoretical models recently used to examine motivation and well-being in doctoral education (e.g. Ali & Kohun, 2007; Litalien & Guay, 2015), the present exploratory study investigated the extent to which degree progress influenced doctoral student motivation and well-being. More specifically, the current study employed a large-scale, quantitative survey of doctoral students across countries and disciplines to examine whether one’s doctoral program phase (i.e. coursework, comprehensive examination, or dissertation phase) had an effect on students’ well-being levels (stress, depression, program satisfaction, and illness symptoms) and motivation (self-determined motivation and self-efficacy).

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: Effects of doctoral program phase on well-being

The three general phases of doctoral program completion involve differential demands and responsibilities (e.g. Weidman et al., 2001), with these differences having been demonstrated to have distinct effects on doctoral students’ well-being (e.g. isolation in later phases associated with stress and low program satisfaction; Stubb et al., 2011). The well-being indicators explored in the present study (i.e. stress, depression, satisfaction with program, and illness symptoms) were similarly expected to differ across the three phases. Given the increasing isolation and lack of structure students experience as they progress through their doctoral programs—social–environmental factors that are positively correlated with psychological maladjustment in graduate students (e.g. anxiety, stress; Gordon, 2003; Stubb et al., 2011)—participants were specifically expected to report lower well-being at more advanced doctoral phases.

Hypothesis 2: Effects of doctoral program phase on motivation

Existing research on PhD program completion suggests that student motivation, and especially efforts to enhance and maintain one’s own motivation, are particularly beneficial as doctoral program demands become increasingly unstructured over time (Gardner, 2010; Ivankova & Stick, 2007). For example, self-determined motivation has been found to be associated with not only doctoral program completion (Litalien & Guay, 2015) but also greater research productivity particularly in later doctoral program phases (Bishop & Bieschke, 1998; Pyhäitö et al., 2012). However, existing research primarily informs hypotheses concerning the effects of motivational variables on other internal factors (e.g. well-being, performance), and does not consistently inform directional hypotheses as to the effects of doctoral program progress as an external, contextual factor on motivation levels. However, one exception in this regard is research showing self-efficacy to be positively associated with expertise (Schunk & Pajares, 2009) and research productivity (Pyhäitö et al., 2012), both of which increase significantly in later phases of the doctoral program (Lambie & Vaccaro, 2011). Therefore, although self-efficacy may be reasonably hypothesized to increase as students progress through the doctoral phases, no directional hypotheses have been proposed concerning phase effects on the remaining motivation measures.

Method

Participants and procedure

The study sample consisted of 3004 doctoral-level students from 54 countries recruited internationally through social media outlets (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) and via institutional agreements with four research-intensive Canadian universities. Participants from post-secondary institutions and across the disciplines were invited to participate in the study, with enrollment in a doctoral-level program at the time of participation being the only participation requirement. Participants’ ages ranged from 21 to 69 years (M = 30.39; SD = 6.22), 79.4% were female, and 76.1% were Caucasian. In terms of discipline, participants included social sciences students (e.g. psychology, sociology; 30.9%) as well as student enrolled in professional programs (e.g. medicine, engineering; 21.0%), natural sciences (e.g. biology, earth sciences; 17.9%), humanities (e.g. literature, arts; 14.3%), formal sciences (e.g. computer sciences, mathematics; 3.2%), and other disciplines (e.g. criminal justice, nutritional sciences; 12.7%). The majority of participants were from the US (57.8%), followed by Europe (12.2%), Canada (10.9%), and the UK (10.5%). Finally, 27.2% of participants indicated being in the coursework phase (i.e. assigned classes), 13.9% reported that they were in the process of completing their comprehensive examination or qualifying exam (e.g. literature search/review, writing), and the majority of participants (58.9%) reported that they were in the process of completing their dissertation work (e.g. proposal, data collection, analysis, writing). Participants who chose “other” in the phase question (4.1%) were excluded from the analysis as they primarily reported completing two phases simultaneously (e.g. comprehensive examination and data collection for dissertation) or had recently defended their dissertation and were awaiting the committee decision.

After consenting to participate in the web-based study, students completed a survey comprised of demographic questions as well as measures of well-being and motivation. The incentive offered for completing the survey was one prize of $250. All participants who completed the survey were automatically entered in the draw.

Study measures

Demographics and program phase

A 17-item demographic questionnaire assessed information relevant to participants’ identity and background information (see Table 1) including gender, age, ethnicity, relationship status, living arrangements, number of dependents, program information (full/part-time status), discipline, university name, employment status, and teaching workload. Participants were additionally asked to clearly indicate their current stage in their doctoral program according to three general phases: “coursework,” “comprehensive/qualifying examination (e.g. literature search/review, writing),” “dissertation (e.g. dissertation proposal, data collection, data analysis, writing),” or “other (please specify)” (see Ali & Kohun, 2006, 2007).

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of the sample.

Variable	Frequency	Percent
Gender
Female	2384	79.6
Male	572	19.1
Other	38	1.3
Age
21–30	1905	63.4
31–40	874	29.1
41–50	180	6.0
51–69	45	1.5
Ethnicity
Caucasian	2334	77.7
Asian	215	7.2
Latin	156	5.2
Middle-eastern	65	2.2
African	57	1.9
Caribbean	30	1.0
Aboriginal	10	0.3
Pacific islander	1	0.0
Other	131	4.4
Country
United States	1735	57.8
Canada	327	10.9
United Kingdom	314	10.5
Australia	113	3.8
Europe	367	12.2
Other (e.g. Asia, Middle East)	144	4.8
Relationship status
Single	1507	50.2
Married	1366	45.5
Separated	19	0.6
Divorced	96	3.2
Widowed	4	0.1
Dependents
None	2527	84.1
One	224	7.5
More than one	252	8.4
Living arrangement
Alone	697	23.2
With a roommate/ roommates	620	20.7
With parents	99	3.3
With extended family	20	0.7
With partner (no kids)	1056	35.2
With partner (and kids)	405	13.5
Other	104	3.4
Discipline
Humanities	431	14.3
Social sciences	928	30.9
Natural sciences	538	17.9
Formal sciences	96	3.2
Professions	631	21.0
Other	380	12.7
Enrollment status
Full-time	2682	89.4
Part-time	319	10.6
Employment within university
No	892	29.7
Yes (part-time)	1312	43.7
Yes (full-time)	796	26.5
Employment outside university
No	2133	71.4
Yes (part-time)	546	18.3
Yes (full-time)	310	10.4
Teaching
No	2162	72.9
Yes (1–2 courses/year)	515	17.4
Yes (>2 courses/year)	287	9.7
Phase
Coursework	817	27.2
Comprehensive examination	418	13.9
Dissertation	1769	58.9

Well-being outcomes

Psychological health

The short version of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (i.e., CESD–10) was used to assess depressive symptoms such as “I felt depressed” and “I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing” (see Table 2). Frequency of symptoms ranged from 1 = rarely or none of the time (less than 1 day a week) to 4 = most of the time (5–7 days a week). Similarly, perceived stress was evaluated with a 10-item Strain scale (Cohen & Williamson, 1988) assessing the frequency of strenuous thoughts and feelings, such as: how often “have you felt unable to control the important things in life?” and “have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them”? (1 = never to 5 = very often). Finally, satisfaction with program was evaluated using the 5-item Satisfaction with Life scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985; e.g. “the conditions of my life are excellent”; 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) with items modified to replace the word “life” with “program.”

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics for self-report measures.

Variable	α	No. of items	Observed range	M	SD
Psychological health
Depression	.60	10	10–40	23.31	4.53
Stress	.52	10	12–50	33.05	3.59
Program satisfaction	.93	5	5–35	22.12	7.57
Physical health
Illness symptoms	.81	8	8–40	21.46	6.76
Motivation
Intrinsic motivation	.66	3	3–15	11.22	2.74
Integrated motivation	.65	3	3–15	11.27	2.56
Identified motivation	.66	3	3–15	11.33	2.48
Introjected motivation	.63	3	3–15	7.75	3.05
External motivation	.66	3	3–15	9.85	3.00
Self-efficacy	.88	11	11–77	59.65	10.39

Table 3.

Zero-order correlations among continuous study variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Depression	–
2. Stress	.79**	–
3. Program satisfaction	−.35**	−.32**	–
4. Illness symptoms	.66**	.56**	−.21**	–
5. Intrinsic motivation	−.18**	−.16**	.23**	−.05*	–
6. Integrated motivation	−.09**	−.09**	.26**	−.00**	.51**	–
7. Identified motivation	−.14**	−.15**	.34**	−.05*	.56**	.55**	–
8. Introjected motivation	.28**	.29**	−.15**	.21**	−.00	−.04*	−.06*	–
9. External motivation	.07**	.10**	−.02	.10**	.12**	.15**	.15**	.35**	–
10. Self-efficacy	−.30**	−.35**	.33**	−.13**	.29**	.28**	.27**	−.14**	.06**

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Physical illness symptoms

An 8-item Health and Illness Symptoms scale was used to assess physical health. Adapted from Cohen and Hoberman (1983; cf. Hall, Chipperfield, Perry, Ruthig, & Goetz, 2006), participants were asked to report the frequency with which they experienced various illness symptoms: sleep problems, headaches, feeling low in energy, muscle tension, constant fatigue, stomach pain, heart pounding or racing, and poor appetite (1 = not at all a week to 5 = 5 or more times a week).

Motivation outcomes

Self-determined motivation

The motivation for PhD studies scale (Litalien et al., 2015) was used to evaluate five types of motivation specific to doctoral education (intrinsic, integrated, identified, introjected, and external; three items per subscale, presented in a randomized manner). The scale preamble asked participants to reflect on the reasons doctoral students persevere in their studies. Sample items for each self-determined motivation subscale include: “for the satisfaction I feel when I surpass myself in my learning activities” (intrinsic), “because my doctoral studies are a fundamental part of who I am and my identity” (integrated), “because I want to improve my skills in my field of study” (identified), “because my supervisor would be disappointed or angry if I gave up” (introjected) and “for the prestige associated with a PhD” (external; 1 = does not correspond at all to 5 = corresponds exactly).

Self-efficacy

An 11-item self-efficacy scale developed for this study assessed participants’ perceived confidence in their ability to successfully complete multiple specific graduate school tasks such as “select a dissertation topic” and “write an empirical research paper” (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). See Table 3 for zero order correlations among all the study measures.

Results

Initial difference tests

Chi-square and ANOVA tests were conducted to test for initial differences in background variables. Chi-square analyses revealed significant differences in the proportions of participants in each doctoral phase as a function of country $(χ$ ² [104] = 423.17, p < .001, v = .267), discipline, $(χ$ ² [2] = 56.31, p < .001, v = .17), relationship status $(χ$ ² [2] = 56.31, p < .001, v = .09), living arrangement $(χ$ ² [2] = 56.31, p < .001, v = .09), employment within the university $(χ$ ² [2] = 56.31, p < .001, v = .08), and teaching load $(χ$ ² [2] = 56.31, p < .001, v = .08). As expected, age was significantly different between doctoral phases (F[2, 2989] = 39.26, p < .001, ηp² = .026), with participants in the coursework phase being the youngest on average (M = 28.75, SD = 6.13), followed by participants in the comprehensive examination phase (M = 30.13, SD = 6.46), and participants in the dissertation stage (M = 31.05, SD = 6.22). However, given the increased likelihood of statistically significant differences between doctoral phases simply as a function of the present large sample size (Cohen, 1992), no background variables were evaluated as covariates in our main analyses due to small magnitude of the initial difference effect sizes observed.

Main analyses

The main study analyses to test the hypotheses consisted of one-way ANOVAs using participants’ self-reported phase in their doctoral program as the independent variable and psychological and physical well-being, self-determined motivation, and self-efficacy as the dependent variables. Due to the large number of comparisons, a Bonferroni correction was performed, resulting in a significance threshold of α = .0042 for all analyses. Finally, Bonferroni pairwise comparisons were performed on statistically significant findings.

Well-being

Analyses on well-being outcomes revealed significant phase effects on perceived stress, F(2, 2351) = 7.63, p < .001, ηp² = .006, and satisfaction with program, F(2, 2342) = 34.52, p < .001, ηp² = .029. As shown in Figure 1(a), Bonferroni pair-wise comparisons revealed perceived stress to be highest during the comprehensive examination phase (M = 33.50, SD = 6.57), as compared to the coursework phase (M = 31.73, SD = 6.88, p < .001, d = .26), but did not significantly differ from stress reported in the dissertation stage (M = 32.55, SD = 6.74, p = .064). A significant difference in perceived stress was also observed between the coursework and dissertation phases (p = .037, d = .12). As indicated in Figure 1(b), there is an inverse relationship between levels of satisfaction and phase in the doctoral programs: specifically, significant differences were found between the coursework phase (M = 24.23, SD = 7.16) and comprehensive examination phase (M = 22.29, SD = 7.06, p < .001, d = .27), and between the coursework phase and the dissertation phase (M = 21.24, SD = 7.68, p < .001, d = .40). Once again, students’ satisfaction with program did not significantly differ between the comprehensive examination and the dissertation phases (p = .064)

Motivation

As for the motivational outcomes, three of the five self-determined motivation subscales were significantly different between the doctoral phases, including integrated motivation, F(2, 2569) = 12.62, p < .001, ηp² = .010; identified motivation, F(2, 2569) = 25.50, p < .001, ηp² = .019; and introjected motivation, F(2, 2579) = 24.39, p < .001, ηp² = .019. A significant effect of doctoral phase was also observed on students’ self-efficacy levels, F(2, 2720) = 20.05, p < .000, ηp² = .015. Results for self-determined motivation revealed significant effects for the three mid-range subscales; integrated, identified, and introjected motivation. Figure 2(a) shows students in the coursework phase to report the highest integrated motivation (M = 11.70, SD = 2.41), followed by students in the comprehensive examination phase (M = 11.28, SD = 2.61, p = .036, d = .17) and dissertation phase (M = 11.11, SD = 2.58, p < .001, d = .24), with no significant differences between the comprehensive examination and dissertation phases (p = .747). Figure 2(b) shows similar results for identified motivation between students in the coursework phase (M = 11.92, SD = 2.28) and the comprehensive examination (M = 11.32, SD = 2.55, p = .001, d = .25), and dissertation phases (M = 11.11, SD = 2.51, p < .001, d = .34), with no significant differences between the comprehensive examination and dissertation phases (p = .430).

An opposite pattern of results was observed for introjected motivation, with students in the dissertation phase (M = 8.05, SD = 3.10) reporting significantly higher introjected motivation levels than students in the coursework phase (M = 7.08, SD = 2.91, p < .001, d = .32). A significant difference was also observed between the coursework and comprehensive examination phases (M = 7.76, SD = 2.94, p = .002, d = .23) on introjected motivation, showing introjected motivation to be lowest in the first doctoral phase and higher in subsequent phases (Figure 2(c)). Once again, no significant differences were observed between the comprehensive examination and dissertation phases (p = .321). Finally, Figure 2(d) shows that although self-efficacy did not significantly differ between the coursework phase (M = 58.38, SD = 10.31) and comprehensive examination phase (M = 57.72, SD = 10.83, p = .944), significant differences were nonetheless observed between the first two phases and the dissertation phase with students in the dissertation phase reporting the highest self-efficacy levels (M = 60.66, SD = 10.15, p < .001, d = .28).

Supplemental moderation analyses

Following from the aforementioned significant differences observed in the main analyses, supplemental interaction effects of doctoral phase and the demographic variables on all dependent variables were assessed. Significant moderation effects were observed for two variables: number of dependents and employment status. Specifically, number of dependents moderated the effects of phase on illness symptoms (F[4, 2154] = 3.35, p = .01, ηp² = .006), depression (F[4, 2154] = 3.41, p = .009, ηp² = .006), satisfaction with program (F[4, 2154] = 2.60, p = .04, ηp² = .005), and intrinsic motivation (F[4, 2154] = 2.46, p = .04, ηp² = .005). In terms of illness symptoms, those with more than one child (M = 18.88, SD = 5.94) demonstrated significantly lower levels of illness symptoms than those with one child (M = 25.26, SD = 5.67) during the comprehensive examination phase, with the same pattern observed for depression scores (M = 20.60, SD = 6.44 for participants with more than one child; M = 26.48, SD = 6.56 for participants with one child). Satisfaction with program also differed significantly during the comprehensive examination phase, with those with more than one child (M = 24.84, SD = 6.18) being significantly more satisfied with their programs than those with only child (M = 17.48, SD = 6.88). Finally, although number of children did not influence motivation in the coursework or the dissertation phases, participants without children (M = 11.24, SD = 2.39) were significantly more intrinsically motivated during the comprehensive examination phase than those with one child (M = 10.35, SD = 2.33).

Employment status also was found to moderate the effects of doctoral phase on motivational outcomes; participants reported whether they were employed within (no, part-time, or full-time) or outside (no, part-time, or full-time) the university. Specifically, in both the comprehensive examination and the dissertation phases, being employed within the university both part-time (M = 59.99, SD = 9.14; M = 61.59, SD = 9.75, respectively), and full-time (M = 58.88, SD = 9.91; M = 61.32, SD = 9.59, respectively), was associated with higher self-efficacy (F[4, 2152] = 2.63, p = .03, ηp² = .005) than not having employment within the university (M = 56.49, SD = 10.08; M = 58.73, SD = 11.09, respectively). Introjected motivation differed significantly only in the comprehensive examination phase (F[4, 2152] = 3.15, p = .01, ηp² = .006), with those who were not employed within the university (M = 7.02, SD = 3.03) reporting significantly lower introjected motivation than those who were employed at the university both part-time (M = 7.89, SD = 2.68) and full-time (M = 8.43, SD = 2.98).

Lastly, being employed outside the university was found to moderate the effects of doctoral phase on intrinsic motivation, F(4, 2144) = 2.30, p = .02, ηp² = .005, and identified motivation, F(4, 2144) = 2.55, p = .04, ηp² = .005. Participants who were employed outside the university full-time (M = 11.85, SD = 1.94) were significantly more intrinsically motivated than those who were employed off-campus part-time (M = 10.60, SD = 2.71) during the coursework stage. This was also the case for participants’ identified motivation in the coursework stage (M = 12.58, SD = 1.55 for full-time employment; M = 11.59, SD = 2.43 for part-time employment), while the opposite pattern was observed in the comprehensive examination phase (M = 10.53, SD = 3.38 for full-time off-campus employment; M = 11.46, SD = 2.53 for part-time off-campus employment).

Discussion

Hypothesis 1: Doctoral phase effects on well-being outcomes

The present study sought to evaluate the effects of phase in the doctoral program on indicators of well-being and motivation. In terms of participants’ well-being, results partially support our hypothesis that doctoral students’ well-being decreases as they progress through the three phases of doctoral studies. Findings demonstrate that stress and satisfaction with program significantly differ between students who are completing coursework as compared to comprehensive examinations or the dissertation, with only satisfaction with program differing in the hypothesized direction. Specifically, stress was found to be highest in the comprehensive examination stage, followed by the dissertation stage, with students in the coursework stage reporting the lowest stress levels. Literature on doctoral education has consistently demonstrated that as the program demands become more ill-defined and unstructured, student well-being tends to decrease (Lovitts, 2008). It is thus not surprising that students in our sample exhibited the most stress during their comprehensive examination that for many represents the first major unstructured program requirement, and instead reported the least stress during the most highly structured coursework phase.

Satisfaction with program, on the other hand, was found to be highest for students in the early phase and was lower in each progressive doctoral phase. One possible explanation for this finding could be the increasing isolation that students feel as they move through their programs (Stubb et al., 2011), highlighting the need for socialization efforts in every stage of the doctoral journey (Lovitts, 2001). Another plausible explanation involves the unstructured nature of later doctoral phases where programmatic expectations may be less clear as compared to coursework requirements. More specifically, following from research showing doctoral program satisfaction to be lower for students reporting a discrepancy between their expectations and those of their department (Cotterall, 2013; Gardner, 2010; Golde, 2005; Hoskins & Goldberg, 2005; Lin, 2012; Lovitts, 2001), it is possible that greater ambiguity and potential for misinterpretation during the comprehensive examination and the dissertation may be contributing to lower reported program satisfaction during these phases.

Thus, the present findings show doctoral students’ well-being to be highest when they begin their programs and to deteriorate as they progress in their doctoral studies. Interestingly, the largest difference in well-being levels was observed between the coursework and comprehensive examination phases, with no significant differences found between the comprehensive examination and dissertation phases. This finding is in line with existing research on the importance of departmental socialization in promoting optimal development of doctoral students particularly during the first and second phases (Lovitts, 2001). In other words, whereas students may experience a major shift in well-being from the first to second doctoral phase that tends to stabilize as they become more adapted to academic life by the third doctoral phase, existing research suggests that departmental efforts to clarify expectations and provide support may help to mitigate this expected drop in well-being levels.

Hypothesis 2: Doctoral phase effects on motivation outcomes

In terms of students’ motivation, findings related to self-efficacy partially support our hypothesis that doctoral students become more efficacious as they progress through their programs. Although students in the dissertation phase demonstrated significantly higher self-efficacy than those in the coursework phase, the lowest self-efficacy levels were observed in students who were completing their comprehensive examination. Interestingly, no significant increases in self-efficacy were observed between the first and second phases, with the major surge in self-efficacy occurring between the comprehensive examination and dissertation phases. This is in line with previous research that found doctoral students’ self-efficacy to be directly correlated with their research productivity (e.g. publications; Lambie & Vaccaro, 2011), which tends to be highest in the final phases of the doctoral program. This is also the time when students are required to become more independent, receive less guidance from their supervisors, and become more self-reliant when completing their academic work. Successful navigation through these terms can subsequently increase students’ self-efficacy as they come to trust their judgement and ability to complete the requirements of their programs.

Finally, the self-determined motivation subscales yielded differential results for students in different doctoral phases; students in the coursework phase had the highest integrated and identified motivation, while those in the dissertation phase demonstrated highest introjected motivation. In other words, those in the coursework phase found their academic work personally valuable and congruent with their personal goals more than students in the other phases. These results are in line with recent studies identifying these two forms of motivation as closely related, and more internal in nature (Litalien & Guay, 2015; Litalien et al., 2015). In the dissertation phase, however, students were found to be more motivated by avoiding shame and guilt, keeping commitments, and satisfying their supervisors. Taken together, these results suggest that as students progress through their programs, they become more motivated by self-aggrandizement and avoiding shame and guilt, as opposed to their personal goals, interest, and values. Although students become more self-efficacious in the later phases of their studies, it is possible that they also become personally detached from their academic work (possibly due to the adverse effects of the isolation experienced during this phase; Ali & Kohun, 2006, 2007), and more focused on the practical aspects of their degree (e.g. finishing their dissertation, graduating, finding a job). Once again, the significant differences were between the coursework phase and the latter two phases, with no significant differences found between the comprehensive examination and dissertation phases. This reiterates that the major shifts in psychological indicators such as well-being and motivation seem to occur between the first two phases, as students acclimatize to the demands of a doctoral program.

Moderation effects

The supplemental analyses reported provided further insight into how individual differences moderated the effects of doctoral program on well-being and motivation outcomes showing, namely number of dependents and employment status. Concerning the moderating role of number of dependents, doctoral students who were completing the comprehensive examination phase of their doctoral program were specifically found to report poorer illness symptoms, depression, and satisfaction with program if they additionally reported having one child as a dependent. In contrast, doctoral students who indicated caring for multiple children reported the highest levels of physical and psychological well-being during this phase. As for motivation, doctoral students with no children were significantly more intrinsically motivated than those with one child (but not significantly more than those with more than one child). These results contrast with previous research with the general population showing the first child to increases parental well-being, with caring for multiple children contributing to lower maternal well-being (Kohler, Behrman, & Skytthe, 2005). In the case of doctoral students, however, our findings suggest that having more than one child buffers some of the negative well-being effects that occur in the comprehensive examination phase while having only one child exacerbates illness symptoms, depression, and satisfaction with program. This finding thus expands on previous research showing parents in doctoral programs to generally report greater stress (Brown & Watson, 2010; Dabney & Tai, 2013) and diminished quality of life (Brown & Watson, 2010), by demonstrating that these negative effects occur primarily during the comprehensive examination phase and especially for parents with only one child.

Students with one child also fared the worst in terms of intrinsic motivation. Those with no dependents reported the highest intrinsic motivation during the comprehensive examination phase. This interesting finding may be explained by existing literature on parents in doctoral programs showing students (particularly women) to rely heavily on social support to maintain their motivation levels (Castro, Garcia, Cavazos, & Castro, 2011; Dabney & Tai, 2013). More specifically, it is possible that those with no children have more opportunity and availability to social support from peers, faculty, friends, and family than those with dependents who have more limited time for social interaction in academic contexts (Brown & Watson, 2010) and in general (Dabney & Tai, 2013). Thus, given this plausible link between intrinsic motivation during the comprehensive examination phase and particular need for social support during this transitional stage, further research on the availability, quality, and regulation of social support for doctoral students with children during this time is recommended.

Employment status, both within and outside the university, was additionally found to moderate the effects of doctoral program phase on students’ motivation. Among those employed within the university, both full- and part-time, self-efficacy was higher during the comprehensive examination and dissertation stages as compared to those not employed within the university. These results are in line with a study by Ampaw and Jaeger, 2012 and Litalien and Guay (2015) who found that students with research assistantships were more likely to report high levels of motivation and persistence through every stage of the doctoral program, as compared to those with any other financial support (e.g. scholarships, loans, etc.). This is perhaps because research assistantships provide students not only with financial support but also with responsibilities and expectations as part of a research team, thereby contributing to their socialization (see Weidman & Stein, 2003) and academic self-efficacy (Lambie & Vaccaro, 2011). However, students employed in the university were also found to report higher integrated motivation during the comprehensive examination stage than those not employed within the university. This finding thus implies that although being employed by the university (e.g. as a research/teaching assistant) is associated with higher self-efficacy in later doctoral program stages, it is also linked to being motivated to satisfy others’ expectations or avoid negative perceptions by others during the comprehensive examination phase.

Lastly, employment status outside the university was a significant moderator of phase effects on intrinsic and identified motivation: students employed off-campus full-time reported higher intrinsic and identified motivation during the coursework phase than part-time off-campus employees, with the opposite pattern found during the comprehensive examination phase. These findings imply that as students begin their doctoral programs, balancing the responsibilities of a doctoral program with working full-time outside the university requires students to be highly motivated by the intrinsic value, satisfaction, and the perceived importance of their doctoral studies. By the second stage of the program, however, these patterns in intrinsic and identified motivation are reversed, perhaps due to the accumulated challenges of sustaining this difficult work–life balance. Although previous research shows strategies such as socializing with peers and faculty, or engaging in academic activities (e.g. teaching, attending conferences; Geraniou, 2010), to be important for maintaining academic motivation, these strategies can be time consuming and incompatible with a full-time work schedule. Therefore, although those with full-time employment might begin their studies highly intrinsically motivated, these extracurricular demands may hinder their use of effective motivational strategies.

Limitations and future research

The present study represents a preliminary and exploratory attempt to gain deeper insight into the role of doctoral program progress and demands on student well-being and motivation. As such, it aims to provide a more profound understanding of the differential experiences of doctoral students as they move through their programs and also a foundation for potentially beneficial avenues for future research in this domain. Although the results of this study offer a unique contribution in expanding upon previous doctoral education research, several limitations are noteworthy. First, given the high observed power (range: .947–1.000) in the present large-scale study, although multiple effects were statistically significant they were not large in magnitude. It is important to consider, however, that not all analyses yielded significant results, with the significant findings observed being consistent with previous literature. Nevertheless, further research efforts to replicate and extend the present results using not only quantitative methods (e.g. additional psychological measures, longitudinal assessments) but also qualitative protocols (e.g. interviews/focus groups on motivation and well-being with students of different doctoral program phases) are encouraged to help clarify how and why doctoral progress impacts student development (e.g. mediation, moderation effects).

Second, several sample characteristics need to be taken into consideration when attempting to generalize the results of the present study. Specifically, the distributions of gender (79.2% female) and ethnicity (77.9% Caucasian) in the present sample indicate that findings mainly reflect the experiences of White females in the doctoral education system. Replication efforts having a specific recruitment focus on minority students across genders are thus merited to better evaluate the generalizability of the study findings. Finally, we recognize that the educational model tested in the present study is predominantly North American, and that doctoral programs vary internationally in terms of structure, norms, and resources (e.g. funding, employment). Thus, further research is required to explore the differential effects of doctoral program phase on student development within other structures internationally so as to provide a more comprehensive, global perspective on the trajectory and implications of doctoral student progress. To conclude, the present study underlines the necessity for more research exploring the experiences and challenges of students during each stage of doctoral education as well as the need for graduate departments to appropriately support students during these transition phases (e.g. provide more socialization opportunities and access to mental health resources to students during the final dissertation stage). These efforts are critical to maximizing not only student success but also their motivation and well-being in the process of earning their doctoral degree.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ali

Kohun

(2006). Dealing with isolation feelings at IS doctoral programs. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 1, 21–33. Retrieved from http://ijds.org/Volume1/IJDSv1p021-033Ali13.pdf

Ampaw

F.D.

, & Jaeger

A.J.

(2012). Completing the three stages of doctoral education: an event history analysis, Res. High. Educ, 53(6), 640–660.

Ali, A., & Kohun, F. (2006). Dealing with isolation feelings at IS doctoral programs. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 1, 21–33. Retrieved from http://ijds.org/Volume1/IJDSv1p021-033Ali13.pdf

Bandura

(1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148. Retrieved from http://homepages.se.edu/cvonbergen/files/2013/01/Perceived-Self-Efficacy-in-Cognitive-Development-and-Functioning.pdf

Bishop

R. M.

Bieschke

K. J.

(1998). Applying social cognitive theory to interest in research among counseling psychology doctoral students: A path analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 182. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.45.2.182

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. doi:10.28945/710

Brown

Watson

(2010). Understanding the experiences of female doctoral students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34, 385–404. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2010.484056

Brus

C. P.

(2006). Seeking balance in graduate school: A realistic expectation or a dangerous dilemma? New Directions for Student Services, 115, 31–45. doi:10.1002/ss.214

Castro

Garcia

E. E.

Cavazos

Castro

A. Y.

(2011). The road to doctoral success and beyond. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 6, 51–77.

10.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. Retrieved from http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/∼schaller/528Readings/Cohen1992.pdf

11.

Cohen

Hoberman

H. M.

(1983). Positive events and social supports as buffers of life change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 99–125.

12.

Cohen

Williamson

(1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In Spacapan

Oskamp

(Eds.), The social psychology of health (pp. 31–67). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

13.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

14.

Cotterall

(2013). More than just a brain: Emotions and the doctoral experience. Higher Education Research and Development, 32, 174–187. doi:10.1080/07294360.2012.680017

15.

Dabney

K. P.

Tai

R. H.

(2013). Female physicist doctoral experiences. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 9(1), 010115. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.010115

16.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

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

17.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In Ryan

R. M.

(Ed.), The oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85–107). New York: Oxford University Press.

18.

De Welde

Laursen

S. L.

(2008). The ‘ideal type’ advisor: How advisors help STEM graduate students find their ‘scientific feet’. The Open Education Journal, 1, 49–61. doi:10.2174/1874920800801010049

19.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

20.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

21.

Dust

T. J.

(2006). Motivational influences to pursue graduate studies in secondary music education. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 52, 158–166.

22.

El-Ghoroury

N. H.

Galper

D. I.

Sawaqdeh

Bufka

L. F.

(2012). Stress, coping, and barriers to wellness among psychology graduate students. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 6(2), 122–134. doi:10.1037/a0028768

23.

Ellis

E. M.

(2001). The impact of race and gender on graduate school socialization, satisfaction with doctoral study, and commitment to degree completion. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 25, 30–45.

24.

Ferguson

(2009). The “write” skills and more: A thesis writing group for doctoral students. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33, 285–297. doi:10.1080/03098260902734968

25.

Fish

L. A.

Fish

L. A.

(2010). Career expectations and perceptions of part-time MBA students. College Student Journal, 44, 706–719.

26.

Flynn

S. V.

Chasek

C. L.

Harper

I. F.

Murphy

K. M.

Jorgensen

M. F.

(2012). A qualitative inquiry of the counseling dissertation process. Counselor Education and Supervision, 51, 242–255. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2012.00018.x

27.

Forester

Kahn

J. H.

Hesson-McInnis

M. S.

(2004). Factor structures of three measures of research self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 12, 3–16. doi:10.1177/1069072703257719

28.

Gardner

S. K.

(2007). “ I heard it through the grapevine”: Doctoral student socialization in chemistry and history. Higher Education, 54, 723–740. doi:10.1007/s10734-006-9020-x

29.

Gardner

S. K.

(2008). “ What’s too much and what’s too little?”: The process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79, 326–350. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.000

30.

Gardner

S. K.

(2009). Student and faculty attributions of attrition in high and low-completing doctoral programs in the United States. Higher Education, 58, 97–112. doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9184-7

31.

Gardner

S. K.

(2010). Contrasting the socialization experiences of doctoral students in high- and low-completing departments: A qualitative analysis of disciplinary contexts at one institution. The Journal of Higher Education, 81, 61–81. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0081

32.

Gearity

B. T.

Mertz

(2012). From “bitch” to “mentor”: A doctoral student’s story of self-change and mentoring. The Qualitative Report, 17, 1–27. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss30/1

33.

Geraniou

(2010). The transitional stages in the PhD degree in mathematics in terms of students’ motivation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73, 281–296. doi:10.1007/s10649-009-9205-1

34.

Golde

C. M.

(1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition. New Directions for Higher Education, 1998, 55–64. doi:10.1002/he.10105

35.

Golde

C. M.

(2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition: Lessons from four departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 76, 669–700. doi:10.1353/jhe.2005.0039

36.

Hall

N. C.

Chipperfield

J. G.

Perry

R. P.

Ruthig

J. C.

Goetz

(2006). Primary and secondary control in academic development: Gender-specific implications for stress and health in college students. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 19, 189–210.

37.

Gordon

, P. J.

(2003). Advising to avoid or to cope with dissertation hang-ups, AMLE 2(2), 181–187.

38.

Hegarty

(2011). Adult learners as graduate students: Underlying motivation in completing graduate programs. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(3), 146–151. doi:10.1080/07377363.2011.614883

39.

Herzig

A. H.

(2002). Where have all the students gone? Participation of doctoral students in authentic mathematical activity as a necessary condition for persistence toward the Ph.D. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 50, 177–212. doi:10.1023/A:1021126424414

40.

Hoskins

C. M.

Goldberg

A. D.

(2005). Doctoral student persistence in counselor education programs: Student–program match. Counselor Education and Supervision, 44, 175–188. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2005.tb01745.x

41.

Hyun

J. K.

Quinn

B. C.

Madon

Lustig

(2006). Graduate student mental health: Needs assessment and utilization of counseling services. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 247–226. doi:10.1353/csd.2006.0030

42.

Ivankova

N. V.

Stick

S. L.

(2007). Students’ persistence in a distributed doctoral program in educational leadership in higher education: A mixed methods study. Research in Higher Education, 48, 93–135. doi:10.1007/s11162-006-9025-4

43.

Ives

Rowley

(2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: Ph.D. students’ progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 30, 535–555. doi:10.1080/03075070500249161

44.

Jaschik

(2015, April 22). The other mental health crisis. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/22/berkeley-study-finds-high-levels-depression-among-graduate-students

45.

Juniper

Walsh

Richardson

Morley

(2012). A new approach to evaluating the well-being of PhD research students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37, 563–576. doi:10.1080/02602938.2011.555816

46.

Kernan

Bogart

Wheat

M. E.

(2011). Health-related barriers to learning among graduate students. Health Education, 111(5), 425–445. doi:10.1108/09654281111161248

47.

Kinman

Jones

(2003). “ Running up the down escalator”: Stressors and strains in UK academics. Quality in Higher Education, 9, 22–37. doi:10.1080/13538320308162

48.

Kohler

Behrman

J. R.

Skytthe

(2005). Partner + children = happiness? The effects of partnerships and fertility on well‐being. Population and Development Review, 31, 407–445. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2005.00078.x

49.

Lambie

G. W.

Vaccaro

(2011). Doctoral counselor education students’ levels of research self-efficacy, perceptions of the research training environment, and interest in research. Counselor Education and Supervision, 50, 243–258. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2011.tb00122.x

50.

Leonard

Becker

Coate

(2005). To prove myself at the highest level: The benefits of doctoral study. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(2), 135–149. doi:10.1080/07294360500062904

51.

Levecque

Anseel

B. A.

Van

H. J.

Gisle

(2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy, 46(4), 868–879. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008

52.

Lin

(2012). Life experiences of dissatisfied science and engineering graduate students in Taiwan. College Student Journal, 46, 51–66. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=bff807dc-6c8c-4fd3-9358-0215ba6a594d%40sdc-v-sessmgr04

53.

Litalien

Guay

(2015). Dropout intentions in PhD studies: A comprehensive model based on interpersonal relationships and motivational resources. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 218–231. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.004

54.

Litalien

Guay

Morin

A. J.

(2015). Motivation for PhD studies: Scale development and validation. Learning and Individual Differences, 41, 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.05.006

55.

Longfield

Romas

Irwin

J. D.

(2006). The self-worth, physical and social activities of graduate students: A qualitative study. College Student Journal, 40, 282–292. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=2e6fd3e5-6d3a-4dfc-bd7d-bb4608b7c20d%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNjb3BlPXNpdGU%3d#AN=21375552&db=a9h

56.

Lovitts

B. E.

(2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

57.

Lovitts

B. E.

(2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t, and why. The Journal of Higher Education, 79, 296–325. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0006

58.

Ministry of Education, Leisure, and Sports (MELS). (2013). Education indicators: 2012 edition. Retrieved from http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/sections/publications/publications/SICA/DRSI/Indicateurs_educ_2012_webP.pdf

59.

Murphy

Bain

J. D.

Conrad

(2007). Orientations to research higher degree supervision. Higher Education, 53, 209–234. doi:10.1007/s10734-005-5608-9

60.

O’Meara

Knudsen

Jones

(2013). The role of emotional competencies in faculty-doctoral student relationships. The Review of Higher Education, 36, 315–347. doi:10.1353/rhe.2013.0021

61.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Rosli

Ingram

J. M.

Frels

R. K.

(2014). A critical dialectical pluralistic examination of the lived experience of select women doctoral students. Qualitative Report, 19, 1–35. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss3/1

62.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2013). Students enrolled by type of institution [Statistics tables]. Retrieved from http://stats.oecd.org

63.

Pallos

Yamada

Okawa

(2005). Graduate student blues: The situation in Japan. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 20(2), 5–15. doi:10.1300/J035v20n02_02

64.

Patchner

M. A.

(1982). A decade of social work doctoral graduates: Their characteristics and educational programs. Journal of Education for Social Work, 18(2), 35–41.

65.

Pauley

Cunningham

Toth

(1999). Doctoral student attrition and retention: A study of a non-traditional Ed.D. program. Journal of College Student Retention, 1, 225–238. doi:10.2190/RAWM-HXTB-M72D-1FFH

66.

Pyhäitö

Vekkaila

Keskinen

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

67.

Schunk

D. H.

Pajares

(2009). Self-efficacy theory. In Wentzel

K. R.

Wigfield

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 35–53). New York: Routledge.

68.

Solem

Hopwood

Schlemper

M. B.

(2011). Experiencing graduate school: A comparative analysis of students in geography programs. The Professional Geographer, 63, 1–17. doi:10.1080/00330124.2010.533547

69.

Statistics Canada. (2011). Education indicators in Canada: Fact sheets (Catalogue No. 81-599-x2011006). Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-599-x/81-599-x2011006-eng.pdf

70.

Stubb

Pyhalto

Lonka

(2011). Balancing between inspiration and exhaustion: PhD students’ experienced socio-psychological well-being. Studies in Continuing Education, 33, 33–50. doi:10.1080/0158037X.2010.515572

71.

Stubb

Pyhalto

Lonka

(2012). The experienced meaning of working with a PhD thesis. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56, 439–456. doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.599422

72.

Sverdlik

Hall

N. C.

McAlpine

Hubbard

(2018). The PhD experience: A review of the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and well-being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 361–388. doi:10.28945/4113

73.

Tanaka

Watanabea

(2012). Academic and family conditions associated with intrinsic academic motivation in Japanese medical students: A pilot study. Health Education Journal, 71, 358–364. doi:10.1177/0017896911401004

74.

Trenberth

(2005). The role, nature and purpose of leisure and its contribution to individual development and well-being. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 33(1), 1–6. doi:10.1080/03069880412331335849

75.

University of California, Berkeley. (2014). The graduate assembly: Graduate student happiness & well-being report. Retrieved from http://ga.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/wellbeingreport_2014.pdf

76.

Vekkaila

Virtanen

Taina

Pyhältö

(2018). The function of social support in engaging and disengaging experiences among post PhD researchers in STEM disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 43(8), 1439–1453. doi:10.1080/03075079.2016.1259307

77.

Walford

(2006). Why physics students start doctorates. Studies in Higher Education, 5, 77–80. doi:10.1080/03075078012331377336

78.

Walker

(2015, November 12). There’s an awful cost to getting a PhD that no one talks about. Quartz. Retrieved from http://qz.com/547641/theres-an-awful-cost-to-getting-a-phd-that-no-one-talks-about/

79.

Walsh

(2010). A model of research group microclimate: Environmental and cultural factors affecting the experiences of overseas research students in the UK. Studies in Higher Education, 35, 545–560. doi:10.1080/03075070903243092

80.

Weidman

J. C.

Stein

E. L.

(2003). Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms. Research in Higher Education, 44, 641–656. doi:10.1023/A:1026123508335

81.

Weidman

J. C.

Twale

D. J.

Stein

E. L.

(2001). Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(3), 2–137. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED457710.pdf

82.

Wellington

Sikes

(2007). A doctorate in a tight compartment”: Why do students choose a professional doctorate and what impact does it have on their personal and professional lives? Studies in Higher Education, 31, 723–734. doi:10.1080/03075070601004358

83.

Wilcox

(2014). Lighting dark: Fixing academia’s mental health problem. New Scientist, 2990. Retrieved from https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26365-lighting-dark-fixing-academias-mental-health-problem/

84.

World Health Organization. (2017). Depression and other common mental disorders: Global health estimates. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/254610/1/WHO-MSD-MER-2017.2-eng.pdf

85.

Wyatt

Oswalt

S. B.

(2013). Comparing mental health issues among undergraduate and graduate students. American Journal of Health Education, 44(2), 96–107. doi:10.1080/19325037.2013.764248

86.

Zhao

C. M.

Golde

C. M.

McCormick

A. C.

(2007). More than a signature: How advisor choice and advisor behaviour affect doctoral student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31, 263–281. doi:10.1080/03098770701424983