THOSE WHO DO NOT COMPLETE THE DOCTORATE
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
INSIGHTS SHARED BY PHD STUDENTS WHO DID NOT COMPLETE
THEIR DOCTORAL STUDIES
Martin Stigmar, Centre for Teaching and Learning, Malmö University, Sweden 4
ABSTRACT
This study aims to generate knowledge around why some doctoral students do not complete their
studies. Interviews were conducted with six informants to explore the reasons Swedish doctoral
students give for non-completion. The study employs a qualitative approach based on a reflexive
thematic analysis. It reveals ten reasons for non-completion: problematic supervisor-supervisee
relationship, unclear requirements, cultural outsider perspective, noncommitted main supervisor,
lost motivation, adversarial private circumstances, lack of work-life balance, organizational
deficiencies, conflict with senior researchers, and incompatible interests. The reasons can be
categorized into two main groups: those related to the university and those pertaining to the
doctoral students. The overall conclusion is that non-completion is multifactorial, implying that
supervisors need a wider perspective to resolve the problem of non-completion. Future research
should explore supervisors’ perspectives on non-completion.
Key Words: Non-completers, doctoral studies, multi-factorial
4
Martin.stigmar@mau.se
44
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
- INTRODUCTION
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
In this article, non-completion refers to the failure to finish doctoral studies within a stipulated
time frame due to either dropping out or taking an extended break from studies. The non
completion of doctoral studies not only poses a cost risk for universities worldwide but also has
consequences for all actors involved. Namely, non-completion entails financial costs and waste
of resources for both universities and funding agencies. It also involves personal costs for
students and supervisors, such as anxiety, time loss, and feelings of defeat. Therefore, efforts
must be made to identify the causes and minimize the occurrence of non-completion.
Previous research presents several causes for the interruption of doctoral studies, including
social, financial, and labor-market factors (Swedish National Agency for Higher Education,
2008; 2012). Research also indicates that the main cause for dropping out is a malfunctioning
relationship between students and supervisors (Corcelles et al., 2019). Likewise, the primary
factor reported in Sweden for not completing doctoral studies is an inadequate supervisee
supervisor relationship (Swedish National Agency for Higher Education, 2012). Moreover,
Kulikowski et al. (2019) and Capacent (2007) emphasize the role of a supportive social
relationship between doctoral students and their supervisors. A literature review by Sverdlik et al.
(2018) also supports the importance of establishing a reliable relationship between supervisor
and supervisee. Generally, supervision is perceived as helpful in facilitating professional
development; nonetheless, doctoral students are likely to encounter incompetent supervisors or
supervisors who cause them distress or even psychological harm (Bang et al., 2014). Thus, a
problematic relationship with supervisors increases the risk of doctoral student attrition
45
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
(Corcelles et al., 2019). A broader discussion on inadequate supervision and its impact on
doctoral student satisfaction is internationally pertinent.
Nevertheless, doctoral students often drop out of their programs without providing an
explanation (Sverdlik et al., 2018). Moreover, there has been a lack of qualitative studies on the
voices and experiences of international students who discontinue doctoral research degrees
(Phan, 2024). Supervisors worldwide, regardless of their field, should understand the root causes
of non-completion to develop ethical and cost-effective practices to mitigate this problem.
Therefore, to increase higher education institutions’ readiness to provide supportive supervision,
this study explores reasons behind the non-completion of doctoral studies in Sweden. The main
contribution of this study is to provide case-based knowledge around general reasons for the non
completion of doctoral studies. Its findings will enable doctoral students as well as supervisors to
reflect on how they can act to limit the risk for non-completion. In addition, studies that include
those who have not completed their studies provide a more holistic picture of career trajectories
(Ahmad, 2017); the findings of this study will aid in this endeavor. While this study focuses on
Sweden, its findings are applicable to supervisors worldwide seeking insights into reasons for
doctoral non-completion and the significance of fostering strong supervision relationships to
mitigate attrition. - Aim, Research Question, and Scope
This study aims to investigate the reasons behind the non-completion of doctoral studies in
Sweden from the students’ perspective. Therefore, it poses the following research question: What
reasons do students provide for failing to complete their doctoral studies?
46
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
This study specifically highlights the perspective of doctoral students (not supervisors)
regarding non-completion. To elucidate students’ perspective in a Swedish context, Malmö
University was selected as a case study. Further, the study is exploratory; therefore, it is not
limited to aspects such as students’ ethnicity, gender, or disabilities. - LITERATURE REVIEW
To explore existing studies on the non-completers of doctoral studies (i.e., research focusing on
the students), I conducted a search in the Educational Resource Information System (ERIC), the
world’s most widely used online database of education-related literature. Searching peer
reviewed journals using the search string “non-completers of doctoral studies” resulted in three
articles. The first article was a Vietnamese case study by Phan (2024) that focused on
international PhD students and their reasons for non-completion. The study identified five
intersecting themes within three structural aspects: relational aspects (linked/independent lives),
temporal aspects (the interplay of human lives and historical times, the timing of lives), and
developmental aspects (diversity in life courses, developmental risk and protection). The second
study aimed to identify dropping out factors in the field of education (Leijen & Remmik, 2016).
Leijen and Remmik (2016) found that dropping out from doctoral studies was connected to
“student’s personal factors (e.g. insufficient knowledge and skills, lack of interest, family
demands, lack of finances), supervisory arrangements (e.g. supervisor’s lack of support), and by
other factors contributing to the wider learning community (community’s support, substantive
47
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
monitoring of the studies)” (p. 140). In the third study, Devos et al. (2017) compared completers
and non-completers, and their results show that doctoral students who feel that they are moving
forward, without experiencing too much distress, on a research project that makes sense to them
to a greater extent tend to complete their doctoral studies. I will return to some of these studies in
the discussion section, where I compare their findings to those of this study.
The search showed limited exiting research focusing on non-completers. Therefore, I
decided to include the relevant findings from a previous literature review exploring the positive
and negative factors influencing doctoral students (Stigmar, 2023). The review involved two
searches in ERIC. The first search was conducted in January 2022 and targeted factors negatively
influencing the supervision relationship in doctoral education, yielding 13 relevant peer-reviewed
articles from 2010 to 2021 available in full text. Each item underwent scrutiny based on title and
summary, resulting in the exclusion of four articles due to misalignment with the review’s focus.
According to the review findings, the positive factors for doctoral students include a supportive
supervisor relationship and quality supervision. A supportive supervisor relationship impacts
students’ satisfaction, resilience, and academic achievement (McCray & Joseph-Richard, 2020;
Sparks & Chang, 2021). Quality supervision involves feedback, frequent meetings, and mentor
availability. In addition, socialization programs and mentoring are crucial because they support
student well-being, psychological maturity, work-life balance, motivation, and self-discipline
(McBrayer, et al., 2021). Importantly, the findings indicate that the interaction of personal,
environmental, professional, and institutional factors influences program completion.
48
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
A subsequent search was conducted on February 1, 2022, to identify the factors positively
influencing doctoral education supervision. This search yielded 50 relevant peer-reviewed
articles from 2016 to 2021 available in full text. A screening process based on title and abstract
excluded 32 articles not aligned with the review’s focus and scope. The remaining 18 articles
were further evaluated, and 10 were selected for inclusion in the study. These are the key
findings: The negative factors affecting doctoral studies include cultural differences, language
barriers, and non-academic backgrounds. Moreover, poor socialization and understanding of the
doctoral program can hinder success, as can imbalances between teaching and research (Jucks &
Hillbrink, 2017). Temporary and insecure doctoral employment, along with gender-related
barriers, also impact performance. - A SWEDISH CASE: MALMÖ UNIVERSITY
Malmö University in Sweden, in 2024, has approximately 24,000 students, including 283
doctoral students. According to Swedish regulations, doctoral students have the right to
supervision during their postgraduate training, and Malmö University provides 80 hours per year
for full-time doctoral studies. The Doctoral Support unit at Malmö University (2020) provides
students with assistance, particularly regarding conflicts with supervisors, assistant supervisors,
or former supervisors. The unit’s function complies with international findings indicating that a
dysfunctional supervisor relationship is a primary cause of non-completion. Doctoral students at
49
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
Malmö University have reported a satisfactory dialogue with their supervisors. Nonetheless, to
avoid non-completion, the Malmö University guidelines for doctoral studies stress the following:
“In order to achieve the goals for the doctoral education, it is emphasized that newly
admitted doctoral students must be offered a systematic introduction to their doctoral
education and to their workplace, that the supervision must be of high quality and have
sufficient scope, and that access to relevant courses must be good”. (Holmström, 2024, p.
18)
Accordingly, Malmö University offers doctoral students an introductory course and requires
supervisors to take part in a supervision training course.
3.1 Introductory Course for Doctoral Students
The introductory course at Malmö University aims to provide doctoral students with essential
information about their roles, research environments, and the university’s mission regarding
postgraduate research. It also facilitates networking among new doctoral students, fostering their
integration into the research community. The course covers various topics, including
expectations, supervision dynamics, Malmö University’s goals and policies for postgraduate
research, generic doctoral courses, career support, study abroad opportunities, and library
resources as well as experiences shared by current doctoral students.
50
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
3.2 Supervisor Training Course
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
Additionally, Malmö University offers a compulsory supervisor training course to address the
lack of formal training among supervisors, as highlighted by research. Researchers have
emphasized the significance of preparing senior academics for their supervisory roles (e.g.,
Kulikowski et al., 2019), and they have stressed the need to professionalize supervisor training
processes in order to enhance supervision quality and efficacy (e.g., Wisker & Claesson, 2013).
Accordingly, introducing a mandatory supervisor training course at Malmö university is in line
with research recommendations. The training course at Malmö University aims to provide
supervisors with the necessary skills and awareness to support doctoral students effectively and
to mitigate non-completion issues. The course spans three and a half weeks of full-time
commitment, and it is a prerequisite for promotion to associate professor. It delves into various
aspects of supervision (including regulatory frameworks, power dynamics, and effective
strategies) through lectures, seminars, group discussions, and case studies. The course covers
essential topics such as doctoral studies perspectives, learning objectives, thesis quality,
supervision organization, legal considerations, equality, and library services. Moreover, the
course problematizes non-completion and invites critical discussions about how the risk of
dropping out can be limited.
51
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR) - METHODOLOGY
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
This study was driven by the research question, “what reasons do students provide for failing to
complete their doctoral studies?” To answer the question, I collected data by conducting
interviews with students from Malmö University who did not complete their doctoral studies.
Non-completers meeting specific criteria (e.g. being inactive during several years) were
contacted via email for participation. All the informants were women. Their age at the start of
their doctoral studies ranged between 31 and 43, with an average of 38. Two of the informants
represented media and communication, and the rest came from care science, mathematics
didactics, pedagogy, and urban studies. The study pace on the doctoral degree varied between
50% and 100%. Most of the informants dropped out or took a break after a couple of years of
doctoral studies, with the shortest study period lasting two months and the longest ten years. To
guarantee confidentiality, full descriptions of the informants are not presented.
The informants were interviewed individually. The interviews were conducted via Zoom,
and they lasted for one to two hours. The interviews were structured using a question guide that
focused on four key areas: background factors, supervisor relationships, motivation, and work
environment. The informants were provided with the interview questions in advance to allow for
reflection and preparation. The interviews were recorded after the informants expressed
informed consent. Thereafter, they were transcribed in preparation for analysis.
The interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis following the process described
by Braun and Clarke (2006). Thematic analysis offers flexibility while following a well
52
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
established process involving iterative phases such as data familiarization, code generation,
theme identification, and report production (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2022). Thematic analysis
appeared to be validated research approach as it has been previously used in studies on students’
recollections of factors related to non-completion (Leijen & Remmik, 2016). Therefore, it has
been used in this study to uncover patterns in the qualitative data to gain an understanding of the
informants’ perspectives on why they did not complete their doctoral studies.
Throughout the analysis, I as researcher remained mindful of my own subjectivity,
seeking to avoid bias and overinterpretation. Additionally, I considered the theoretical flexibility
of a reflexive thematic analysis, acknowledging that subjectivity is not merely a problem to be
controlled but is instead the primary tool for analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022). Thus, subjectivity
was acknowledged as omnipresent, both in the researcher and in the informants. This approach
aimed to mitigate holistic fallacy, as outlined by Miles and Huberman (1994), by anchoring
interpretations among all informants and actively involving them in the analysis process. Further,
to enhance rigor, all informants had the opportunity to review and validate the interpretations
derived from their interviews twice (which they all used), ensuring accuracy and alignment with
their perspectives (Braun & Clarke, 2022). - RESULT
This section presents the results of the analysis. For each informant, the identified themes are
53
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
presented, supported with excerpts from the interviews, and complemented by their suggested
solutions. Thereafter, the themes are categorized, compared with those identified in previous
literature (see the Literature Review section) and examined. Overall, the amalgamation of several
factors contributed to the informants’ decision to not complete their doctoral studies.
5.1 Informant 1
The analysis revealed three themes in the reasons leading the first informant to leave their
doctoral studies: (i) problematic supervisor-supervisee relationship, (ii) unclear requirements,
and (iii) cultural outsider perspective.
The first theme concerns the relationship between the doctoral student and the
supervisors. Several issues contributed to making this relationship problematic for the informant.
The informant said she had no “possibility to influence the choice of supervisor.” She requested a
specific person as her main supervisor, but as she understood, the suggested supervisor had no
time. However, the most severe problem in her relationship with the supervisors was that the
informant felt the feedback was insufficient and difficult to understand: “I was told it was good. I
kept asking, am I doing things right? Where am I? It took me time to understand the feedback
and no support was given to understand the feedback.” The informant did not feel that she
received encouragement from her supervisors. She reasoned that perhaps the supervisors were
trying to “maintain authority. Too much encouragement could be understood as being soft as a
supervisor.”
54
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
The second theme, unclear requirements, refers to the doctoral student’s inability to
understand what is expected of them. After supervision meetings, the informant “always came
away with the feeling I should have done more.” She felt that she was not meeting standards. The
unclear requirements made her “unsure what is expected of me. What matters? What is enough?
I gave up on a system that did not respond.”
The third theme specifically concerns doctoral students who are considered “cultural
outsiders.” In this context, a cultural outsider is a doctoral student who has a different cultural
background due to being born and raised in a country other than Sweden. The informant
originally came from another country and felt uncomfortable in the university; specifically, she
experienced cultural exclusion as an outsider. According to the informant, no introduction to the
doctoral program was offered prior to its commencement; instead, she was immediately invited
to teach: “I felt lost. When it came to presenting my work within the walls of the university, I
was not confident. I just didn’t fit in.” She added, “I had a feeling that there were things
happening around me that I had no clue about.” She criticized herself by asking, “Is it me who is
limiting the conversation? I didn’t do enough to find my way around?”
To overcome these problems, the informant needed a supervision relationship where the
supervisor explained how the feedback should be handled and where the supervisor supported
the doctoral student. The informant expressed that she had needed support in translating
meaningful discussions into her own research project. She also asked for clear, straightforward,
and critical feedback. In addition to feedback, clear information and instructions are necessary,
55
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
particularly for cultural outsiders. Doctoral students who have a cultural background other than
that of the country where they receive their doctoral education need extra care from the
supervisor and a proper introduction to the work environment.
5.2 Informant 2
Three themes emerged during the analysis of the second interview: (i) noncommitted main
supervisor, (ii) lost motivation, and (iii) adversarial private circumstances.
An uncommitted main supervisor is one who prioritizes tasks other than supervision. This
theme was evident in the second informant’s narrative. Similar to the first informant, the second
one was also not allowed to influence the choice of supervisor. The informant did not feel
supported by the main supervisor, who was not feeling well and had private problems. Moreover,
there were constant setbacks because the supervisor found new things to change. On the other
hand, she perceived the two co-supervisors as more committed. The informant said the three
supervisors’ feedback was of a conflicting nature. In addition, none of the supervisors were
physically present at the university. These aspects culminated in the theme of a noncommitted
main supervisor, which was amplified by issues related to the co-supervisors.
Lost motivation, referring to the doctoral student losing the desire and motivation to work
on their thesis, was another theme that emerged in the informant’s narrative. For the second
informant, the lost motivation was influenced by several factors. One big factor was the lack of
supervisor involvement. The informant also lacked encouragement and felt that her texts were
56
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
not perceived as good enough. She expressed self-criticism, saying she did not think she was
outspoken enough with her supervisors: “Now they say so, then I have to do so. I didn’t say what
I thought.” Another factor was the fact that she was not physically present at the university,
which made her feel alone; she missed having informal meetings with the supervisors and other
doctoral students. Consequently, she lost interest in her thesis, did not find the studies enjoyable,
and became unmotivated.
The third theme that contributed to non-completion is adversarial private circumstances,
which include having another job, dealing with illness, or having a death in the family. In this
informant’s case, she worked full-time as a manager in addition to her doctoral studies. The
addition of illnesses and a deceased family member contributed to an unsustainable work and life
situation. These circumstances led her to take two extended breaks during her doctoral studies.
The support that this informant required was that “the supervisors would have been more
involved in the process. The supervisors were not up to date on my manuscript. I wanted more
predictability.”
5.3 Informant 3
The third informant’s narrative displayed two themes: (i) lack of work-life balance and (ii)
adversarial private circumstances.
In the context of doctoral studies, lack of a work-life balance occurs when the
combination of doctoral studies, other work tasks, family life, and personal life becomes too
57
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
much. This was one of the main reasons the third informant did not complete her studies. The
puzzle of life was difficult to put together and she ended up suffering: “I can’t sacrifice my
health and family, it’s not worth it.” She found it difficult to have the family in one place, work
in another (teaching in compulsory school), and study in a third place, especially when “At the
same time, my husband got the opportunity to study further in another place it didn’t work out.”
This situation also prevented her from being in situ at the university: “I like to be on site at my
jobs. I don’t like working from home. Then, I miss part of the everyday activities. Contacts and
the social aspect are lost when you are not there. Difficult to build a network when you are not
there.”
The combination of work and studies and the constant travel made her feel insufficient at
home, with her doctoral studies, and with her pupils in compulsory school. Thus, the lack of
balance created a stressful situation that affected her studies: “Graduate school became stressful,
I felt like I was falling behind and out of sync, I constantly felt like I was falling behind.” The
lack of work-life balance in this case also appears to intersect with the personal circumstances
theme; that is, not only does the informant has a job in addition to her studies, the lack of balance
contributed to mental health issues.
Perfectionism, that’s me. Therefore, there was an internal conflict. When you feel
that you cannot perform as well as you would like, it affects you as a person. There
was a collision. Good enough does not exist in my world. If you must do it, it has to
be 100%. I would have been able to do it, but I feel like I can’t do it as well as I
58
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
would like to.
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
Here, the informant’s perfectionism in combination with the lack of work-studies-life balance
became a cause for stress. The informant has previous experience with being burned out and was
careful not to end up there again. This personal experience with stress and susceptibility to
burnout in combination with other illness in the family constituted adversarial private
circumstances that contributed to her decision to drop out of her doctoral studies.
Regarding the support that the informant had needed, it was not something that could
have been provided by the university or supervisors: “I don’t think any support would have
helped, it was about factors that were outside. Pulling the family up and selling the new house
was not a realistic option.”
5.4 Informant 4
For the fourth informant, the analysis identified two themes: (i) Conflict between the doctoral
student and a senior researcher and (ii) organizational deficiencies.
Conflicts may occur between senior researchers (other than the supervisor) and doctoral
students regarding the students’ expectations and possibilities to influence the academic learning
environment. According to the fourth informant, many doctoral students in her faculty “felt very
controlled and pressured, and critical voices were not asked for.” The informant felt that she was
never given the opportunity to express her opinions and thus influence the doctoral program;
instead, everything was predetermined. Once the informant expressed her will and criticized a
59
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
senior researcher’s leadership and style, this resulted in conflict with the senior researcher, and
she was perceived as troublesome. According to the informant, the supervisors dominated the
seminars, and the doctoral students were expected to sit there to be formed and schooled: “It was
not a pleasant atmosphere. It is a process to enter the academy. Entering the academy is a
process, but the doctoral students were not given time for the process.”
Another reason behind non-completion was covered under the theme organizational
deficiencies, which included power struggles between senior researchers and lack of academic
freedom for doctoral students. Internal disputes between senior researchers not only occurred but
spilled over into the environment of the seminars, but they were largely unspoken and therefore
difficult to understand for the doctoral students: “No one explained the academic game and
power struggles. The PhD students had to figure it out themselves. The new PhD students felt
stupid.” Furthermore, the informant complained about the lack of freedom. She stressed that the
doctoral students “did not want to be controlled by the research school or by people connected to
it.” However, some professors had a lot of power in their institution, and the governance of the
institution combined with the extensive power of some professors led to a lack of academic
freedom and autonomy for the doctoral students.
Organizational deficiencies also concerned the organizational clash between different
actors within academia. There was an organizational clash between the research school idea and
the doctoral students’ desire to remain in the academy.” According to the informant, the
university presented the students with double messages. On the one hand, “the university wanted
60
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
to bring in research-educated junior lecturers to the department, which they did not have to pay
for, and on the other, we were explicitly treated as industrial doctoral students.” Thus, there was a
tension between the two different organizations—the university’s municipal clients and the
senior researchers at the university — “which puts a bit of a damper on the mood.” It is worth
noting that this informant appreciated her supervisors and never had any conflicts with them
despite not getting to choose them.
Furthermore, the informant reported dissatisfaction among students with the fact that the
university did not financially support licentiates to continue to the doctoral level. The informant
had completed her licentiate degree at one department and “did not want to change departments”
to complete a doctoral thesis.
The support that the informant had needed in order not to interrupt her doctoral studies
was more support and motivation in applying for a doctoral position.
5.5 Informant 5
The fifth informant’s non-completion motives are represented by four different themes: (i)
problematic supervisor-supervisee relationship, (ii) unclear requirements, (iii) cultural outsider
perspective, and (iv) lack of work-life balance.
Concerning the supervisor-supervisee relationship, the informant believes she was the
main supervisor’s first doctoral student, so the supervisor was inexperienced. The co-supervisor
moved, so the informant was appointed a new co-supervisor. The new co-supervisor was also
61
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
appointed department head during the process, thereby having two different relationships with
the informant. Having a co-supervisor with several loyalties caused confusion for the informant:
“the co-supervisor was wearing double hats. What kind of relationship did we have really?” The
informant felt that “the relationship was cracked.”
For this informant, dealing with unclear requirements meant that “There were no
milestones and no clear achievements. It was unclear what I had to achieve to make the next step
on the salary scale,” so she lost motivation. After a” brutal” seminar experience, the informant
said she felt “beaten in a boxing ring, a 50% that was not approved.” This experience made her
unsure how to move forward: “I was scared … I did not know how to react. Will I get fired?”
Clearly, the informant and the supervisors had different perspectives on what was required to
reach a 50% level of finishing the doctoral studies, and the supervisors were also afraid and
stressed that time was running out. The informant reacted with fear and shut herself out by being
absent from work.
Identifying as a cultural outsider, the informant had a more severe reaction to criticism:
“It was very much a cultural thing. I was completely paralyzed. I felt ashamed. I had lost face; it
is a cultural thing.” The informant felt that she had not produced what was expected from her,
and “I blamed myself, yes, very much. I could not blame the supervisors. I had not only
embarrassed myself but also my supervisors. I was self-blaming: why do I do this to my
supervisors? They have always supported me.” Thus, being a cultural outsider exacerbated the
tendency to self-blame, especially since it is difficult to break the cultural barriers.
62
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
Concerning the lack of work-life balance, the informant described how “Courses,
teaching, and writing were three competing interests with my personal family situation.” The
informant explained that she had struggles in Sweden, and at the same time, she had to support
her family abroad. This lack of balance caused stress and demotivation: “In my home country, if
you do not show up, you are fired. I lost my drive, felt defeated, running the marathon.” The
informant’s personal problems and imbalance in combination with unclear guidelines pushed her
to drop out: “it got to be too much, and I just burned out.”
The themes in this informant’s narrative indicate that doctoral students with foreign
backgrounds need extra support to understand the requirements, seminar feedback, and
expectations and to find a reasonable life-work balance. In retrospect, the informant believed
“the supervisors should have had more understanding for cultural differences.” The informant
also regretted not being more open with her supervisors about her feelings after the 50% seminar.
5.6 Informant 6
The analysis of the sixth informant’s narrative resulted in two themes: incompatible interests and
adversarial private circumstances. The incompatible interests theme relates to an incompatibility
between the doctoral student’s personal interests (i.e., needs) and those of the university and the
municipality. In the informant’s case, the incompatibility made her feel inadequate and, in
combination with private circumstances, resulted in the non-completion of her doctoral thesis.
According to the informant, there was a mismatch between her needs and what the
63
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
university provided. The informant expressed a need for a university context, namely a good
research environment, because “it was hard to sit alone with my thoughts.” She lacked the
socialization aspect: “It was a lot of independent work.” However, when she socialized with
doctoral students from different subjects, she was told by a professor, “you shouldn’t sit here,”
which made her feel unwelcome. The isolation and lack of socialization with peers was made
worse during the pandemic: “The pandemic led to a lot of work from home. There were no
forums for meetings. Now there is Teams, but it wasn’t like that during the pandemic then you
were quite isolated.” Moreover, the informant felt that there was a mismatch between her
dissertation interest and the supervisors’ competence.
When it comes to incompatibility with the municipality, the informant revealed that she
had to follow the municipality’s interest rather than her own when it comes to her research
project. That is, she felt that she had no free choice of the thesis subject. According to the
informant, there was a general lack of clarity when it came to who was responsible for the thesis
project, the municipality or the doctoral student. The incompatibility became more problematic
when the municipality’s interest in the project decreased. “The topic was getting stale,” so the
informant doubted whether the thesis results would be useful to the municipality. Furthermore, a
key person within the municipality retired, which contributed to the municipality showing less
interest in the thesis work: “the interest was personal.” Since the choice of topic was not her own
(i.e., the municipality’s interest was not compatible with her own), the informant lost the
motivation to carry on her research when the municipality decreased its interest.
64
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
Adversarial private circumstances also contributed to this informant’s non-completion.
She was on parental leave twice because she could not carry on her doctoral studies with a
newborn child: “there was a break in the studies solely for that purpose. You have to be actively
engaged to understand your own thoughts. Difficult to divide the weeks and have different
focuses, difficult to be in two places.” She also did not live in the municipality where the
workplace was located; she had to commute from one municipality to another, with about an
hour’s travel time each way. These circumstances prevented her from devoting her full attention
to her doctoral studies and made her feel overwhelmed.
In terms of the support that would have allowed her not to interrupt her studies, the
informant said she needed a manager in the municipality who was more knowledgeable and
interested in her project. Further, her motivation might have been higher if she had been able to
choose a research topic completely freely. From the university, she needed a research context or
community to be a part of. (Perhaps, she would have dropped out anyway. It is impossible to
know.)
5.7 Summary of the Results
The question guide employed in this study comprised four areas—background factors, supervisor
relationship, motivation, and work environment—and all four areas are covered in the
informants’ answers. In total, this study identified ten different reasons for non-completion:
problematic supervisor-supervisee relationship, unclear requirements, cultural outsider
perspective, noncommitted main supervisor, lost motivation, adversarial private circumstances,
65
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
lack of work-life balance, organizational deficiencies, conflict with senior researchers, and
incompatible interests. These ten themes are consistent with Phan’s (2024) five themes that
illustrate the difficult challenge of combining doctoral studies with a private life (see the
literature review section). In their study of factors leading students to leave their doctoral studies,
Leijen and Remmik (2016) grouped the identified factors into students’ personal factors and
factors related to the institution and the wider learning environment (see also Borders, et al,
2020). Similarly, the ten reasons identified in this study can be grouped into reasons connected to
the university (problematic supervisor-supervisee relationship, unclear requirements,
noncommitted main supervisor, organizational deficiencies, and conflict with senior researchers)
and those connected to the doctoral student (lost motivation, adversarial private circumstances,
lack of work-life balance, and cultural outsider perspective). One reason is situated at the
intersection of these two groups (incompatible interests). - DISCUSSION
This section discusses the similarities and patterns visible in the identified reasons for non
completion. It is organized based on the measures that can be implemented to reduce the risk of
non-completion: providing holistic support and encouragement, mitigating students’ self-blame,
and clarifying requirements.
66
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
6.1 Providing Holistic Support and Encouragement
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
The study results indicate that non-completion is multifactorial. The interviewed doctoral
students all provided multiple reasons for not completing their studies. This is well in line with
previous research, which shows that early career academics find it difficult “to orient themselves
in situations characterized by multiple social orders and a diverse set of competing rationales”
(Nästesjö, 2024, p. 21). Therefore, academic institutions and supervisors are obligated to address
the whole breadth of factors that cause doctoral students to non-complete.
Regarding the role of supervisors, what doctoral students primarily need is more
supportive and motivating conversations. In the interviews, the doctoral students mainly asked
for positive feedback and encouragement, which is in line with previous research (Kilminster &
Jolly, 2000). One of the informants speculated whether supervisors withhold encouragement
because they “must keep an authoritative distance and not be soft”. The same informant
requested feedback indicating where she is in the process (i.e., how much supervision time she
has used and how much time she have left, what quality criteria does she meet, etc.). That is, in
addition to encouragement, doctoral students need supervisors to clarify the process, stay
updated on the students’ progress, and show an interest in the students’ research. Notably, only
one of the informants was given the chance to influence the choice of supervisor. The inability to
influence the choice of one’s supervisors evidently affects the non-completion of one’s thesis
because it reduces the possibility of building a well-functioning relationship with the supervisor.
Being part of a relevant research environment, on site, is also something that the
67
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
informants requested. The fact that supervisors and doctoral students were not physically present
in a joint research environment was another reason highlighted for non-completion. The
informants wanted to sit and act in a mutual research environment with other doctoral students
and senior researchers (e.g., their supervisors).
6.2 Mitigating Students’ Self-blame
Importantly, personal circumstances were often mentioned as reasons for non-completion,
thereby shifting the blame from the institution and supervision to the self. For example, several
of the informants stated that they have a complicated life situation, with expectations from
several different directions (e.g., work, family, and health issues). A similarity between all six
informants is that none of them blame the non-completion solely on the supervisors. The results
of this study indicate that doctoral students often blame themselves, especially those with
cultural backgrounds that differ from the dominant culture of the institution. This is confirmed by
Nästesjö (2024): “failure was considered one’s own responsibility” (p. 36). Supervisors have an
important role in helping doctoral students identify the real causes of their struggle or inability to
complete the program. In this process, doctoral students may need help to not only look within
and be self-aware but also look for external reasons for non-completion. Minimizing self-blame
also requires supervisors to provide critical feedback, not always saying that “everything is
good.” Since identifying as a cultural outsider was associated with the tendency to self-blame,
two of the informants emphasized the value of the supervisors having the ability to understand
cultural differences. This understanding includes being able to explain the general goals and
68
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
criteria of the doctoral education and being able to make (seminar) feedback understandable.
6.3 Clarify Requirements
The informants pointed to unclear requirements and expectations as reasons for non-completion.
Only one informant got to take part in a well-functioning introduction to the doctoral program.
As doctoral students, they felt they were left to the mercy of others, especially if they come from
another country. The two informants who identified as cultural outsiders both mentioned unclear
requirements as non-completion reasons. Both informants claimed they did not receive sufficient
help to understand what they were expected to achieve at various stages in the process. Clear
5
assessment criteria were missing. The doctoral students with a foreign background did not
understand the feedback they received at research seminars and did not obtain sufficient
supervisor support to understand it. The unclarity concerning goals and critical feedback
undoubtedly contributed to the students’ non-completion of their degree. Nästesjö (2024)
confirms this result: “unclear career structures precipitate a feeling of being ‘out of control’” (p.
36). Racheal and Abdullah (2019) also show that the main reason doctoral students dislike
research was the feeling of uncertainty and in their abilities to handle research and doctoral
programs. Supervisors need to avoid unclear requirements and instead support clear structures so
that doctoral students (especially foreigners) gain an understanding of the doctoral education and
the career system. Supervisors can provide written feedback with explanations and check that the
message gets across.
5
Experiences from multicultural encounters as a doctoral student are further discussed by Fotovatian and Miller
(2014) and by Li and Collins (2014).
69
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
According to Areskoug Josefsson et al. (2016), supervisors are not primarily concerned
with non-completion rates. Rather, they are concerned with encouraging doctoral students who
are unsuited for research to give up their doctoral studies. A few of the informants in this study
confirmed this by saying that their supervisors should have raised the issue of their unsustainable
situation and interrupted their studies earlier.
In the subsequent section, I delineate several conclusions drawn from this study. - CONCLUSIONS
The overall conclusion is that non-completion is multifactorial. Consequently, students require
different forms of support to avoid it. This conclusion is in line with previous findings by
Benjamin et al. (2017). Non-completion factors can be linked to the university or supervisor and,
at the same time, to the doctoral student. However, non-completers primarily tend to blame
themselves rather than their supervisors and their environment. Therefore, I argue that
supervisors should try to take a more holistic approach when supporting doctoral students and
identifying potential obstacles to the completion of their degrees. In addition, they should assist
their students in identifying the underlying causes of their struggle instead of resorting to self
blame. Finally, the students should receive clear guidelines and assessment criteria, and their
cultural differences should be acknowledged and accounted for.
70
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
7.1 Future Research
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
This study exclusively reports on doctoral students’ reasons for non-completion. Therefore,
future research should also explore supervisors’ perspectives on this issue. Conducting
interviews with non-completers and their supervisors from various universities would provide a
broader basis for understanding the causes of non-completion. The insights gained from the six
interviews can serve as a foundation for designing interview and survey questions for
supervisors. Additionally, the findings indicate that cultural outsiders may require specialized
guidance in their doctoral studies, suggesting that targeted support could be highly beneficial.
7.2 Limitations and Implications
This article only includes interviews with doctoral students and not supervisors. This is a
limitation because the supervisors’ perspective on reasons for non-completion is a crucial piece
of the puzzle to understand why doctoral students become non-completers. Another limitation is
that the number of informants is small. More interviews and surveys are needed to generate a
more comprehensive understanding of the reasons for non-completion.
The implication is that the possibility of generalizing the results of this study is limited.
However, the findings indicate that supervisors need to offer multifactorial supervision that
includes encouragement, reduce doctoral students’ tendency to self-blame, and clarify the
standards and requirements of writing a doctoral thesis.
71
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
REFERENCES
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
Ahmad, S. (2017). Family or future in the academy? Review of Educational Research, 87(1),
204-239.
Areskoug Josefsson, K., Bergenzaun, L., Fahlvik Svensson, S., Lundqvist, S., Peterson, P., &
Lindberg-Sand, Å. (2016). “Should I stay or should I go?”: Tolvhundra doktoranders syn
på avhopp och akademisk karriär. Institutionen för utbildningsvetenskap, Lunds
universitet.
Bang, K., & Goodyear, R. K. (2014). South Korean supervisees’ experience of and response to
negative supervision events. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 27(4), 353-378.
Benjamin, S., Williams, J., & Maher, M. A. (2017). Focusing the lens to share the story: Using
photographs and interviews to explore doctoral students’ sense of well-being.
International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 12(1), 197-217.
Borders, L. D., Wester, K. L., & Driscoll, K. H. (2020). Researcher Development of Doctoral
Students: Supports and Barriers Across Time. Counselor Education and Supervision,
59(4), 297-315.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative
Psychology, 9(1), 3.
Capacent, E. (2007). Undersøgelse af årsager til frafald blandt Ph. D.-studerende.
Corcelles, M., Cano, M., Liesa, E., González-Ocampo, G., & Castelló, M. (2019). Positive and
negative experiences related to doctoral study conditions. Higher Education Research &
Development, 38(5), 922-939.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.
Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
Devos, C., Boudrenghien, G., Van der Linden, N., Azzi, A., Frenay, M., Galand, B., & Klein, O.
(2017). Doctoral students’ experiences leading to completion or attrition: A matter of
sense, progress and distress. European journal of psychology of education, 32, 61-77.
Fotovatian, S., & Miller, J. (2014). Constructing an institutional identity in university tea rooms:
The international PhD student experience. Higher Education Research & Development,
33(2), 286-297.
Gyamtsho, S. (2017). University of Tasmania Open Access Repository Cover sheet.
Holmström, O. (2024) Postgraduate education at Malmö University. PhD students’ perspective.
University Office, Joint operational support. Report, dnr: LED 2022/916Jansson, G.
(2011). The Multifaceted Use of a Written Artifact in Student Supervision. Education
Research International, 2011.
Jucks, R., & Hillbrink, A. (2017). Perspective on research and teaching in psychology:
enrichment or burden? Psychology Learning & Teaching, 16(3), 306-322.
Kilminster, S. M., & Jolly, B. C. (2000). Effective supervision in clinical practice settings: A
72
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
literature review. Medical Education, 34(10), 827-840.
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
Kindsiko, E., & Baruch, Y. (2019). Careers of PhD graduates: The role of chance events and how
to manage them. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 122-140.
Kulikowski, K., Potoczek, A., Antipow, E., & Król, S. (2019). How to survive in academia:
Demands, resources and study satisfaction among Polish PhD students. Educational
Sciences: Theory & Practice, 19(4), 65-79.
Li, W., & Collins, C. S. (2014). Chinese Doctoral Student Socialization in the United States: A
Qualitative Study. In FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education (Vol. 1, No. 2,
pp. 32-57). Lehigh University Library and Technology Services. 8A East Packer Avenue,
Fairchild Martindale Library Room 514, Bethlehem, PA 18015.
Leijen, Ä., Lepp, L., & Remmik, M. (2016). Why did I drop out? Former students’ recollections
about their study process and factors related to leaving the doctoral studies. Studies in
Continuing Education, 38(2), 129-144.
Malmö University (2020), Dnr: LED 2020/687, Doktorandsupportens verksamhet läsåret
2019/20, The doctoral student’s activities in the academic year 2019/20. Malmö
University, webpage, retrieved 210611. https://staff.mau.se/tools-and-services/research
support/for-doctoral-students/
McBrayer, J. S., Fallon, K., Tolman, S., Calhoun, D. W., Ballesteros, E., & Mathewson, T.
(2021). Examining Educational Leadership Doctoral Students’ Self-Efficacy as Related to
Their Role as a Scholarly Practitioner Researcher. International Journal of Doctoral
Studies, 16(1).
McCray, J., & Joseph-Richard, P. (2020). Towards a model of resilience protection: factors
influencing doctoral completion. Higher Education, 80(4), 679-699Miles, M. B., &
Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
Nästesjö, J. (2024). Uncertainty, worth, identity: How early career academics navigate evaluative
landscapes.
Pattanaik, S. K. (2022). Role of work environment & work life balance in banking: The
triggering effect on retention in post pandemic. Journal of International Doctoral
Research, 9(1), 90.
Phan, H. P. (2024). Narratives of ‘delayed success’: A life course perspective on understanding
Vietnamese international students’ decisions to drop out of PhD programmes. Higher
Education, 1-17.
Radey, M., & Stanley, L. (2018). “Hands on” versus “empty”: Supervision experiences of
frontline child welfare workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 128-136.
Racheal, P. O. H., & ABDULLAH, A. G. B. K. (2019). Factors influencing students’ research
self-efficacy: A case study of university students in Malaysia. Eurasian Journal of
Educational Research, 19(82), 137-168.
Sparks, C., & Chang, H. (2021). Doctoral Capstone Products: A Systems Thinking Model for
Quality Assurance. Christian Higher Education, 20(1-2), 38-56.
Stigmar, M. (Submitted, 2023). A literature study of factors negatively and positively affecting
73
Journal of International Doctoral Research (JIDR)
doctoral students and their doctoral education.
Volume 11, Number 1, 2024
Sverdlik, A., Hall, N. C., McAlpine, L., & Hubbard, K. (2018). The PhD experience: A review of
the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and well-being.
International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13(1), 361-388.
Swedish National Agency for Higher Education (2008). The Doctoral mirror, 2008:23.Swedish
National Agency for Higher Education (2012). Report 2012:1. Reasons why doctoral
students leave the doctoral program without a degree – a follow-up of the beginners at the
doctoral level in the academic years 1999/2000 and 2000/01.
Vähämäki, M., Saru, E., & Palmunen, L. M. (2021). Doctoral supervision as an academic
practice and leader–member relationship: A critical approach to relationship dynamics.
The International Journal of Management Education, 19(3), 100510.
Waaijer, C. J., Belder, R., Sonneveld, H., van Bochove, C. A., & van der Weijden, I. C. (2017).
Temporary contracts: Effect on job satisfaction and personal lives of recent PhD
graduates. Higher Education, 74(2), 321-339.
Wisker, G., & Claesson, S. (2013). The impact of cross-disciplinary culture on student
supervisor perceptions. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 8, 21-37.
74