The Perceptions of Students Who Dropped Out of their Doctoral Studies from Three Universities in Zimbabwe and their Implications for Practice
Farai Chinangure *
Bindura University of Science Education, Zimbabwe.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to investigate the perception of students who dropped out of their Doctoral studies in three Zimbabwean universities. A qualitative research design was adopted. The data was collected from social net work groups and telephone interviews with 25 doctoral students who dropped out from their studies. The researcher held follow up open ended interviews with doctoral students who had dropped out. The qualitative data was analyzed thematically. The study established students who dropped out of their studies perceived that failure by institutions to address student-supervisor relationships, inadequate funding, addressing needs of underprepared students, lack of emotional support, lack of experience among supervisors and use of traditional approaches were main causes of students drop out. This study is the first of its kind in Zimbabwe to collect evidence from students who dropped out of their studies to inform doctoral training. The study recommended continuous professional development among supervisors, holding of constant workshops focusing on roles, guidelines on good practices on doctoral training, ensuring that supervisors are accessible; they provide timely feedback in a constructive way. The study further recommended fair and just approaches to handling of problems or grievances related to doctoral research supervision and provision of research grants to assist underprivileged students to complete their studies.
Keywords: Root differentiation in Moghania cultures, Mentoring, Tissue culture study on lac host, supervision, attrition, underprepared, interpersonal relationship
How to Cite
Downloads
References
Roberts LR. The importance of tough-love mentoring to doctoral student success: instruments to measure the doctoral student/proteges’ perspective. Int J Doct Stud. 2020;15:485-516. DOI: 10.28945/4630
Masek A, Alias M. A review of effective doctoral supervision: what is it and how can we achieve it? Univers J Educ Res. 2020;8(6):2493-500. DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2020.080633
Choi JA. Am I Supposed to Create Knowledge?: Pedagogical challenges of doctoral mentors. Educ Process Int J. 2019;8(2):145-52. DOI: 10.22521/edupij.2019.82.5
Kirkland J, Ajayi-Ajagbe P. Research management in African universities: From awareness raising to developing structures. London: British Academy of Sciences; 2013.
Friesenhahn I. Making higher education work for Africa: facts and figures; 2014. Available:http://www.scidev.net/global/education/feature/higher-education-africa-facts-figures.html
Woolderink M, Putnik K, van der Boom H, Klabbers G. The voice of PhD candidates and PhD supervisors. A qualitative exploratory study amongst PhD candidates and supervisors to evaluate the relational aspects of PhD supervision in the Netherlands. Int J Doct Stud. 2015;10: 217-35.
DOI: 10.28945/2276
McCormack C. Tensions between student and institutional conceptions of postgraduate research. Stud Higher Educ. 2004;29(3):319-34. DOI: 10.1080/03075070410001682600
McCallin A, Nayar S. Postgraduate research supervision: a critical review of current practice. Teach Higher Educ. 2012;17(1):63-74. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2011.590979
Raffing R, Jensen TB, Tønnesen H. Self-reported needs for improving the supervision competence of PhD supervisors from the medical sciences in Denmark. BMC Med Educ. 2017; 17(1):188.
DOI: 10.1186/s12909-017-1023-z, PMID 29058586.
The World Bank Group. Data: researchers in R&D (per million people); 2015. Available:http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.SCIE.RD.P6/countries
Pillay A. University- based mentoring for higher risk first year university students. PhD [thesis]. Nelso Mandela Metropolitan University; 2011.
Gawande A. Personal best. The New Yorker. 2011;2011. In:.
Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education (ZIMCHE). Harare, Zimbabwe: Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Innovation, Science and Technology; 2021.
Nasser R, Alkhateeb HM. Students learning about research through the process of publishing academic papers in Qatar. Near and Middle Eastern Journal of Research in Education. 2013;2013(1).
DOI: 10.5339/nmejre.2013.1
Ali PA, Watson R, Dhingra K. Postgraduate research students and their supervisors’ attitude towards supervision. Int J Doct Stud. 2016;11:227-41. DOI: 10.28945/3541
Luna V, Prieto L. Mentoring affirmations and interventions: A bridge to graduate school for Latina/o students. J Hisp Higher Educ. 2009;8(2):213-24. DOI: 10.1177/1538192709331972
Desni C, Colet NR, Lison C. Doctoral supervision in North America: Perception and challenges of supervisor and supervisee. Higher Educ Stud. 2019; 9(1):30-9.
Cloete N, Mouton J, Sheppard C. Doctoral education in South Africa. Cape Town: African Minds; 2015.
DOI: 10.47622/9781928331001
Weimer M. Effective teaching strategies: six keys to classroom excellence. Faculty Focus-higher education teaching strategies from Magna publications; 2009.
Chinangure F, Mapaire L. The Integration of technology in teaching and learning of Mathematics: the missing link. Appl Sci Technol. 23(6): 101664541. 2018;36184. ISSN: 2231-0843:1-13, 2017:Article no. CJAST.
Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches Limited, editor. MI: SAGE; 2013.
Green paper. Creating innovative doctorates: mapping institutional frameworks and processes for doctoral training in Zimbabwe. ZIMCHE; 2021.
Richards KAR, Fletcher T. Learning to work together: Conceptualizing doctoral supervision as a critical friendship. Sport Educ Soc. 2020;25(1):98-110. DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2018.1554561