A key factor in maintaining momentum during the process of part-time PhD study is that of motivation. In searching for a theoretical explanation for the women’s internal drive to undertake PhD study alongside their other roles and responsibilities, a number of motivation theories were considered. As highlighted in the literature (Demb 2012; Leonard 1991; Phillips & Pugh 1998; Salmon 1992), there are numerous challenges facing doctoral candidates yet despite the obstacles, 4,715 people enrolled for part-time PhD study in 2009/10 compared to 18,075 enrolling full-time (HEFCE 2011). The following three social cognitive theories of motivation are all linked to academic settings within the literature, each has been explored to assess the relevance to the women in this study.
Achievement Goal Theory is concerned with students’ rationale for engaging in academic work, their perceptions of their ability to succeed. The theory suggests that there are two
67
types of goal, mastery or intrinsic goals that lead to personal competence in skills and knowledge, and performance or extrinsic goals which tend to be competitive and lead to a desire to outperform others (Shibley Hyde & Kling 2001), however mastery goals are said to have a stronger outcome than performance goals when in an educational setting (Senko, Hulleman & Harackiewicz 2011). The theory considers both a rationale for pursuing a task and a goal or target by which success of performance can be measured. Setting goals can help individuals evaluate their performance but they do not provide an understanding as to why they want to undertake the task. In assuming goals are cognitive and individuals are fully aware of the motivation for their actions, achievement goal theory does not consider motivation to be ‘more deeply held needs or motives’ (Pintrich 2000:96). As a result of the focus on perceptions of competence, the theory can leave gaps in understanding of motivation, especially in ‘achievement contexts where individuals strive to have choice in their actions and feel affiliated to others’ (Ntoumanis 2001:400). Whilst this addresses the rationale for motivation, it does not consider the quality and effects of intrinsic motivation. It is suggested that the elements of mastery represent a need for increased competence and need for a challenge, an area very relevant to the women in this study, the performance goal however, is very much focussed on the need to demonstrate an ability to others, to prove self-worth (Wolters 2004) and outperform others as a way to boost one’s ability in the eyes of others (Covington 2000). This need to prove oneself is not reflected in the findings of this study, it is something that is not linked to the women in any way as they avoided telling people about their doctorate rather than using it as a goal to demonstrate ability. The achievement goal theory is therefore not as relevant to the women in this study as there is too much focus on goals rather than a consideration of the need for relatedness and the experience of the student and research has demonstrated that part-time doctoral students are not goal oriented, instead considering the PhD as a process of self-fulfilment (Deem & Brehony 2000; Schmidt & Umans 2014)
Self-Efficacy Theory is a concept also linked to motivation, considering how a student’s own beliefs in their efficacy to master academic activity can determine their motivation and aspirations. ‘The belief in one’s capabilities to organise and execute courses of action required to produce given attainments’ (Bandura 1997:3). It is less focussed on what skills
68
and abilities individuals possess, instead considering what individuals believe they can do (Bong & Skaalvik 2003). Perceived self-efficacy can influence the level of challenge people set themselves and their performance in that challenge (Zimmerman, Bandura & Martinez-Pons 1992). In an academic context, self-efficacy relates to an individuals’ belief that they can perform academic tasks successfully (Schunk 1991) suggesting there requires an inherent confidence in their academic ability. ‘Knowledge, skill and prior attainments are often poor predictors of achievement because the beliefs that individuals hold about their abilities and about the outcome of their efforts, powerfully influence the ways in which they will behave’ (Pajares 1996:543). This thinking does not reflect the women in this study who, despite feelings of self-doubt and a lack of faith in their ability, continued to study for the PhD. They did not feel confident in their academic ability, indeed, many of them talked openly about their lack of self-belief. Their lack of self- efficacy was not a deterring factor in their approach to the goal of attaining a PhD, indeed it was despite their lack of self-belief that they continued. What was apparent when listening to the women respondents talk about their experiences of PhD study, was the lack of self-efficacy they all had. They were full of self-doubt and it appeared that self- belief was not a driving force behind their decision to undertake a PhD. Schunk (1991) also argues that academic self-efficacy is enhanced based on the knowledge of others. ‘Observing similar peers perform a task conveys to observers that they too are capable of accomplishing it’ (Schunk 1991:208). Again this does not concur with the experience of the women in this study as they did not come into contact with many PhD students, their lifestyles and external commitments meant that the social aspect of discussing work with other PhD students was not part of their experience.
Whilst it has been argued that heightened self-efficacy sustains motivation (Bandura 1993; Schunk 1991; Zimmerman 1995) the women in this study sustained motivation for the PhD despite experiencing self-doubt and low levels of self-efficacy, suggesting their drive to continue with the PhD is more than a task oriented motivation or a drive to succeed due to self-efficacy. Their motivation was from a deeper, internal desire to achieve more from their current situations and identities, which suggests an intrinsic motivation, more in keeping with the theoretical framework of self-determination theory. Self-Efficacy
69
Theory also reflects three other processes including cognitive, affective and selection. These are not deemed key to the experiences of the respondents in this study and therefore, for the purpose of this study, whilst it could be argued that self-efficacy is relevant when considering the women’s self-belief and motivation, it will not be used as a framework to further understand the women’s experiences. Both Self-Efficacy Theory and Achievement Goal Theory place emphasis on students’ beliefs about their abilities (Urdan & Maehr 1995) whilst the focus with the following theory to be discussed, Self-Determination Theory, is on the student’s need to feel autonomous and challenged, their perception of whether they can achieve their goals is not the main focus of the theory.
As Rigby et al. (1992) emphasise, learning is a natural psychological process, an activity that individuals engage in spontaneously throughout their lives. The study of motivation explores the needs of an ‘organism’ and the processes that satisfy those needs (Deci & Ryan 1985). Intrinsic motivation considers that individuals gain rewards from activity through the experience of the undertaking of an activity rather than the end product or external reward. Self-Determination Theory is based on the idea of intrinsic motivation, doing an activity for the satisfaction, for the positive feeling associated with ‘exercising and extending one’s capacities rather than for a separable consequence’ (Ryan & Deci 2000:3). Intrinsic motivation is affected by three specific psychological needs. The first is autonomy, the need to feel in control of one’s actions, the second is competence, feeling that you have a certain level of ability and the last one is relatedness, needing to connect with others. Self-determination theory was identified as a meaningful framework to further explore these issues
Rather than focusing on the amount of motivation an individual may have for an activity, Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is concerned with the type or quality of motivation experienced. The distinction in Self-Determination Theory is between autonomous motivation whereby the individual has identified the activity as having value, and controlled motivation which considers external rewards or punishments as drivers for action, directing people to think and behave in particular ways (Deci & Ryan 2008). Self- Determination Theory does not consider social context to be a key factor in motivation,
70
instead identifying individual need for competence as a crucial element of what drives individuals to engage in certain tasks. Undertaking tasks for autonomous reasons can elicit a demonstration of higher perceived competence and interest which is further enhanced by a supervisor or teacher supporting autonomous self-regulation (Black & Deci 2000; Niemiec & Ryan 2009). One aspect of support is that of verbal rewards: positive verbal feedback can enhance intrinsic motivation and therefore improve the student focus and ultimately the perception of their ability (Deci et al. 2001). It is worth considering the wider context in which students undertake PhD study as the social environment can have a big impact on the intrinsic motivation of students. Social context that supports competence and autonomy are considered to facilitate positive outcomes in relation to intrinsic motivation (Deci et al. 1991; Deci et al. 1996; Rigby et al. 1992). ‘The intrinsic needs for competence and self-determination motivate an ongoing process of seeking and attempting to conquer optimal challenges. People seek situations that interest them and require the use of their creativity and resourcefulness’ (Deci & Ryan 1985:32). Within an educational context, self-determination theory suggests that fulfilling these criteria instils in students an interest in learning and a confidence in their own abilities. The self-directed process focuses on performing an activity for its own sake rather than for an external reward. This autonomous learning seems to echo the approach taken by the women in this study and raises the question of why they undertake additional demands on their time when they are already managing what Hochschild (1989) describes as the ‘second shift’. It would seem that self-determination theory emphasises the benefits of education based on an internal desire to feel good about the process rather than requiring a tangible or recognizable reward at the end. Each element of Self-Determination Theory, autonomy, competence and relatedness, reflect the experiences evidenced by the women’s narratives. The theory provides a clear framework to develop the theme of motivation, considering the areas that the women established as key to their rationale for embarking on a part-time PhD and maintaining their engagement with it despite the obstacles. In light of the women’s experiences of PhD study, self-determination theory is the most appropriate framework to understand their motivations for part-time PhD study.
71