This section of the literature review assesses the current volume of doctoral study and trends of completion statistics for doctoral students in the UK. The first comprehensive report of UK doctoral completion came in January 2005, when HEFCE published a report on entry and completion, and considered factors such as mode of study, funding arrangements, whether from the UK or overseas, age and subject studied (HEFCE, 2005/02). In 2002-03, 26,900 candidates registered for doctoral education across all modes and types of doctoral programmes, and this number rose to 30,735 in 2008-09; a 14% increase. In 2010, HEFCE published the results of the 2008-2009 completion rates for UK higher education institutions and this report identified new universities as having low completion rates compared to other UK universities (HEFCE, 2010). National figures for full time students were published in a HEFCE report (July 2010/21) and these show qualification rates for doctoral programmes in each English institution (n.b. HEFCE use the term ‘qualification rate’ as opposed to ‘completion rate’). These figures were set against a benchmark figure for that HEI, which is a sector adjusted average after taking
39
account of the impact of variations of subject mix and proportions of students receiving funding support from a research council (these factors are considered to impact most on completion). The rates were calculated from data submitted by HEIs to HESA. Full time student qualification rates were calculated as completing after 7 years, and so the figures shown below are for students starting in 2000 and completing in 2007 etc.
Table 2.2 Research Degree Qualification Rates for Full Time Home and EC Students
Total Starters Total Qualifiers National Qualification Rate % University of Salford Qualification Rate % University of Salford Benchmark % Start 2000-01 (2006-07) 7916 6320 80 39 75 Start 2001-02 (2007-08) 7576 6097 80 75 80 Start 2002-03 (2008-09) 7898 6297 80 45 75
Therefore, as can be seen above, research degree qualification rates for full time home and EC students starting their programme in 2000-01 show that the University of Salford had a qualification rate of 39% against a benchmark of 75% and against a qualification rate of 80% for all English institutions. The figures increased significantly for the 2001-02 cohort, with 75% qualifying against an 80% benchmark and 80% for all English institutions. For the 2002- 03 cohort, the figures fell back again to 45% for Salford qualifiers against a benchmark of 75% and 80% for all English institutions.
40 Total Starters Total Qualifiers
National Qualification Rate % University of Salford Qualification Rate % University of Salford Benchmark % Start 2000-01 (2006-07) 3771 2855 76 54 74 Start 2001-02 (2007-08) 4091 3045 74 55 72 Start 2002-03 (2008-09) 4448 3312 74 49 73
As can be seen above, for full-time overseas students starting their programme in 2000-01, the University of Salford had a 54% qualification rate, against a benchmark of 74% and 76% for all English institutions. Despite the fact that overseas students had a higher qualification rate (54%) than home and EC students (39%), overseas students were chosen as the topic of interest for this study due to the particular barriers that this group may or may not encounter. The figures for overseas students increased slightly for the 2001-02 cohort, with 55% against a benchmark of 72%, and 74% for all English institutions. For the 2002-03 cohort, Salford had a 49% qualification rate, against a benchmark of 73% and 74% for all English HEIs.
The loss of doctoral candidates is not only a personal loss and bad experience for the individual concerned, it is a loss to the university in terms of funding, league tables and thus, reputation; to the wider academic community, and ultimately to the economy in terms of the opportunity cost of untimely or non-completion (Tan & Meijer, 2001). It is therefore in everybody’s interest to try to understand not only what the reasons for untimely completion may be, but why this may be the case. That is to say, that the government, funding bodies, other HE sector organisations and policy makers are all stakeholders in the issue of low doctoral completions because of the potential consequential effect on the national economy. Whilst the Harris Committee (1996), the Roberts Report (2002), the Codes of Practice published by the QAA, the work of VITAE, EURODOC, HEFCE and UKCGE have gone a long way to raise standards
41
in the ‘quality’ of doctoral education, it could be argued that there remains some inconsistency in the quality and provision of doctoral education in the UK.
A letter to the Times Higher in 2011 argued that there is conflict between completion rates and the marketisation of, and competition in higher education (Ipofen, 2011). It argued that postgraduate research is a marketable service and that the metrics used must incorporate starting level against outcomes, as well as assessing the external pressures on postgraduate researchers. Possibly due to such marketisation, numbers of doctoral candidates have been growing steadily over the last decade, along with the growing number of options for mode of doctoral education. In the UK in 2002-03, 26,900 candidates registered for doctoral education across all modes and types of doctoral programmes, and this number rose to 30,735 in 2008- 09; a 14% increase (HEFCE, 2010). In the UK in 2015/16, 56% of doctorates were awarded to UK (Home) students, and 44% to students from overseas, demonstrating the importance of internationalisation (Elliot et al., 2017).
The problem of untimely completion of doctoral study is compounded by the current political instability in the UK and US and by the economic climate. Resources are becoming scarcer in the UK higher education sector, and this is forcing HEIs to make difficult decisions, as more has to be achieved with less. HEIs are therefore being squeezed from both sides: to accept greater numbers of doctoral candidates, and for them to progress and complete in a timely manner: the age-old quality versus quantity argument (Park, 2005). Given that completion statistics are available in the public domain, not only do individual HEIs scrutinise the data to see their relative position, but potential students can assess their likely chances of success at various HEIs and this information could therefore, inform their choice of HEI. In other words,
42
untimely completion of doctoral study could impact not only on league tables, but also on reputation and ultimately, funding. Many HEIs now include taught elements (according to debate at UKCGE and Vitae events) in an attempt to add value to candidates, much like the American model. The UK is currently seen as the leader in the European market for skills development and training of doctoral candidates (UKCGE, 2019) and different modes of delivery are seen as the panacea to the problem of untimely completion rates.
Tighter progression monitoring and management is becoming more commonplace in UK HEIs, and some are adopting specifically developed software packages to monitor doctoral candidates’ progress, and systems such as ‘traffic lights’ are common in many HEIs. Park (2005) discusses the inevitable tension between the quality of research and the completion time. He claims that this ‘managerialist approach’ and performance indicators of academic quality could be misrepresented and misinterpreted. Wingfield (2010) disputes that the focus on completion is about number of years of study; but claims that the 10,000 hour rule applies for doctoral candidates – that if the students spends 10,000 hours on the PhD, then there will be a sufficient body of knowledge to earn the PhD qualification. This equates to over 64 hours per week, over 52 weeks, for three-year completion. Given that full time work in the UK (40 hours per week) over 48 weeks (allowing 4 weeks’ holiday – made up of 12 days plus 8 bank holidays) produces 1920 hours per annum, it would take over 5 years to complete, full time.
The QAA states that doctorates are traditionally awarded for the creation and interpretation of knowledge, which extends the forefront of a discipline, through original research. Doctoral students are expected to adjust the project design in the light of unforeseen problems; and have a detailed understanding of applicable techniques for research and advanced academic inquiry. Typically, holders of a PhD must be able to make informed judgements on complex issues in
43
specialist fields, often in the absence of complete data, and be able to communicate their ideas and conclusions clearly and effectively to specialist and non-specialist audiences (QAA, 2011). Park (2005) argues that potential employers and funding bodies require more structured, compulsory, broader, more appropriate research training of doctoral candidates, as not all successful candidates go on to a career in academia.