Aim/Purpose: Doctoral students increasingly use Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) as an informing resource, but its benefits, challenges, and governance requirements remain underexplored in developing-country contexts such as Botswana. This study examines GenAI’s contribution to doctoral research and the institutional measures needed for its ethical and effective integration. Background: GenAI has become a prominent feature of higher education and doctoral research, supplementing traditional academic and supervisory support within an emerging informing system in which students receive, evaluate, verify, and act upon information from digital tools, supervisors, and institutional guidance. The effectiveness of this system depends on information quality, critical judgment, supervisory practices, equitable access, and institutional governance, particularly in developing-country contexts such as Botswana, where digital and institutional capacity may be uneven. Methodology: This study adopted an exploratory qualitative design and used semi-structured interviews to investigate doctoral students’ experiences of GenAI use in research. Guided by the Informing Science perspective, the study examined how doctoral students receive, evaluate, verify, and act upon information provided through GenAI tools and related institutional channels. The sample comprised 15 doctoral students from science and engineering disciplines at one university in Botswana, and the data were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. Contribution: This paper contributes to the body of knowledge by providing empirical evidence on how doctoral students in Botswana use GenAI as an informing resource in their research, the challenges they encounter, and the forms of policy and institutional support they consider necessary for responsible use. It extends a literature base dominated by Global North contexts by offering a developing-country perspective and by applying the Informing Science perspective to doctoral GenAI use. The paper shows that GenAI in doctoral education should be understood not only as a productivity tool, but also as part of an emerging doctoral informing system shaped by information quality, verification, scholarly development, equity, and governance. Findings: The study found that doctoral students in Botswana used GenAI as an informing resource mainly for idea development, literature review support, proofreading and language refinement, methodological clarification, and, to a lesser extent, data analysis and programming support. ChatGPT was the most frequently reported tool. Participants also identified major challenges to effective GenAI-based informing, especially reliability and accuracy of outputs, overreliance, verification and traceability, policy uncertainty, financial and access barriers, contextual mismatch and bias, and privacy and security concerns. They emphasized the need for responsibility and integrity, clear boundaries of acceptable use, integration into existing governance, declaration and transparency, policy enforcement, structured educational integration, and training for students and supervisors. Recommendations for Practitioners: Universities and doctoral supervisors should provide clear, context-sensitive guidance on acceptable GenAI use as part of a responsible doctoral informing system. This guidance should address disclosure, verification, privacy, academic integrity, and human accountability for research outputs. Institutions should also strengthen effective GenAI-based informing through workshops, practical training, supervisor-student dialogue, and equitable access to relevant tools and digital infrastructure. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers should extend this work by including supervisors, administrators, and policymakers, and by examining how GenAI shapes doctoral supervision, writing practices, research quality, and doctoral informing processes. Future studies should also investigate how doctoral students evaluate, verify, and integrate GenAI-generated information across different disciplines, institutions, and national contexts. Impact on Society: The findings suggest that GenAI may reshape doctoral education and research more broadly by changing how students access academic support, develop research skills, and engage with knowledge production. They also highlight that without clear guidance, critical literacy, and equitable access, GenAI could reinforce existing inequalities and create new risks for academic integrity, making responsible governance essential for socially beneficial and inclusive higher education. Future Research: Future research should compare doctoral GenAI use across disciplines, institutions, and countries, especially in underrepresented developing-country contexts. Longitudinal studies are also needed to examine how doctoral students’ GenAI-related competencies develop over time, including critical prompting, verification, disclosure, privacy awareness, contextual judgment, and responsible participation in a doctoral informing system.
Aim/Purpose: This study explores how first-year doctoral students and their family members understand and navigate the role of family support in doctoral education. The objective is to examine how family involvement, motivational beliefs, and perceptions of academic competencies affect student persistence, particularly among historically underrepresented and first-generation doctoral students. Background: Using dyadic interviews, this study addresses gaps in the literature by simultaneously capturing the perspectives of both doctoral students and their family members. Methodology: A qualitative descriptive study was employed, involving dyadic interviews with 44 participants, including first-year doctoral students (n = 22) and their selected family members (n = 22). Data were analyzed through reflexive thematic analysis grounded in hermeneutic principles, emphasizing empathic interpretation and contextual meaning-making to explore participants’ lived experiences. Contribution: This research offers new insight into the Family Involvement in Graduate School (FIGS) model through a dyadic perspective, particularly on how support is perceived and negotiated, shedding light on how families influence and are influenced by the graduate school experience. Findings: The findings reveal that doctoral students and their families navigate invitations for involvement, motivational beliefs, and perceptions of necessary skills through complex relational and financial dynamics. Five themes emerged, highlighting the importance of practical and emotional support, strategic time investments, and efforts to bridge knowledge gaps about graduate education. Family involvement was characterized as a mutual investment and a critical resource for student persistence, especially among first-gen and historically underrepresented students. Recommendations for Practitioners: Practitioners should implement AI-augmented asynchronous support to alleviate “time poverty” and institutionalize low-cost initiatives, such as family-inclusive summaries that normalize family involvement and redirect resources toward community-building. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers should conduct longitudinal studies to track the retention impact of hybrid support models while identifying and reinforcing the existing cultural and communicative strengths within students’ support networks. Impact on Society: The FIGS model supports the development of university-community partnerships to provide holistic support that can increase the retention of future leaders, educators, and professionals, thereby alleviating burdens on society at large. Future Research: Future studies should track long-term retention rates for students using AI-augmented models compared to those using traditional synchronous models. Future research should evaluate outreach initiatives that support family involvement and employ longitudinal designs to understand better the evolving needs and strengths of doctoral students and their families.
Aim/Purpose: The aim of this paper is to offer a theory-based model to investigate the power differential in the Ph.D. advisor-advisee relationship in laboratory-based sciences in the United States (U.S.) and to use it to shed light on the pertinent dependence and power dynamics in this relationship. Background: Unsuccessful outcomes of Ph.D. students, such as attrition, low completion rates, prolonged time-to-degree, and challenges to well-being, remain significant concerns, including within the field of laboratory sciences. The advisor-advisee relationship, which is central to the ‘apprenticeship’ model of doctoral training, underlies the success of the advisee, the advisor, the graduate education system, and the associated research enterprise. However, challenges faced by doctoral students in this relationship, due to the high dependence on and the advisor’s high power, impede these outcomes. These challenges are exacerbated by special circumstances in the doctoral process in laboratory sciences. Analyzing dependence circumstances and the associated power situation in a systematic, theory-based study is valuable for understanding and improving this relationship and its outcomes in the laboratory sciences. Methodology: A systematic analytic model to study the power-dependence dynamics in the doctoral advisor-advisee relationship in laboratory sciences is developed based on the theoretical framework of Power-Dependence theory by Emerson (1962). Potential root causes and methods to mitigate the dependence-based power imbalance in this relationship are highlighted through informed discourse and maneuvering the power-balancing operations of the Power-Dependence framework. Contribution: A model is provided to analyze and enhance the advisor-advisee relationship in laboratory sciences using the Power-Dependence theory. Valuable insights into the power dynamics and dependence in this relationship, as well as potential methods for improvement, are discussed. The Power-Dependence theory is applied here for the first time in an academic advisory setting or a laboratory supervisory relationship. The developed model provides a basis for dependence-based power analysis in empirical field studies. Impact on Society: The analytic model derived and the insights gained are valuable for improving the doctoral advisor-advisee relationship in laboratory sciences, enhancing their productivity, supporting advisee well-being, and catalyzing scientific advancement. Future Research: Applying the model developed in this study, analytical research drawing on Power-Dependence theory can be extended to empirical field studies to understand the power dynamics in this relationship. Analytical studies can also be conducted on different variables, including the stages of the doctoral degree, the circumstances of the advisor and advisee, and the demographic and socio-economic categories of the actors.
Aim/Purpose: This study examined how academic stress is associated with impaired doctoral socialization through burnout, and whether psychological resilience buffers this process differently across ethnic groups. Background: Research suggested that approximately one-third of doctoral students worldwide reported depression or anxiety symptoms. Yet no study has simultaneously examined burnout as a mediator and resilience as a culturally moderated buffer within a single multiethnic doctoral sample. This study addressed this gap in Malaysia. Methodology: A cross-sectional survey with 695 doctoral students (285 Chinese, 268 Malay, 142 Indian) from Malaysian research universities was conducted. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling and multi-group analysis. Contribution: This study demonstrated that burnout mediated the stress-socialization pathway, that resilience buffered this process in collectivistic groups, and that protective resource function depended on cultural context. Findings: Academic burnout partially mediated the stress-socialization relationship, accounting for 62.2% of the total effect. Resilience moderated the stress-burnout pathway in Chinese and Malay groups but not in the Indian group. Mediation paths were culturally invariant, while moderation paths differed significantly. Recommendations for Practitioners: The researchers recommend implementing a three-tier system: reducing structural stressors, such as publication pressure, and improving supervisory training; providing culturally tailored resilience programs; and screening for and supporting students who exhibit burnout symptoms. Recommendation for Researchers: The researchers recommend that future studies employ longitudinal designs, develop culturally specific resilience measures, integrate physiological stress markers, and test the model’s generalizability across different contexts. Impact on Society: By revealing culturally differentiated pathways through which stress impairs doctoral socialization, this research provided an evidence base for mental health policies in multiethnic higher education systems. Future Research: For future research, the researchers recommend conducting intervention experiments comparing culturally tailored versus standard resilience programs, incorporating physiological stress markers to complement self-report data, and adopting multilevel models examining system-level factors, such as departmental climate and supervisory practices.
Aim/Purpose: To examine how professional doctorate supervisors cultivate reflexive supervisory practice, addressing a gap in the doctoral studies literature regarding structured tools for developing person centered supervision. Background: This paper addresses this gap by examining how the POWA model (Perspective, Other-centeredness, Willingness to learn, and Accurate self-assessment) can scaffold reflexive practice and support the professional development of supervisors in how they align their practice with person-centered intentions. Methodology: Using a critical realist framework with an intensive research design, four supervisors on a Professional Doctorate in Sport and Exercise Science completed POWA-structured reflective journals and participated in video-stimulated recall interviews. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Contribution: This paper contributes a transferable, intention-focused framework for developing reflexive, person centered doctoral supervision. It demonstrates how a virtue ethics-informed reflection tool can help supervisors make visible the generative mechanisms, particularly supervisory intentions, that shape relational practice. It extends understanding of how structured reflection supports supervisors in navigating the unique challenges of professional doctorate contexts, especially where practitioner identity and flatter power dynamics influence supervisory decisions. Findings: Person-centered intentions fostered trust-building, structured autonomy support, and reciprocal care in supervisory relationships. Reflection mediated by the POWA model enhanced supervisors’ accurate self-assessment, enabling recognition and correction of misalignments between intentions and actions, and heightened awareness of context-specific influences on practice. Recommendations for Practitioners: Doctoral supervisors are encouraged to adopt structured reflection frameworks such as the POWA model to support person centered practice. Institutions should provide mediated reflection opportunities (e.g., peer supervision, mentoring) to develop accurate self assessment and reflexive capability. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers should explore the POWA model’s applicability across diverse doctoral contexts and disciplines. Longitudinal studies examining how sustained use of reflection frameworks impacts supervisory relationships and student outcomes would strengthen the evidence base. Investigation of how power dynamics and professional identity interact with person-centered intentions warrants further attention. Impact on Society: Strengthening supervisory capability in professional doctorates enhances the development of practice-based researchers who bridge academia and professional practice. This contributes to improved professional practice across sectors and supports the production of high-quality, practice-relevant research that addresses real-world problems. Future Research: Future work should include student perspectives, examine how phronesis develops through reflective tools like POWA, and investigate transferability across doctoral program types.
Aim/Purpose: This study examines how Executive Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) graduates construct the value and legitimacy of the degree across professional and academic identity boundaries. Background: Executive DBA programs have expanded within AACSB-accredited business schools in the United States as part of a broader international growth in professional doctorates in management. While prior research has focused on program design, institutional rationale, and degree differentiation, less is known about how graduates themselves interpret the degree’s value and legitimacy after completion. Methodology: This qualitative study draws on semi-structured interviews with 20 Executive DBA graduates from three AACSB-accredited U.S. institutions. Data were analyzed through an interpretive thematic process involving iterative coding, cross-case comparison, abductive movement between data and theory, and reflexive memoing. Contribution: The study contributes a graduate-centered perspective to debates about professional doctorates in business by showing that Executive DBA value is constructed as epistemic, identity-based, and relational rather than solely outcome-driven. Findings: Three themes emerged: (1) epistemic reorientation – graduates described “learning to think differently” through disciplined engagement with evidence; (2) legitimacy and boundary work – graduates positioned the DBA as distinct from, but not inferior to, the PhD; and (3) patterned ambivalence – graduates affirmed strong intrinsic value while acknowledging uneven external recognition and career outcomes. Recommendations for Practitioners: Institutions offering Executive DBA programs should clearly articulate intended doctoral outcomes and provide structured post-graduation support to strengthen practitioner-scholar legitimacy. Recommendation for Researchers: Future research should further examine identity formation and legitimacy negotiation in professional doctorates, particularly through longitudinal and comparative designs. Impact on Society: By clarifying how experienced professionals integrate scholarly reasoning into practice, this study highlights the potential societal value of practitioner-scholar development in addressing complex organizational challenges. Future Research: Future research should examine Executive DBA experiences longitudinally, compare programs across national and institutional contexts, and explore how alumni support and labor-market conditions shape post-graduation legitimacy and perceived value.
Aim/Purpose: Mentoring is an important way to promote graduate STEM student success, yet scant research has focused on both mentor and mentee experiences, or international graduate students. The focus of this study was to address this gap by gaining an understanding of the mentoring experiences of former international and domestic graduate STEM students in the U.S. and how their graduate advisors perceived mentoring these students. Background: There is a growing demand for highly skilled Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) professionals in the United States (U.S.), with many recruited from STEM graduate programs. Mentoring is essential to strengthen graduate STEM education and enhance students’ graduation rates. This study builds on Yob and Crawford’s conceptual framework of mentoring and situates its findings within Chandler et al.’s ecological systems theory. In so doing, graduate mentoring is elevated as a crucial element within the broader ecology of graduate education. Methodology: This qualitative study conducted interviews with eight STEM mentors and twenty of their recently graduated domestic and international doctoral mentees from four large public, research-intensive universities in the southeastern U.S. Analyses drew upon academic and psychosocial behaviors from Yob and Crawford’s conceptual framework of mentoring to describe mentoring behaviors and how they supported or did not support students’ development. Contribution: This study provides unique insights into graduate STEM mentoring from the perspectives of domestic and international mentees and their domestic and international mentors. This research adds the perspectives of international graduate students and both the mentors and the mentees to Yob and Crawford’s conceptual framework of mentoring. Most importantly, the study ties the findings to theory by situating graduate mentoring behaviors within the broader ecological system of graduate education. Findings: Overall, mentees’ and mentors’ descriptions of mentoring behaviors revealed similar patterns: a greater focus on academic behaviors than on psychosocial behaviors. However, the findings indicate that mentees’ perspectives often differed from those of their mentors, particularly regarding power dynamics. The knowledge, skills, and career objectives located in the macrosystem of the graduate STEM ecological system were the most prevalent aspects described by participants. Situating the findings within the ecological systems framework highlighted the central role of the macrosystem (outer) level compared to the ontological system (inner) and microsystem (relational). Recommendations for Practitioners: Mentees are encouraged to ask mentors for the support they need, tap into networks and career pathways, prioritize publishing, ask for regular meeting times, and establish a dissertation topic early in the program. Mentors ought to provide more structured guidance early in the program, prioritize timely written feedback, balance mentee workloads, initiate discussions about job prospects, and include mentees in social invitations. Graduate programs should ideally limit the number of mentees per professor, offer formal mentor training, and integrate job-search resources into their doctoral programs. Recommendation for Researchers: Building on the findings of this study, applying ecological systems theory may help bring a range of studies into a common theoretical framework and advance graduate mentoring and the field of graduate education. Impact on Society: The findings of this study imply that the quality of mentoring depends not only on the mentor and mentee’s characteristics and their relationship but also on overarching cultural, institutional, and social contexts. Although the context of these graduate mentors and mentees spanned a range of STEM fields, it seems likely that many of the findings may translate to graduate education more broadly. By applying the recommendations, universities could strengthen graduate mentoring and enhance graduation rates. Future Research: It could be enlightening to conduct a more focused study of a smaller number of students and to understand the other relationships (e.g., peers, community members) in the mentoring ecological system that support students’ development. Taking a different approach, a survey could be developed to understand all the influences on graduate students’ mentoring experiences.
Aim/Purpose: Despite growing research on doctoral students’ emotions and researcher identity, little is known about those aspects among international doctoral students. To bridge such a gap, this study explored the lived experiences of navigating emotions in relation to the researcher identity of international doctoral students through the working lens of the Perceptual Control Theory, as revised by Burke and Stets (2009). Background: Understanding how international doctoral students’ emotions interplay with their researcher identity can offer significant insights into how they can be supported during their PhD study in international learning environments. Methodology: This study adopted narrative inquiry as the research methodology. Using purposive and convenience sampling, four international doctoral students studying at a US university were selected. Two semi-structured interviews with each participant, supplemented by the researchers’ reflective notes and informal discussions, were conducted and analyzed using narrative analysis. Contribution: This study reveals the nature of international doctoral students’ lived experiences of a “carousel of emotions” during their research work. However, emotions alone seem not to influence their researcher identity. The proposed framework of the interconnectivity of goals, cognition, motivation, and emotions can enrich our understanding, though possibly not exhaustive, of international doctoral students’ lived emotional experiences in relation to their researcher identity. Findings: Four diverse and distinctive voices emerge from the narrative analysis of the four participants’ interview transcripts. These stories reveal that while two participants (Camilo and Ola) claimed to have a strong sense of researcher identity, one participant (Kofi) said he is only a becoming researcher, and the last participant (Jessica) believed she is still an aspiring researcher. In addition, three participants (Camilo, Kofi, and Jessica) experienced emotional highs and lows throughout their PhD journey. Yet, those experiences, particularly negative ones, did not seem to shape their researcher identity. Meanwhile, the remaining participant (Ola) did not report any negative emotions and sounded confident that he would avoid emotional distress during his study. Last, but not least, all four participants shared their own unique strategies of coping with emotional breakdowns and academic challenges. Recommendations for Practitioners: First, professors, supervisors, and mentors need to initiate an explicit and guided discussion with their doctoral students about their emotions and researcher identity as early as possible. These discussions are particularly important for international students, who are more prone to challenges in a new learning environment due to their diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Second, the stakeholders involved in doctoral education are encouraged to promote their intercultural awareness and competence to understand better the challenges faced by diverse groups of international doctoral students, so that students can receive timely support, if needed. Finally, doctoral programs are encouraged to offer training workshops, seminars, or informal talks on learned resourcefulness, social-emotional competence, and cultural capital for international doctoral students. Recommendation for Researchers: Future researchers can apply, test, and refine the proposed framework of the interrelationships among international doctoral students’ goals, cognition, motivation, and emotions to further explore (international) doctoral students’ researcher identity and doctoral experiences, especially by employing methods beyond narrative inquiry. Impact on Society: Understanding how researcher identity develops and sustains can assist international doctoral students in learning to persist in doctoral study and yield practical implications for doctoral programs seeking to support their international doctoral students. Future Research: Future research can investigate other factors that might influence international doctoral students’ emotional experiences and researcher identity, such as their countries of origin and associated cultures, individualist cultures, field of study, PhD stage, and gender. In addition, longitudinal research with more data sources can be desirable to further support and expand the interplay between goals, cognition, motivation, and emotions of international doctoral students in influencing their researcher identity.
Aim/Purpose: The aim of this study is to analyze doctoral schools as a new form of doctoral education in Poland through the prism of the concept of a learning organization. This paper not only reshapes the landscape of doctoral education but also contributes profoundly to the field of organizational learning theory by examining how this new model can enhance educational environments. By demonstrating the transformative potential of doctoral schools as learning organizations, the author highlights their critical role in driving educational innovation and fostering a culture of continuous improvement within academia. Given the evolving legal and organizational environment and the increasing demands of universities and young researchers, this approach is crucial for the future success of doctoral education. Doctoral schools are undeniably positioned to adapt and thrive in this changing landscape, aligning with the core principles of learning organizations. Background: A learning organization can rapidly adapt to changing conditions and boldly create transformative opportunities for improvement for all individuals associated with its functioning. In a learning organization, it is crucial to focus on the continuous acquisition of new skills, actively searching for opportunities, and boldly introducing innovative patterns of action. Equally important is receiving constructive feedback on mistakes made, learning how to avoid them, and, when they do occur, swiftly correcting them to foster ongoing improvement. Methodology: This study explores the concept of doctoral schools as learning organizations, emphasizing their potential to drive educational innovation and foster a culture of continuous improvement within academia. The author employs qualitative methodology, analyzing literature, and has also incorporated autoethnography to address important aspects of managing a doctoral school relating to individual areas of a learning organization. The basis for the author’s considerations is the theory of the ‘learning organization’ by Peter Senge. Contribution: The novelty of this article lies in its analysis of a relatively new form of doctoral education that has existed in Poland since the academic year 2019/2020 and is still evolving. The contribution also considers this form a learning organization, offering practical implications for policymakers and academic leaders. Furthermore, this study extends existing research on learning organizations by applying this theoretical framework to doctoral education, a field where such an approach has been underexplored. By integrating insights from organizational learning theory, the research provides a broader perspective on how doctoral schools can function as dynamic, adaptive institutions that foster academic development and institutional resilience. This research also fills a gap in the literature by demonstrating how learning organization principles can be systematically implemented in doctoral education. Findings: Doctoral schools in Poland exemplify the characteristics of dynamic learning organizations. Their key features include learning from mistakes, continuously reviewing operational procedures, fostering the ongoing development of management staff, supervisors, and administrative personnel, taking calculated risks, actively searching for ways to enhance the quality and effectiveness of education, and making informed, evidence-based decisions. These aspects underscore the transformative potential of doctoral schools in shaping a more adaptable and innovative higher education system. Recommendations for Practitioners: The doctoral school in Poland is such an innovative concept in relation to previous practices related to educating doctoral students that it requires structural and organizational changes and a shift in mindset among those responsible for training young researchers. Recommendation for Researchers: Future research should investigate the extent to which doctoral schools perceive themselves as learning organizations and the degree to which they consciously implement this concept. Additionally, analyzing these institutions through alternative theoretical models and conducting empirical research would provide deeper insights into their evolving role in higher education. Impact on Society: The findings of this study offer practical implications for doctoral school management. The analyses presented here can inform the development of strategies that align doctoral schools more closely with the principles of a learning organization, ultimately supporting their mission to cultivate a dynamic and progressive academic environment. Future Research: Future research should further explore the extent to which doctoral schools identify as learning organizations and the degree to which they actively implement this concept. Additionally, investigating the specific challenges and strategies in integrating learning organization principles within doctoral education would provide deeper insights. Empirical studies comparing different models of doctoral education could also contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how these institutions evolve and adapt in response to educational reforms. Furthermore, future studies could focus on identifying the key factors that influence the successful implementation of these principles, such as institutional culture, leadership styles, and faculty engagement. Exploring the potential barriers to adopting a learning organization approach within doctoral schools, including resistance to change or resource limitations, would also be valuable. This would encourage a more nuanced understanding of the complexities involved and inform strategies for overcoming these challenges.
Aim/Purpose: The study aims to identify the factors influencing doctoral completion rates in South Africa by analyzing publication trends and emerging themes. Insights from this analysis are intended to inform institutional strategies and national policies to enhance doctoral success and address systemic challenges in the higher education system. Background: Doctoral education plays a pivotal role in advancing research capacity, innovation, and socioeconomic development in South Africa. However, despite increased enrolments post-1994, doctoral completion rates remain suboptimal owing to systemic, institutional, and personal challenges rooted in historical inequities. Methodology: This study employed bibliometric analysis, using data from the Scopus database, to evaluate research trends, key contributors, and thematic developments related to doctoral completion in South African universities between 1994 and 2024. Tools like Bibliometrix and VOSviewer were used to map and visualize the intellectual landscape, including citation networks and thematic clusters. Contribution: The bibliometric analysis advances discourse on doctoral completion rates in South Africa by using a unique, data-driven perspective that complements existing qualitative and quantitative research, thereby explicitly identifying gaps and priority areas for future research and policy intervention. Findings: Findings highlight supervision quality, financial support, institutional structures, and mental health as crucial determinants. Through thematic mapping, the study reveals ‘doctoral support’ and ‘mental health’ as evolving themes, with a notable increase in publications from 2017, reflecting growing scholarly and policy attention. Recommendations for Practitioners: Those working in higher education settings should prioritize the creation of comprehensive support structures, such as supervisor training programs and accessible mental health resources, to address the academic and emotional hurdles faced by doctoral candidates. Universities should draw insights from current bibliometric findings to craft targeted measures aimed at improving supervision practices, expanding equitable funding opportunities, and fostering resilience among students. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers are encouraged to critically investigate the complex relationship between mental health and doctoral studies, particularly focusing on how tailored interventions can help reduce stress and foster student well-being. Impact on Society: Boosting doctoral completion rates has the potential to enhance South Africa’s research capabilities, drive innovation, address skills shortages, and contribute to national economic growth. This analysis offers insights for enhancing doctoral completion in South Africa and promoting institutional strategies and policies that can foster an equitable and supportive doctoral education system. Future Research: Future research should address underexplored areas such as intersectionality, cultural and linguistic diversity, and the integration of emerging ICT tools in supervision.
Aim/Purpose: This phenomenological study investigates cross-cultural relationships between international doctoral students and their academic advisors in Turkish universities. Background: Through in-depth interviews with 12 international doctoral students from diverse backgrounds in Istanbul and Ankara, this paper explores how Turkish academia’s blend of hierarchical structures and interpersonal warmth influences advising dynamics. Methodology: Phenomenological design using semi-structured interviews with 12 international doctoral students from various countries and disciplines studying in Türkiye. Contribution: Advances understanding of international doctoral education by examining non-Western academic contexts and revealing how cultural-educational frameworks shape advisor-student relationships. Findings: Major findings include: (i) meaning-making processes involve transformation of expectations and identity formation, (ii) challenges encompass communication difficulties and academic expectation misalignments, (iii) effective coping strategies include peer networks and proactive skill development, (iv) successful advising relationships transcend cultural accommodation to create intellectual synergies beneficial for both parties. Recommendations for Practitioners: Engage in mutual cultural learning, establish trust through consistent communication, and adopt transformative guidance approaches that balance hierarchical respect with collaboration. Recommendation for Researchers: Explore longitudinal outcomes, examine institutional support policies, and develop frameworks for cross-cultural mentoring beyond Western models. Impact on Society: Enhances global academic mobility, improves international student retention, and promotes inclusive higher education systems that leverage cultural diversity. Future Research: Investigate applications across different national contexts, examine technology’s role in cross-cultural advising, and develop targeted training programs for international student advisors.
Aim/Purpose: This study investigates how Latinx doctoral students in the Southwest region of the United States experience and navigate doctoral education at a historically white institution (HWI), with attention to the social contexts and systems that shape their persistence and belonging. Despite growing interest in diversity in graduate education, the structural and relational challenges faced by Latinx students remain underexamined. Background: This article addresses a gap in the literature by applying Bronfenbrenner and Morris’s expansion of the bioecological model, traditionally used in child development, to understand Latinx doctoral students’ experiences. It also incorporates Latinx critical race theory (LatCrit) to examine how racism, power, and intersectionality influence academic life. Methodology: This qualitative study used narrative inquiry and counterstorytelling to collect and analyze the experiences of Latinx doctoral students. The collaborators were selected through purposeful sampling, and data were analyzed through iterative coding across Bronfenbrenner and Morris’s expansion of the five ecological systems and LatCrit’s focus areas. Contribution: This article uniquely contributes to the body of knowledge by using a bioecological lens to map how Latinx doctoral students’ development is influenced across micro-, meso-, exo-, macro-, and chronosystems. It reframes doctoral persistence as an ecological and sociopolitical process, while keeping in consideration the interplay of Process–Person–Context–Time (PPCT). Findings: Faculty relationships often lacked culturally sustaining mentorship. Students experienced tension when cultural identities clashed with academic expectations. Family, home communities, and sociopolitical climates indirectly influenced their academic engagement. Institutional norms often reinforce whiteness and meritocracy, undermining Latinx knowledge and presence. Over time, student-led organizations provided belonging and resistance amid shifting political contexts. Recommendations for Practitioners: Educators and institutional actors must consider the whole student, beyond the classroom, by incorporating faculty advisor training grounded in the focus areas of the bioecological model and LatCrit’s frameworks. They should design culturally affirming peer mentorship programs, implement policies addressing racial profiling, and ensure campus environments are inclusive of students’ cultural identities. Training faculty and staff in culturally sustaining advising practices and supporting Latinx research agendas is crucial for promoting retention and fostering a sense of belonging. Recommendation for Researchers: Future studies could pursue longitudinal work to evaluate long-term academic and professional outcomes in addition to expanding the use of the bioecological model in graduate education research, exploring cross-racial comparisons, and assessing how intersecting identities (e.g., gender, class, im/migration status, and experiences) shape Latinx doctoral students’ experiences. Impact on Society: The findings emphasize the urgent need for higher education institutional actors to create culturally sustaining environments. By considering the full ecological contexts of Latinx doctoral students, institutions can more effectively support underrepresented populations and dismantle harmful norms that inhibit authentic identity expression. Future Research: Future studies could examine how cultural and academic identities intersect in doctoral programs, how students manage cultural dissonance, and how institutional practices either support or hinder identity-centered scholarship. Longitudinal studies are also needed to track the impact of these dynamics over time.
Aim/Purpose: This study aims to examine the experience of international co-supervision among Kazakhstani and international co-supervisors. There is a lack of systematic data in the scientific literature on international co-supervision, including the influence of institutional and cultural contexts on its productivity. Exploring the unique Kazakhstani experience allows us to offer new analytical perspectives that clarify interpretations of international co-supervision and complement the existing discourse in the field of doctoral training. Background: In Kazakhstan, over the past two decades, the “Kazakhstani + international co-supervisor” model has been implemented, which involves collaboration between two co-supervisors, one of whom is a local scientist, and the other is an international one. This practice is unique among Central Asian countries, replacing the two-stage Soviet model, which included postgraduate studies (candidate of sciences) and doctoral studies (doctor of sciences). The main idea behind the implementation of this model was to ensure the integration of Kazakhstani science into the global research space. However, the practical implementation of international co-supervision remains insufficiently studied. Methodology: The qualitative study was conducted using the case study research approach and thematic analysis to interpret the interview data. Kazakhstani (n=11) and international (n=7) co-supervisors participated in the study. Two key findings and five themes were identified to describe the co-supervisors’ experiences. Contribution: The study contributes to the understanding of international co-supervision by examining the non-Western context of doctoral education. It identifies barriers to the implementation of the “Kazakhstani + international co-supervisor” model related to shortcomings in the institutional organization of co-supervisors’ interactions, language difficulties, cultural characteristics, and differences in research traditions. At the same time, it shows how individual co-supervisors transformed the experience of limited or formal interactions into targeted research collaboration strategies. Findings: Two key findings are highlighted: (1) institutional organization determines the nature of the interaction between the Kazakhstani co-supervisor and the international co-supervisor; and (2) intercultural factors, such as differences in cultural and academic traditions, research approaches, and professional expectations, as well as language competencies, influence the productivity of international co-supervising. Recommendations for Practitioners: The study results can be used by universities to develop transparent and effective regulations for interaction between co-supervisors. Recommendation for Researchers: The authors recommend that researchers conduct longitudinal and experimental studies to comprehensively understand the conditions under which the “Kazakhstani + international co-supervisor” model becomes a driver for integrating local and international research practices, combining resources to pre-pare competitive doctoral students. Researchers should also examine risks that require systemic correction. Impact on Society: The results of the study may provide information on how to adjust international co-supervision policies to produce more competent, flexible, and competitive researchers capable of solving complex interdisciplinary and applied problems. In turn, this will strengthen the innovative and socio-economic development of the country. Future Research: Four directions for future research on co-supervision are proposed.
Aim/Purpose: When the COVID-19 pandemic shut borders, disrupted research, and froze hiring, international doctoral students faced some of their life’s most consequential career decisions. This paper addresses the underexplored issue of how these students made career decisions during this period of deep uncertainty and disrupted academic and professional trajectories. Background: While prior studies have documented psychological and academic challenges faced by doctoral students during the pandemic, little attention has been given to the decision-making processes of international doctoral students regarding their post-PhD careers. Methodology: A narrative literature review was conducted, synthesizing 16 peer-reviewed studies published between 2020 and 2025. The review applied prospect theory to interpret students’ responses to career disruptions. The included studies span diverse geographic regions and employ qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. Contribution: The study demonstrates the value of prospect theory in analyzing doctoral career decisions under crisis. It challenges linear models of career development and offers a more contextualized understanding of agency in career decision-making. Findings: Mapped against the four constructs of prospect theory, the review finds that: • Reference points: students recalibrated their reference points in response to disrupted expectations. • Loss aversion: decisions often prioritized avoiding setbacks, such as visa ex-piration or loss of academic progress, over pursuing new opportunities. • Risk seeking under uncertainty: some students pursued unconventional or high-risk career paths to avert certain losses. • Diminishing sensitivity: emotional responses diminished over time as stu-dents adapted to prolonged uncertainty. • The pandemic redefined success as resilience, stability, and adaptation. Recommendations for Practitioners: Practically, this study calls for universities and doctoral programs to adopt flexible policies, offer transparent communication regarding immigration and funding, and expand definitions of success beyond traditional academic benchmarks to support international students during crises. Recommendation for Researchers: Future studies should longitudinally track pandemic-era doctoral graduates, examine comparative institutional responses, and investigate how intersecting identities shape adaptability during disruptions. Impact on Society: By uncovering how international doctoral students navigated high-stakes decisions during the pandemic, this paper informs the development of more equitable, supportive, and crisis-resilient systems in global higher education. Future Research: Research should explore long-term career impacts of COVID-19 on international PhD graduates, institutional preparedness for future crises, and the intersectional dimensions of vulnerability and resilience in doctoral education.
Aim/Purpose: The conventional model of doctoral education, centered on conducting original research within an apprentice-supervisor framework, has evolved progressively toward alternative models, including shorter duration, the incorporation of a teaching component, a collaborative approach, and an emphasis on practice-based problem-solving. Using bibliometric methodologies, this paper aims to examine the intellectual landscape of doctoral education and supervision research over the past decade by identifying core literature, influential works, and key research trends, thereby supporting knowledge growth, innovation, and informed decision-making. Background: Doctoral education and its related supervision have undergone multi-dimensional transformations over the past two decades, leading to increased scholarly interest and an expanding body of literature. Despite this growth, we still know little about the intellectual structure of research within the field. Furthermore, hitherto few bibliometric and meta-analytic reviews have been conducted, leaving the conceptual landscape of doctoral education and supervision research under-mapped and difficult to navigate. Methodology: The study employs bibliometric methodologies, specifically citation and co-citation analyses, as well as bibliographic coupling, to rigorously and objectively map the intellectual structure of doctoral education and supervision research. These methods provide quantitative insights into relationships between documents, authors, and journals, facilitating the identification of research clusters and networks. Contribution: Drawing on a corpus of over 2,000 journal articles, the study analyses and maps the intellectual structure of the field, spotlighting influential researchers, institutions, and networks. The study identifies the areas where assimilation has taken place as a guide for future research. Further value is derived by identifying areas where there has been limited assimilation, and conclusions are drawn as to why such limited assimilation has occurred. Logical conclusions are then drawn regarding where future assimilation within doctoral education and supervision is needed, and how the field can make distinctive contributions to this literature. These contributions point to more effective collaboration, policymaking, and funding decisions within doctoral education and supervision research. Findings: The interdisciplinary nature of doctoral education and supervision is evidenced by the distribution of journal articles, which suggest a broad range of research interests, with a significant concentration in the social sciences. The findings have implications for various stakeholders, including doctoral students, educators, and policymakers, who seek insights into past research and contribute to an understanding of applying bibliometric review methodologies to capture insights into the intellectual structure of research fields. The study identifies a rapidly growing body of literature, reflecting an increasing interest in research on doctoral education and supervision. Citation and co-citation analyses reveal key academic communities and emerging trends within doctoral education and supervision research. Recommendation for Researchers: The paper represents a call to action, recommending that researchers continue to engage with rigorous bibliometric review methodologies to deepen their understanding of the field of doctoral education and supervision, moving beyond intellectual structure to intellectual content. Impact on Society: The study enhances institutional decision-making in doctoral education and supervision, supporting the development of effective teaching and research environments. Mapping intellectual communities fosters collaboration and knowledge sharing, ultimately benefiting doctoral students, educators, and policymakers. Future Research: While bibliometric analysis provides a broad overview, systematic reviews and meta-analyses could explore other diverse perspectives and methodologies, contributing to the intellectual development of the field. Despite the interdisciplinary nature of doctoral education, publications are predominantly found in the social sciences, which contrasts with the global dominance of STEM doctoral programs. Expanding research beyond social sciences is essential, as supervision practices vary across disciplines, with different approaches, actors, and dynamics shaping doctoral training. Recognizing these differences reinforces the need for tailored approaches – one size does not fit all.
Aim/Purpose: To develop and validate psychometric scales to assess supervisory styles in doctoral education – directive, guiding, and hands-off – from both supervisor and student perspectives (SSS-S and SSS-s). Background: Doctoral supervision critically shapes students’ progress, well-being, and completion; yet, most studies rely on qualitative or conceptual typologies, and there is no standardized, validated instrument to quantify supervisory styles. Addressing this gap can help programs diagnose practices and align expectations between supervisors and candidates. Methodology: Two complementary studies were conducted with multi-country, Spanish-speaking doctoral programs. Study 1 established content validity with the assistance of expert judges. Study 2 used online, non-probability sampling to survey 333 supervisors and 510 doctoral students. Instruments were administered, and factor-analytic models (oblique and bifactor) and reliability coefficients were used to evaluate internal structure and consistency. Contribution: This study introduces the first psychometrically validated instruments to quantify directive, guiding, and hands-off supervisory styles through brief, parallel supervisor and student scales, providing a standardized, scalable approach for programs to diagnose and improve doctoral supervision. Findings: Our results indicate that supervisory styles are one-dimensional. The internal consistency coefficients estimated for each style were satisfactory. Two instruments were developed, each tailored to assess the three supervisory styles, comprising three subscales with twelve items in each. Recommendations for Practitioners: Use the instruments to (a) map supervisory-style profiles across programs or departments, (b) target professional development for supervisors (e.g., strengthen guiding behaviors), and (c) facilitate expectation-alignment conversations between supervisors and students. Recommendation for Researchers: Employ the scales to examine links between supervisory styles and outcomes (e.g., student satisfaction, time-to-degree, well-being), test invariance across disciplines or countries, and evaluate changes in style following training or feedback interventions. Impact on Society: By enabling evidence-based supervision, these instruments can help universities enhance doctoral learning environments, potentially improving candidate well-being and completion, and thus strengthening research capacity. Future Research: Validate the instruments in additional languages and contexts; assess predictive validity for academic and psychosocial outcomes; and investigate dyadic (supervisor–student) convergence or divergence and its consequences over time.
Aim/Purpose: The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that PhD candidates’ social safety is a complex, systemic matter that requires a systemic solution. Background: Numerous studies and reports highlight that academia is not always a safe working environment for PhD candidates. They, in particular, face heightened vulnerability due to dependent working relationships, temporary contracts, and the often competitive and hierarchical nature of academic institutions. Although attempts are being made to address this issue, current interventions appear to be insufficiently effective. Methodology: A conceptual, multilevel framework of PhD candidates’ social safety is provided by integrating three major theoretical perspectives: Social Safety Theory, Team Psychological Safety, and Psychosocial Safety Climate. Next, through a non-systematic literature review of studies about PhD candidates’ experiences, potential risk factors for their social safety are identified. Finally, the paper outlines how this knowledge can inform universities to develop a strategy to promote social safety among PhD candidates and beyond effectively. Contribution: This paper proposes a shift in perspective – rather than treating the lack of social safety as an isolated problem, university leaders must adopt a systemic approach. This paper demonstrates the complexity of social safety, enabling a better understanding of both risk factors and the formulation of an effective strategy to foster social safety. Findings: The social safety of PhD candidates exists at three levels (individual, team, and organizational) and is influenced by risk factors within the structure, culture, and system of the academic environment. This paper proposes that a systemic approach is needed to address these issues, rather than focusing on individual interventions alone. Recommendations for Practitioners: University leaders should conduct a thorough assessment of their organizational structure, culture, and system to identify risks to PhD candidates’ social safety. This information should be used to develop a comprehensive safety strategy to promote and monitor the social safety of PhD candidates. Recommendation for Researchers: This paper recommends that researchers acknowledge and adopt a more comprehensive approach when studying social safety. Impact on Society: Improving social safety for PhD candidates can lead to improved mental health outcomes, reduced attrition rates, and higher academic performance. It will also contribute to healthier work environments across higher education. Future Research: Future studies should focus on empirical exploration of the three theoretical perspectives on social safety. Additionally, alternative measures to assess social safety could be explored, such as including neurophysiological measures, as feeling socially unsafe can impact an individual’s cognition and emotions.
Aim/Purpose: The mental health crisis of graduate students is often overlooked, though this population may experience higher rates of stress and anxiety than undergraduates. The purpose of this study was to describe perceptions and experiences of students practicing loving-kindness meditation (LKM) during synchronous online Doctor of Education classes at a large university. Background: Doctoral students’ mental health remains a prominent international concern. In recent years, more attention has been given to factors affecting graduate students’ well-being and psychological distress. Mindfulness-based interventions have shown promising mental health outcomes in higher education. Methodology: Qualitative research was used to examine the experiences of 25 doctoral students, mainly working adults from education and other backgrounds. Weekly, written responses on meditation practice were collected using a confidential online survey, and focus groups were conducted to provide additional insight. MAXQDA software was used to conduct thematic data analysis. Contribution: This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge on loving-kindness meditation as a mental health intervention with higher education students. It adds to the virtually non-existent literature on doctoral students’ experiences with meditation. LKM has also been associated with reducing anxiety and stress in adolescents and with burnout prevention initiatives. Findings: Most participants perceived LKM as a difficult practice, struggled with mind-wandering during sessions, and did not engage if they felt rushed or overwhelmed. A smaller number of students reported experiencing stress relief and changes in perspective towards others. Recommendations for Practitioners: Advanced meditation methods like LKM should be scaffolded by having students initially study an introductory meditation method. Students also need time to adjust to class before engaging in meditation. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers should continue to explore factors affecting the feasibility and efficacy of LKM to enhance well-being and reduce psychological distress, informing effective intervention designs and approaches. Impact on Society: The study underscores the importance of addressing the concerning mental health issues faced by doctoral students, an issue that receives less attention compared to undergraduate research on the topic. Additional research will help to normalize LKM as a valid, beneficial practice for mental health in academia and professional environments. Future Research: Future research should include longer-term studies to ascertain whether students’ experiences and perspectives change after greater doses of LKM, examine facilitation delivery, and conduct mixed-methods studies on LKM with doctoral students.
Aim/Purpose: In the United States, where educational access is shaped by the intersecting forces of race and gender, the expansion of online doctoral education presents both new opportunities and enduring inequities. This study investigated how doctoral students who identify as Black, Indigenous, and Women of Color (BIWOC) enrolled in online doctoral programs experience the impostor phenomenon (IP) and how their social networks and institutional supports influence these experiences. Background: While online education has expanded doctoral accessibility, BIWOC remain underrepresented in these programs and disproportionately experience academic marginalization. National data reveal that women of color represent less than 12% of doctoral degree recipients in the U.S., with even fewer advancing into academic leadership. IP among BIWOC is compounded by racialized gender stereotypes, isolation, and limited culturally affirming support. Methodology: Using a phenomenological qualitative approach, this study conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 doctoral students who identify as BIWOC at a United States midwestern primarily white institution to explore their lived experiences and the role of social networks in navigating IP. Interview data were coded using thematic analysis, guided by intersectionality and impostor phenomenon theory. Contribution: This study shifts the focus from in-person academic spaces to the underexplored terrain of online doctoral education, offering practical and theoretical insight into how BIWOC navigate structural and psychological barriers in virtual learning environments. Findings: Participants reported that family, peers, faculty, and institutional relationships were critical in helping them overcome IP. However, the lack of BIWOC representation, microaggressions, and institutional biases often reinforced feelings of self-doubt. Recommendations for Practitioners: To support BIWOC in online doctoral programs, institutions should develop structured cohort mentorship programs, increase faculty diversity, and better implement culturally responsive pedagogy. Recommendation for Researchers: Future research should explore IP among other marginalized doctoral students (e.g., LGBTQ+, first-generation, disabled students) and investigate the effectiveness of specific institutional interventions for reducing IP in online education. Impact on Society: Addressing systemic biases and the IP in doctoral education can contribute to greater representation of BIWOC in academia and leadership, fostering a more equitable and inclusive higher education landscape. Future Research: Further studies should analyze how different types of social networks (e.g., professional organizations, online communities) influence BIWOC’s doctoral success, as well as explore institutional policy changes that improve retention and inclusion.
Aim/Purpose: This study examines the challenges in doctoral education supervision support within African universities, focusing on the need for effective strategies to meet the increasing demand for quality doctoral education. Background: The rapid socio-economic development in Africa has put pressure on higher education systems to meet the growing demand for quality doctoral education. Some African universities are attempting to produce doctoral degrees with minimal resources while maintaining doctorateness but are facing criticism from policymakers and stakeholders. The term “doctorateness” refers to the attributes of a doctoral student, including their research strategy, knowledge gaps, and unique contributions to the field. It is frequently seen as a turning point in the PhD process. Methodology: The research uses a critical literature review methodology to propose an input-output support model, arguing that universities should consider doctoral supervision as an input-output model to improve the quality and versatility of doctoral graduates. Contribution: The review presents a model and debate on doctoral education supervision support in a developing context, highlighting both theory and practice. Findings: The study suggests that universities should adopt an “input-output model” for doctoral supervision to improve the quality and suitability of doctoral holders for various employment opportunities. Recommendations for Practitioners: Based on a critical literature review, the study proposes that practitioners rethink doctorateness as an input-output approach to enhance their supervision skills. Recommendation for Researchers: The study contributes to the existing knowledge on doctoral education supervision and encourages further empirical study to validate the proposed model. Impact on Society: Doctoral education is crucial for solving societal problems, producing quality scientific research, preparing academics for future work environments, and serving as a bridge between academia, research, and society. Future Research: The study provides valuable insights and debates but requires further empirical research to validate its applicability.
