Opinion – Universities must consider stopping defence of PhD proposals practice
BY PROF JAIROS KANGIRA
Frustration, anguish, humiliation and fear are some of the words I have gathered from the whispers of doctoral students from our local universities as they dread making presentations of their research proposals to panels of usually rigid academics who sometimes give conflicting and confusing comments on students’ research proposals.
These negatives have been expressed by most doctoral students who have struggled to pass the presentations of their PhD proposals. The stringent proposal presentation procedures have thrown many doctoral candidates into a bottomless, dark abyss with no hope of redemption. In his research titled “Intentions versus outcomes in doctoral degree completion”, Saule Bekova (2024) found that “formality and rigidity in the doctoral training system” in universities are some of the prohibitive challenges.
Some analysts have concluded that if the situation of the many doctoral students is not ameliorated in our local universities, there is a possibility of high depression, which may lead to suicide cases. There is a lot at stake for the students who do not succeed in the proposal presentation. Expectations from colleagues, friends and family members are high and this puts pressure on the candidates. It should be noted that at the time of registering for the doctoral degree, there are usually high hopes of speedy completion of the doctoral degrees, with some students daring to address themselves as ‘Doctors’ even before writing their proposals. This excitement, although exaggerated but healthy, has been shattered in most cases, leaving students with permanent emotional wounds and bruises. Most of the students have been so emotionally drained that they have become spectres or pale shadows of themselves.
Steffen Jaksztat, Martin Neugebauer and Gesche Brandt (2021) conducted a study titled “Back out or hang on? An event history analysis of withdrawal from doctoral education in Germany”. Literally, the title of the study asked whether doctoral students wanted to abandon their studies or continue with their studies. The researchers concluded that the non completion of doctoral degrees posed three broad problems: “For an individual, withdrawal often implies a loss of career opportunities. For universities, a high dropout rate means an inefficient use of facilities and space, and it can endanger the success of research projects.
For societies, it may lead to a loss of innovation-relevant scientific knowledge and reduce the building of a scientific workforce, necessary to meet the various global challenges of today.” It is natural, therefore, that students who have failed to make progress feel hopeless and ashamed. They cannot face reality squarely because failure has dented their personalities and demeanours. What is worse is that continued failure means more years to complete the degree programme. Consequently, when this happens, affected students have to continue forking out money from their pockets since many doctoral studies are self-sponsored. With no doctoral sponsorships in most cases, students usually get stranded and some end up abandoning their dreams of getting a doctoral degree because it has become costly.
Therefore, the disconnect between students’ intentions and projections and their actual outcomes, exacerbated by the delayed approval of their proposals, has had repercussions for students. Additionally, employers may refuse to grant more study leave if their workers do not complete their studies in the stipulated time.
The situation is so dire that in cases where there are poor student-supervisor relationships, students blame supervisors for not giving adequate guidance before presentations. Altercations between students and supervisors have occurred because of frustration, which has fuelled the blame-game.
Ironically, those who have succeeded to pass this stage of the rigours of a doctoral study have expressed similar reservations. With four categories of assessment of a doctoral research proposal presentation – ‘pass with minor corrections’, ‘pass with major corrections’, ‘rework the proposal and present again’, and ‘outright failure’ – it is suggested that the majority of students’ presentations must fall in the first two categories if they get enough support from the faculty and their supervisors. It boggles the mind to find that most of the students in our universities fall in categories three and four, raising questions about the adequacy of students’ doctoral training in these institutions.
To all intents and purposes, it is hoped that decision makers at universities will take serious action in order to improve doctoral students’ experiences. It is understandable that some critics have suggested that the current defence of doctoral proposals be stopped completely and be replaced by some moderate practices that are more student friendly, but without reducing the quality of doctoral research. Some universities leave students working with their supervisors and once the supervisors are satisfied with the quality of the proposal, students carry on with their doctoral research. In other words, give more responsibilities to supervisors than to the committees, which appear to have usurped all the powers. By so doing, universities will definitely reduce the high attrition rates that leave many doctoral candidates’ dreams completely shattered in agonizing measures.
*Professor Jairos Kangira is a higher education intellectual with international reputation. Email address: kjairos@gmail.com
Post a Comment