Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:25:22.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

“An Isolating Experience Aggravated by COVID”: Exploring Disconnections Between Political Science PhD Candidates and Supervisors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2023

Serrin Rutledge-Prior
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Australia
Daniel Casey
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To what extent did the COVID-19 pandemic impact PhD candidates in political science? To what extent were their supervisors aware of this impact? PhD candidates in political science are not strangers to the lack of available and stable academic employment and the potentially isolating experience of research. Our survey of Australian PhD candidates in political science and international relations (N = 109) confirms that the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these preexisting challenges. By comparing political science PhD candidates and their supervisors in relation to their experiences during the pandemic, our survey also reveals that there has been a disconnect between the two groups relative to the former’s experience of COVID-19. Although supervisors recognize the stressors that candidates have faced, they are more likely than candidates to report that department support relative to pandemic-related challenges was available, and they appear to be somewhat unaware of the impact that COVID-19 has had on candidates’ career plans. The survey also reveals substantial disagreement between candidates and supervisors about perceived career-mentoring styles. These points of disconnect must be addressed to ensure the success and well-being of current and future PhD candidates.

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted the higher-education sector. The Australian university sector has lost tens of thousands of students, billions of dollars in revenue, and 20% of its workforce (Kelly Reference Kelly2022; Marshman and Larkins Reference Marshman and Larkins2021). Within this macro picture, there are thousands of PhD candidates whose study and career plans have been reconsidered or abandoned. This research draws on the findings from a unique comparative survey of Australian PhD candidates and their supervisors, which asked mirrored questions of the two groups about their perceptions of the PhD program. This enabled a comparison of candidates’ views with those of their supervisors and allowed us to consider how well supervisors understood the impact of COVID-19 on those they were supervising. Such an endeavour is important, given that the successful completion of a PhD is highly dependent on clear communication between candidates and supervisors (Cardilini, Risely, and Richardson Reference Cardilini, Risely and Richardson2022), the quality of supervision (Heath Reference Heath2002; Skakni Reference Skakni2018), and the relationship between candidate and supervisor (Roach, Christensen, and Rieger Reference Roach, Christensen and Rieger2019).

The range of research on the impact of COVID-19 on the higher-education sector has found that the pandemic has had adverse mental health impacts (Le Vigouroux, Goncalves, and Charbonnier Reference Le Vigouroux, Goncalves and Charbonnier2021; Yassin et al. Reference Yassin, Razak, Saeed, Al-Maliki and Al-Habies2021) and that these impacts are higher for minority and marginalized groups (Browning et al. Reference Browning, Larson, Sharaievska, Rigolon, McAnirlin, Mullenbach and Cloutier2021). Other scholars have highlighted the pandemic’s impact on employability and career planning (Capone, Marino, and Sang-Ah Park Reference Capone, Marino and Park2021; Covington and Jordan Reference Covington and Jordan2022). Our research contributes to this emerging picture of PhD candidates, across countries and disciplines, who are facing similar pandemic-related pressures that may be exacerbating existing concerns. Therefore, this survey’s findings, which indicate a lack of congruence between candidates’ and supervisors’ perspectives on the impacts of COVID-19, should be of concern to political science departments in Australia and beyond.

THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES

On January 25, 2020, the first case of COVID-19 was identified in Australia. Soon after, Australia closed its borders to China; by March, the border closures had effectively extended to the rest of the world. There is ongoing debate in Australia about how successfully governments managed the pandemic; however, throughout 2020 and 2021, Australia had one of the lowest COVID-19 case rates and mortality rates reported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (Ritchie et al. Reference Ritchie, Mathieu, Rodés-Guirao, Appel, Giattino, Ortiz-Ospina and Hasell2020). Nevertheless, government mandates resulted in most universities having no on-campus lectures, research, or other activities for all or part of 2020 and 2021 (Kinash, Jones, and Crawford Reference Kinash, Jones and Crawford2021).

Due to the border closure, international students were unable to come to Australia and often deferred their study or traveled to other countries. Given the internationalization of the higher-education sector, this had a major impact on Australian universities. Before the pandemic, the sector had grown substantially to become Australia’s fourth-largest export (Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2020). Between 2010 and 2019, income from fee-paying international students increased from 18% to 27% of total university revenue (Ferguson and Spinks Reference Ferguson and Spinks2021). In political science PhD programs, the proportion of international students among commencing cohorts doubled from approximately 20% across the years 2005–2019 (Australian Department of Education 2022). With the onset of the pandemic-related border closures, the number of people receiving a student visa decreased by approximately 33%. By September 2021, the loss of students and revenue resulted in more than 40,000 redundancies in the Australian tertiary-education sector: approximately 20% of the workforce (Kelly Reference Kelly2022).

This analysis draws on the results of an original survey that formed the basis of the authors’ broader research project on candidates’ and supervisors’ satisfaction with Australian political science PhD programs (Casey et al. Reference Casey, Rutledge-Prior, Young, Berdahl and Malloy2023). One goal of this project was to identify the level of support provided to candidates through the pandemic and the impacts that the pandemic may have had on their future career ambitions. We recognized the impact that COVID-19 has had across academic disciplines; given our own position as PhD candidates in political science at the time of the survey design, we therefore were motivated to answer van Tienoven et al.’s (Reference van Tienoven, Glorieux, Minnen, Te Braak and Spruyt2022) call for discipline-specific research on the impacts of COVID-19.

METHODS AND DEMOGRAPHICS

Our survey drew on a number of questions from two previously conducted surveys aimed at political science doctoral students (i.e., Berdahl, Malloy, and Young Reference Berdahl, Malloy and Young2020; Kefford and Morgenbesser Reference Kefford and Morgenbesser2013 Footnote 1). It was constructed with Qualtrics and distributed during the six weeks from February 24 to April 6, 2022 (Rutledge-Prior and Casey Reference Rutledge-Prior and Casey2023).Footnote 2 Survey recruitment was implemented via social media (i.e., Facebook and Twitter); the Australian Political Science Association and its working groups; and the heads of Australian political science departments, who were asked to forward the survey to their networks. The survey received responses from 109 PhD candidates and 55 PhD supervisorsFootnote 3 , Footnote 4 from 23 Australian universities. It asked a range of demographic questions, as well as questions on career path, doctoral training, supervision, and coursework. The questions were predominantly closed-ended, with a few allowing for free-text input (see the online appendix).

We estimate that there are no more than 300 political science academics in Australia who have supervised a PhD candidate (Australian Government 2021; Kefford and Morgenbesser Reference Kefford and Morgenbesser2013), which suggests that approximately 18% of the eligible population completed the survey. Survey respondents were broadly representative based on gender, with slight overrepresentation in the more senior levels. Because the survey included only those academics who have been on PhD supervisory panels, the resulting sample is likely to underrepresent junior academics.

More than 600 PhD candidates were enrolled in political science and policy studies in 2020 in Australia. However, this number includes candidates who were not actively studying or researching but who had maintained their enrollment. Our best estimate of active engaged PhD candidates is approximately 450. We received 109 responses—approximately 25% of the target population. PhD-candidate respondents were broadly representative relative to gender, domestic/international status, and full-/part-time status (figure 1). Australia’s “Group of Eight” (Go8) universitiesFootnote 5 were overrepresented: 65% compared to an estimated 45% of the population.

Figure 1 Survey Demographics

IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON THE PHD PROGRAM

We asked candidates about a range of challenges that they might have faced during the pandemic relating to academic work, research, finances, and mental health (figure 2). Of the responses, 97% indicated having experienced at least one COVID-19–related challenge and more than 70% of candidates experienced at least three challenges.Footnote 6

Figure 2 Candidates’ Experiences, and Supervisors’ Reports of Their Students’ Experiences, of COVID-19–Related Challenges

Pearson’s correlation coefficient = 0.932, p-value = 0.002.

The most prevalent challenge identified by candidates was reduced productivity (86%), which is consistent with Covington and Jordan’s (Reference Covington and Jordan2022) findings that 80% of PhD candidates impacted by COVID-19 experienced delays in their projects. The next two most prevalent challenges were reduced opportunities to attend conferences and other networking opportunities (74%) and mental health issues (71%). These three challenges were the same that supervisors were most likely to have identified relative to their supervisees (96%, 100%, and 93%, respectively). The agreement between the issues identified by supervisors and candidates is promising because it may indicate that some level of communication was maintained during the pandemic.Footnote 7

There is evidence that these pressures, including mental health issues, financial stress, and lack of future academic and nonacademic career prospects (Almasri, Read, and Vandeweerdt Reference Almasri, Read and Vandeweerdt2022; Cornwall et al. Reference Cornwall, Mayland, van der Meer, Spronken-Smith, Tustin and Blyth2019), existed before the pandemic. As one survey respondent noted, the PhD program is “already an isolating experience” that is only “aggravated by COVID.” Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether and the extent to which the impacts of these challenges have worsened relative to the pre-pandemic period. However, our findings are consistent with research in other disciplines about the impact of COVID-19 on PhD candidates (Browning et al. Reference Browning, Larson, Sharaievska, Rigolon, McAnirlin, Mullenbach and Cloutier2021; Capone, Marino, and Sang-Ah Park Reference Capone, Marino and Park2021; Covington and Jordan Reference Covington and Jordan2022; Le Vigouroux, Goncalves, and Charbonnier Reference Le Vigouroux, Goncalves and Charbonnier2021; van Tienoven et al. Reference van Tienoven, Glorieux, Minnen, Te Braak and Spruyt2022; Yassin et al. Reference Yassin, Razak, Saeed, Al-Maliki and Al-Habies2021). This consistency provides assurance about the robustness of our findings that COVID-19 has increased existing pressures on PhD candidates.

As one survey respondent noted, the PhD program is “already an isolating experience” that is only “aggravated by COVID.”

The results of our survey also suggest that PhD candidates are taking significantly longer to complete their degree relative to 2013 (figure 3)—a finding that is consistent with candidates’ reports of reduced productivity (see figure 2).

Figure 3 Year of Candidature (Full-Time Equivalent)

χ2 = 9.7518, p-value = 0.045.

A comparison of results from Kefford and Morgenbesser’s (Reference Kefford and Morgenbesser2013) survey reveals that the proportion of candidates in their fourth year or beyond has increased from 27% to 38%.Footnote 8 It seems likely that this delay is due in part to the impacts of COVID-19. This assumption aligns with the findings of Covington and Jordan (Reference Covington and Jordan2022), who found that approximately 40% of PhD candidates were concerned that the pandemic would delay their completion. The longer completion times also may be a result of the Australian government’s decision in response to COVID-19 to extend by six months some PhD candidates’ scholarships. Although this policy addressed issues around financial uncertainty, it is not clear whether or the extent to which it had an impact on research productivity.

DEPARTMENTAL SUPPORT FOR COVID-19–RELATED CHALLENGES

As suggested previously, both candidates and supervisors indicated a similar understanding of the challenges facing PhD candidates. However, regarding the level of departmental support for candidates, we found a significant difference in their perceptions. The survey indicates that whereas there is broad agreement across the two groups that some level of support was provided, supervisors reported that more support had been provided. Figure 4 shows that although almost 20% of candidates reported having been offered no support by their department,Footnote 9 less than 5% of supervisors believed this was the case. Likewise, 91% of supervisors reported that candidates were provided with “some” or “a lot” of support compared to 73% of candidates. This disconnect is cause for concern. It may mean that although there was broad agreement about the issues that candidates faced, there was insufficient discussion between candidates and supervisors about whether there was (appropriate) support in place to manage these challenges.

Figure 4 Departmental Support for Candidates Relative to COVID-19 Challenges

Fisher’s p-value = 0.034.

When we considered levels of satisfaction with departmental support relative to COVID-19, candidates were more likely than supervisors to report being “not at all satisfied” with the level of support that was offered (30% and 20%, respectively). However, the difference in satisfaction levels was not statistically significant (Fisher’s p-value = 0.355),Footnote 10 which suggests that both supervisors and candidates are in some agreement that there is more that departments can do to assist candidates.

As discussed previously, we may question how much the pandemic, in fact, impacted these results or whether the results reflect dissatisfaction with levels of departmental support in general. Exploring these results, we found that candidates’ views on whether they are being provided sufficient support from their supervisors and other staff does not appear to impact their satisfaction with COVID-19–related support (Fisher’s p-value = 0.150). That is, there is no difference in satisfaction levels across those who believe they are receiving enough support in general and those who do not: substantial proportions of both groups are dissatisfied with the COVID-19–related support offered.

We can also discern how the satisfaction with departmental support might have changed due to the pandemic by comparing satisfaction levels before and after 2020. Our comparison of identical questions on Kefford and Morgenbesser’s (Reference Kefford and Morgenbesser2013) survey with our own suggests that dissatisfaction levels indeed changed across the pre- and inter-pandemic periods. We found a statistically significant decrease in the number of PhD candidates in 2013 compared to 2022 who reported that they were receiving sufficient support from their supervisors and/or their department (figure 5). Although this measure cannot definitively explain what is driving this change, it nevertheless lends credence to the notion that levels of satisfaction with support may have been impacted by the responses of departments to the pandemic.

Figure 5 Satisfaction with Departmental Support Over Time

χ2 = 6.1993, p-value = 0.045.

IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON FUTURE CAREER PLANS

Our results indicate a marked decrease in the proportion of candidates in 2022 who were planning a career in academia relative to those with the same plans in 2013 (figure 6).Footnote 11 Whereas a majority of 2022 candidates (54%) indicated that the pandemic did not have an impact on their plans for employment after completing their PhD,Footnote 12 as shown in figure 2, more than half of candidates (56%) indicated that they were concerned about their future career prospects in academia as a result of the pandemic. This broadly reflects the findings in the Covington and Jordan (Reference Covington and Jordan2022) study, in which 68% of PhD students surveyed indicated that they were concerned the pandemic would have a negative impact on their academic career.

Figure 6 Plans to Pursue an Academic Career (2013 Versus 2022)

There is also some evidence to suggest that PhD candidates who started their PhD program since 2020 are more likely to report that COVID-19 had “no impact” on their career plans relative to those who started before the onset of the pandemic (figure 7). This may indicate that the former quickly adjusted their expectations to the “new normal.” Nevertheless, even among this cohort, 33% indicated that the pandemic has had some degree of impact on their employment plans.

Figure 7 Impact of COVID-19 on Post-PhD Career Plans, by Start of PhD Program

χ2 = 4.9145, p-value = 0.086.

We also found a substantial gap between the views of PhD candidates about their future career plans and those of their supervisors relative to their candidates’ career plans. Candidates are much less likely to indicate that their plans changed due to the pandemic than their supervisors (figure 8).

Figure 8 Views on Whether COVID-19 Has Changed Post-PhD Career Plans

Fisher’s p-value = 0.003.

This potential disconnect between candidates and supervisors is perhaps concerning if it indicates that there has been insufficient communication between candidates and supervisors about the impact COVID-19 has had on career objectives. These results are perhaps not surprising, however, when we consider a further disconnect between the views of candidates and supervisors relative to the latter’s career-mentoring style (figure 9).

Figure 9 Perceptions of Supervisors’ Career-Mentoring Style

Fisher’s p-value = 1.543e-12.

Most candidates (56%) suggested that their supervisors did not provide any career mentoring, compared to 2% of supervisors. This perceived lack of career mentoring was also evident in the free-text responses. One candidate commented that supervisors needed to “listen to the needs of their PhD students rather than assuming the students’ desired career paths” and to “listen more to PhD candidate’s particular interests as they relate to careers.”

Most candidates (56%) suggested that their supervisors did not provide any career mentoring, compared to 2% of supervisors.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Australian political science PhD candidates—the first to compare the different perceptions of candidates and their supervisors—has two key findings. It provides evidence that COVID-19 delayed the completion of candidates’ PhD programs and that there were disconnects between candidates and supervisors relative to the level of departmental COVID-19–related support that candidates received, their postdoctoral career plans, and supervisors’ career-mentoring styles.

There are limitations to this study, including its relatively small sample size and issues with convenience sampling and selection bias. However, our results about the impact of COVID-19 on PhD candidates broadly align with those from different countries and different disciplines, demonstrating that these issues are likely to be applicable across political science departments. It also is important to highlight that, given the overrepresentation of Go8-affiliated candidates and supervisors in our sample, the issues revealed by the survey are not being driven simply by less well-resourced universities: these are universal issues of concern.Footnote 13 This means that departments, graduate coordinators, and supervisors across Australia (and beyond) should consider which actions can be taken to provide appropriate further support for candidates.

Given the importance of good communication and clear-expectation management between supervisors and candidates (Cardilini et al. Reference Cardilini, Risely and Richardson2022), the results of this survey suggest a mismatch between what candidates think and what their supervisors think they think. Research has shown that when the frequency of candidate–supervisor meetings decrease, the level of satisfaction with the supervisory relationship also diminishes (Casey and Rutledge-Prior Reference Casey and Rutledge-Prior2022; Heath Reference Heath2002). Although it is beyond the scope of this survey to determine, it is likely that the pandemic led to a reduced frequency of meetings between candidates and supervisors. Depth of engagement also may have been impacted because online supervision creates significant additional challenges and barriers to ensuring “healthy relationships” (Gray and Crosta Reference Gray and Crosta2019) and can hamper “supervisory dialogue” (Bengtsen and Jensen Reference Bengtsen and Jensen2015). Indeed, a key finding from our survey is that a significant proportion of supervisors appear to be uninformed or misinformed about the career aspirations of their candidates in the wake of COVID-19. To the extent that this indicates that supervisors and supervisees are not having regular and/or honest conversations about career goals, this suggests that the former may be less effective in providing successful supervision. The nature of the academic work environment—as shaped by increasing job demands, metric evaluation systems, and increasing casualization and “adjunctification”—means that many of these issues are likely to reflect structural problems within academia and cannot be solved by individuals alone. Nevertheless, we stress the importance of supervisors in political science and elsewhere to maintain strong and regular lines of communication with their students.

Given the importance of good communication and clear-expectation management between supervisors and candidates, the results of this survey suggest a mismatch between what candidates think and what their supervisors think they think.

With current research demonstrating that the level of support from supervisors—rather than academic qualities—is the main determining factor in candidate satisfaction (van Tienoven et al. Reference van Tienoven, Glorieux, Minnen, Te Braak and Spruyt2022), it is encouraging to see from our survey that supervisors appear to recognize the challenges that their candidates have faced due to the pandemic. Furthermore, both candidates and supervisors appear to be somewhat united in their relatively high levels of dissatisfaction with departmental support for candidates relative to COVID-19. However, our survey also suggests that, relative to candidates, supervisors believe that there has been more departmental support provided to candidates in response to COVID-19–related challenges. This is concerning because if supervisors believe that support already is being provided, they may be less likely to advocate for appropriate improvements for PhD candidates within their department.

We make the following recommendations. First, supervisors should work with candidates to plan adjustments to their research agenda and schedule as needed. Second, supervisors and departments should consider which additional supports could be provided, particularly to address the issues identified in figure 2. With budgets and time stretched thin, such approaches need not be too onerous. Departments could organize peer-mentoring between early- and later-stage PhD candidates, run regular research “bootcamps” (Mewburn Reference Mewburn2014), and offer weekly morning teas or lunches. For their part, supervisors could engage in collaborative research with their students, use their nonacademic networks to give candidates opportunities for nonacademic work experience and internships, and facilitate—or encourage their students to organize—work-in-progress seminars and reading groups.Footnote 14 These efforts may help to maintain a sense of community across PhD cohorts and between candidates and faculty members—an endeavour that remains important in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Research documentation and data that support the findings of this study are openly available at the PS: Political Science & Politics Harvard Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/8V3S2I.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit at https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096523000161.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there are no ethical issues or conflicts of interest in this research.

Footnotes

1. Kefford and Morgenbesser’s (Reference Kefford and Morgenbesser2013) study had the same eligibility criteria for PhD candidates as in our survey. Conducted on SurveyMonkey, its recruitment relied on universities forwarding the survey to relevant PhD candidates. It ultimately received 186 PhD candidate responses from across 22 universities. Demographically, their survey had a similar spread by gender, age, and domestic status as our survey.

2. Ethics approval was granted by the Australian National University Human Ethics Committee (Protocol 2021/810). Informed consent was obtained as the initial question in the Qualtrics survey.

3. The candidates were not linked to their supervisors or vice versa.

4. We note that the number of completed surveys for each group is lower than these figures, with drop-off rates increasing as candidates progressed further along the survey (this effect was less marked for supervisors). In terms of the COVID-19–related questions analyzed in this article, these were concentrated in a block toward the end of the survey, beyond the point at which most respondents who dropped out had already done so. Therefore, survey responses that we focused on in this article are from the subset of respondents who completed the survey (candidates: n~88; supervisors: n~46). Because the demographic questions were posed at the end of the survey and therefore not answered by those who dropped out, we unfortunately cannot determine whether or how the respondents who did not drop out might have differed from those who did.

5. A consortium of eight research-intensive universities that tend to be ranked most highly among Australian universities, consisting of the Australian National University, Monash University, University of Adelaide, University of Melbourne, University of New South Wales–Sydney, University of Queensland, University of Sydney, and University of Western Australia.

6. There were no statistically significant differences (α = 0.05) in the mean number of problems reported by gender; by non-English-speaking background or culturally diverse status; by domestic/international student status; by Go8 status; or by full-/part-time status.

7. We note that supervisors identified that these challenges have occurred more frequently than candidates. This is likely because supervisors were asked to respond to the question relative to all of their supervisees and therefore would have marked the relevant box if any of their candidates had been impacted. In comparison, candidates were asked the question relative only to their experiences.

8. The duration of an Australian PhD program is nominally three to four years.

9. There was no evidence of statistically significant differences (α = 0.05) driven by candidates’ gender or Go8 status relative to experience of departmental support for COVID-19–related challenges.

10. There was a gendered difference, with women significantly less likely than men to be satisfied with levels of departmental support relative to COVID-19–related challenges (Fisher’s p-value = 0.016). No evidence of difference (α = 0.05) was found relative to Go8 status.

11. We recognize that this is not a perfect comparison because there was a “don’t know” option in the 2022 survey but not in the 2013 survey.

12. This outcome is mediated by gender, with women more likely than men to report that COVID-19 has changed their plans for employment after their PhD (p = 0.016). No evidence of a difference (α = 0.05) was found relative to Go8 status.

13. There were no statistically significant differences (α = 0.05) when we compared Go8 and non-Go8 candidates’ responses relative to the number of problems they experienced as a result of COVID-19; the impact that COVID-19 has had on their career plans; and the level of and their satisfaction with the support they received from their department.

14. We thank our anonymous survey respondents for providing some of these suggestions in their open-ended responses.

References

REFERENCES

Almasri, Nasir, Read, Blair, and Vandeweerdt, Clara. 2022. “Mental Health and the PhD: Insights and Implications for Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 55 (2): 347–53.Google Scholar
Australian Department of Education. 2022. “Selected Higher Education Statistics: Table 3.4, Commencing Student Load.” Australian Government. www.education.gov.au/higher-education-statistics/student-data.Google Scholar
Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 2020. “Trade and Investment at a Glance 2021.” Australian Government. www.dfat.gov.au/publications/trade-and-investment/trade-and-investment-glance-2021.Google Scholar
Australian Government. 2021. “Higher Education Statistics.” Department of Education, Skills, and Employment. www.dese.gov.au/higher-education-statistics.Google Scholar
Bengtsen, Søren, and Jensen, Gry. 2015. “Online Supervision at the University: A Comparative Study of Supervision on Student Assignments Face-to-Face and Online.” Tidsskriftet Læring Og Medier 8 (13): 123. https://doi.org/10.7146/lom.v8i13.19381.Google Scholar
Berdahl, Loleen, Malloy, Jonathan, and Young, Lisa. 2020. “Faculty Perceptions of Political Science PhD Career Training.” PS: Political Science & Politics 53 (4): 751–56.Google Scholar
Browning, Matthew, Larson, Lincoln, Sharaievska, Iryna, Rigolon, Alessandro, McAnirlin, Olivia, Mullenbach, Lauren, Cloutier, Scott, et al. 2021. “Psychological Impacts from COVID-19 among University Students: Risk Factors across Seven States in the United States.” PloS One 16 (1): e0245327.10.1371/journal.pone.0245327CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Capone, Vincenza, Marino, Leda, and Park, Miriam Sang-Ah. 2021. “Perceived Employability, Academic Commitment, and Competency of University Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Exploratory Study of Student Well-Being.” Frontiers in Psychology 12:788387.10.3389/fpsyg.2021.788387CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cardilini, Adam, Risely, Alice, and Richardson, Mark. 2022. “Supervising the PhD: Identifying Common Mismatches in Expectations Between Candidate and Supervisor to Improve Research Training Outcomes.” Higher Education Research & Development 41 (3): 613–27.10.1080/07294360.2021.1874887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casey, Daniel, and Rutledge-Prior, Serrin. 2022. “Comparing the Experiences and Expectations of Australian PhD Candidates and Supervisors in Politics and International Relations.” Presented at the Australian Political Studies Association Conference. Canberra, ACT: September 2628.Google Scholar
Casey, Daniel, Rutledge-Prior, Serrin, Young, Lisa, Berdahl, Loleen, and Malloy, Jonathan. 2023. “Hard Work and You Can’t Get It: An International Comparative Analysis of Gender, Career Aspirations, and Preparedness Among Politics and International Relations PhD Students.” PS: Political Science & Politics. DOI:10.1017/S1049096523000057.Google Scholar
Cornwall, Jon, Mayland, Elizabeth, van der Meer, Jacques, Spronken-Smith, Rachel, Tustin, Charles, and Blyth, Phil. 2019. “Stressors in Early-Stage Doctoral Students.” Studies in Continuing Education 41 (3): 363–80.10.1080/0158037X.2018.1534821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Covington, Natalie, and Jordan, Larissa. 2022. “Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on PhD Students in Communication Sciences and Disorders.” Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups 7 (2): 512–22.10.1044/2021_PERSP-21-00137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Hazel, and Spinks, Harriet. 2021. “Overseas Students in Australian Higher Education: A Quick Guide.” Department of the Parliamentary Library, Research Paper Series, 2020–21. Canberra, ACT.Google Scholar
Gray, Morag, and Crosta, Lucilla. 2019. “New Perspectives in Online Doctoral Supervision: A Systematic Literature Review.” Studies in Continuing Education 41 (2): 173–90.10.1080/0158037X.2018.1532405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, Trevor. 2002. “A Quantitative Analysis of PhD Students’ Views of Supervision.” Higher Education Research & Development 21 (1): 4153.10.1080/07294360220124648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kefford, Glenn, and Morgenbesser, Lee. 2013. “Bridging the Information Gap: A Survey of Politics and International Relations PhD Students in Australia.” Australian Journal of Political Science 48 (4): 507–18.10.1080/10361146.2013.840431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Cait. 2022. “‘Looking Down the Barrel’: Australian Universities Face Nervous Future Post-COVID.” The Guardian, January 30. www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jan/30/looking-down-the-barrel-australian-universities-face-nervous-future-post-covid.Google Scholar
Kinash, Shelley, Jones, Colin, and Crawford, Joseph. 2021. “COVID Killed the On-Campus Lecture, but Will Unis Raise It from the Dead?” The Conversation, February 15. https://theconversation.com/ covid-killed-the-on-campus-lecture-but-will-unis-raise-it-from-the-dead-152971.Google Scholar
Le Vigouroux, Sarah, Goncalves, Aurélie, and Charbonnier, Elodie. 2021. “The Psychological Vulnerability of French University Students to the COVID-19 Confinement.” Health Education & Behavior 48 (2): 123–31.10.1177/1090198120987128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshman, Ian, and Larkins, Frank. 2021. “After 2 Years of COVID, How Bad Has It Really Been for University Finances and Staff?” The Conversation, December 9. https://theconversation.com/after-2-years-of-covid-how-bad-has-it-really-been-for-university-finances-and-staff-172405.Google Scholar
Mewburn, Inger. 2014. “Drop and Give Me 20,000 (Words)!” The Thesis Whisperer, October 15. https://thesiswhisperer.com/2014/10/15/6589.Google Scholar
Ritchie, Hannah, Mathieu, Edouard, Rodés-Guirao, Lucas, Appel, Cameron, Giattino, Charlie, Ortiz-Ospina, Esteban, Hasell, Joe, et al. 2020. “Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19).” Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus.Google Scholar
Roach, Alex, Christensen, Bruce, and Rieger, Elizabeth. 2019. “The Essential Ingredients of Research Supervision: A Discrete-Choice Experiment.” Journal of Educational Psychology 111 (7): 1243–60.10.1037/edu0000322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutledge-Prior, Serrin, and Casey, Daniel. 2023. “Replication Data for ‘An Isolating Experience Aggravated by COVID’: Exploring Disconnections Between Political Science PhD Candidates and Supervisors.’” Harvard Dataverse. DOI:10.7910/DVN/8V3S2I.10.7910/DVN/8V3S2ICrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skakni, Isabelle. 2018. “Doctoral Studies as an Initiatory Trial: Expected and Taken-for-Granted Practices That Impede PhD Students’ Progress.” Teaching in Higher Education 23 (8): 927–44.10.1080/13562517.2018.1449742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Tienoven, Theun Pieter, Glorieux, Anaïs, Minnen, Joeri, Te Braak, Petrus, and Spruyt, Bram. 2022. “Graduate Students Locked Down? PhD Students’ Satisfaction with Supervision during the First and Second COVID-19 Lockdown in Belgium.” Plos One 17 (5): e0268923.10.1371/journal.pone.0268923CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yassin, Amr Abdullatif, Razak, Norizan Abdul, Saeed, Murad Abdu, Al-Maliki, Mohammed Ali Abbod, and Al-Habies, Feras Ali. 2021. “Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Local and International Students in Malaysian Universities.” Asian Education and Development Studies 10 (4): 574–86.10.1108/AEDS-05-2020-0098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1 Survey Demographics

Figure 1

Figure 2 Candidates’ Experiences, and Supervisors’ Reports of Their Students’ Experiences, of COVID-19–Related ChallengesPearson’s correlation coefficient = 0.932, p-value = 0.002.

Figure 2

Figure 3 Year of Candidature (Full-Time Equivalent)χ2 = 9.7518, p-value = 0.045.

Figure 3

Figure 4 Departmental Support for Candidates Relative to COVID-19 ChallengesFisher’s p-value = 0.034.

Figure 4

Figure 5 Satisfaction with Departmental Support Over Timeχ2 = 6.1993, p-value = 0.045.

Figure 5

Figure 6 Plans to Pursue an Academic Career (2013 Versus 2022)

Figure 6

Figure 7 Impact of COVID-19 on Post-PhD Career Plans, by Start of PhD Programχ2 = 4.9145, p-value = 0.086.

Figure 7

Figure 8 Views on Whether COVID-19 Has Changed Post-PhD Career PlansFisher’s p-value = 0.003.

Figure 8

Figure 9 Perceptions of Supervisors’ Career-Mentoring StyleFisher’s p-value = 1.543e-12.

Supplementary material: Link

Rutledge-Prior and Casey Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: File

Rutledge-Prior and Casey supplementary material

Appendix

Download Rutledge-Prior and Casey supplementary material(File)
File 14.3 KB