Российская аспирантура в условиях высокой неоднородности контингента: институциональные практики и опыт аспирантов тема диссертации и автореферата по ВАК РФ 00.00.00, кандидат наук Жучкова Светлана Васильевна

• Жучкова Светлана Васильевна
• кандидат наук
• 2024

Оглавление диссертации кандидат наук Жучкова Светлана Васильевна

Содержание

Введение

Научная проблема и исследовательские задачи

Методология исследования

Теоретическая рамка исследования

Данные и методы

Основные результаты исследования

Портрет и опыт аспирантов с разной длительностью перерыва перед

поступлением

Связь между предыдущим академическим опытом аспиранта и его

последующей результативностью в аспирантуре

Распространенность различных инструментов отбора в аспирантуру

в российских вузах

Типы распределенной поддержки аспирантов российских вузов

Положения, выносимые на защиту

Научная и практическая значимость результатов исследования

Ограничения и перспективы исследования

Источники

Приложение 1. Публикация "Non-linear path to a doctorate: a comparison of direct-

and indirect-pathway doctoral students at Russian universities"

Приложение 2. Публикация "Building a strong foundation: How pre-doctorate

experience shapes doctoral student outcomes"

Приложение 3. Публикация "Как устроен прием в аспирантуру в российских

вузах?"

Приложение 4. Публикация "Departmental academic support for doctoral students in

Russia: Categorisation and effects"

Введение диссертации (часть автореферата) на тему «Российская аспирантура в условиях высокой неоднородности контингента: институциональные практики и опыт аспирантов»

Введение

В последние несколько десятилетий аспирантура по всему миру все чаще становится объектом внимания со стороны государств и международных организаций1 (Kehm, 2020; Nerad, 2011). Акцент на развитии аспирантуры на национальном и глобальном уровнях связывают с ее ролью в производстве знания в эпоху экономики знаний (Cardoso et al., 2022; Kehm, 2020; Shin et al., 2018). Соответствующие теории предполагают, что именно новые идеи и знания становятся главным ресурсом экономического развития государств (Powell, Snellman, 2004), а аспирантура рассматривается как ключевой поставщик высококвалифицированных исследователей, способных производить, внедрять и распространять новые знания (Auriol, 2010; Gokhberg et al., 2016). Аллокация ресурсов в совершенствование аспирантуры в разных странах привела к массовизации и интернационализации аспирантуры (Auriol, 2010; Shin et al., 2018). Одно из сопутствующих этим трендам изменений - повышение неоднородности аспирантского контингента (Cardoso et al., 2022; Enders, 2004; Naidoo, 2015; Nerad, 2011; Offerman, 2011; Skakni, 2018). Исследования в разных национальных контекстах фиксируют увеличение в структуре контингента доли тех групп аспирантов, которые ранее были недопредставлены на этом уровне образования - например, женщин, аспирантов старше 30 лет, аспирантов первого поколения, аспирантов с перерывом перед поступлением и др. (Auriol, 2010; Offerman, 2011), изменение мотивов поступления в аспирантуру (Skakni, 2018), а также дифференциацию карьерных траекторий выпускников аспирантуры, в том числе расширение присутствия обладателей ученых степеней на неакадемических рынках труда (Auriol, 2010).

Хотя в соответствующих зарубежных исследованиях не предлагается строгого определения уровней неоднородности контингента, для снятия потенциальных методологических ограничений можно воспользоваться пониманием неоднородности, применяемым в статистике. В статистике максимально неоднородным считается равномерное распределение, т.е. такое, в котором каждое возможное значение признака встречается одинаковое количество раз. Так, например, если в вузе обучается одинаковое количество аспирантов женского и мужского пола (доля каждой из двух групп составляет 50%), то контингент аспирантов данного вуза можно назвать высоко неоднородным по полу. Различные статистические и опросные данные позволяют судить о том, что высокая неоднородность аспирантского контингента характерна и для России - в

1 Например, Организация экономического сотрудничества и развития (ОЭСР), Всемирный банк.

статичном или динамичном смысле, т.е. по определенным характеристикам распределение российских аспирантов либо уже близко к равномерному, либо приближается к нему в последние несколько лет. Так, согласно официальной статистике, для российской аспирантуры уже долгие годы характерна высокая неоднородность контингента по полу аспирантов: доля аспирантов женского пола составляла около половины (44-47%) в 2011-2021 гг.2 За последние 10 лет (2012-2022) доля аспирантов старше 29 лет в общей численности аспирантов увеличилась более чем вдвое: с 16% до 36%3. Более чем в два раза возросла и доля иностранных аспирантов: с 5% в 2014 до 12% в 2021 (Власова и др., 2023). В структуре приема в аспирантуру треть (33%) составляют аспиранты, имевшие до поступления перерыв в образовании, т.е. пришедшие с рынка труда и обладающие определенным профессиональным опытом (Шугаль и др., 2022). По результатам последних всероссийских опросов аспирантов, совмещают учебу в аспирантуре с занятостью на неакадемическом рынке труда 41% российских аспирантов, в отдельных направлениях подготовки эта доля близка к половине, а иногда доходит и до 60% (Слепых, Рудаков, 2023). В российском контексте описанные тенденции также связывают с массовизацией аспирантуры, имевшей место в 2000-х гг. и ставшей следствием как увеличения спроса на ученые степени (в первую очередь связанного с расширением рынка труда для специалистов высшей квалификации), так и увеличения предложения (ростом числа организаций, ведущих подготовку аспирантов) (Стронгин и др., 2009).

Высокая неоднородность аспирантского контингента, в том числе контингента поступающих, предполагает целый ряд институциональных изменений в системе подготовки кадров высшей квалификации (Naidoo, 2015). Во-первых, различный уровень подготовки поступающих актуализирует переход от модели наставничества, при которой подготовка аспиранта ограничена индивидуальной работой с научным руководителем, к структурированным образовательным программам, которые в большей мере способны обеспечить сопоставимый уровень подготовки выпускников и качества диссертационных исследований (Enders, 2004). Во-вторых, отказ от модели наставничества предполагает вовлечение в работу с аспирантом более широкого круга сотрудников, т.е. выстраивание систем распределенной (коллективной) поддержки

2 Основные показатели подготовки кадров высшей квалификации, научных кадров в докторантуре по Российской Федерации // Федеральная служба государственной статистики. URL: https://rosstat.gov.ru/statistics/education (дата обращения: 10.03.2024).

3 Там же.

аспирантов (Watts, 2010). В ведущих зарубежных университетах встречаются разные формы организации такой поддержки - двойное научное руководство, командное руководство (supervisory team), исследовательские, или аспирантские, школы и др. (Hasgall et al., 2019; Lachmann et al., 2020) - которые направлены на снижение зависимости от научного руководителя через распределение функций между разными акторами (Ambrasat, Tesch, 2017; Robertson, 2017). В-третьих, появляются новые требования к отбору аспирантов - использование прозрачных критериев и процедур, которые способны учесть различный академический, профессиональный и социальный бэкграунд поступающих (Cardoso et al., 2022; Kent, McCarthy, 2016). Холистический подход к отбору аспирантов (holistic admission) предполагает, что во время приемной кампании должен оцениваться широкий круг характеристик поступающего и никакой отдельный фактор - например, результаты вступительного экзамена по профильной дисциплине - не должен детерминировать итог этой оценки (Francis et al., 2021).

Перечисленные принципы все чаще становятся предметом дискуссий зарубежных ассоциаций исследователей аспирантуры4 и внедряются в практику в университетах стран Европы, США, Австралии, Китая (Hasgall et al., 2019; Nerad, 2011; Kumar, Wald, 2024). В России в явном виде представлено лишь первое из перечисленных изменений в системе аспирантской подготовки: переход к структурированным образовательным программам аспирантуры в России произошел с ее включением в систему высшего образования в 2012-2013 гг. и не раз обсуждался в академическом и экспертном сообществе (см., например, Бедный, 2017; Вершинин, 2015; Караваева и др., 2018; Нефедова, Дьяченко, 2019). Реализация же остальных принципов -распределенной поддержки и холистического отбора - не задается федеральной нормативной рамкой, но может быть установлена на уровне отдельных организаций. Однако то, насколько соответствующие практики реально распространены в российской аспирантуре, специально ранее не изучалось. Представленное диссертационное исследование исходит из предпосылки, что низкая эффективность аспирантуры в России - высокий уровень отсева5 и низкие показатели выпуска из аспирантуры с защитой

4 См., например, соответствующие доклады Совета по аспирантскому образованию Ассоциации европейских университетов (Council for Doctoral Education at European University Association, EUA-CDE), Лиги европейских исследовательских университетов или Совета аспирантских школ в США и Канаде (Council of Graduate Schools) (Hasgall et al., 2019; Hillebrand, Leysinger, 2023; Kent, McCarthy, 2016).

5 По доступным оценкам, в 2021 г. в России почти половина (48%) аспирантов не завершили обучение и не защитили диссертацию (Шугаль и др. 2022).

диссертации6 - может быть в том числе связана с неадаптированностью системы аспирантской подготовки к условиям высокой неоднородности контингента. При этом такая адаптация требует ответа на базовый вопрос - о специфике опыта обучения в аспирантуре разных групп аспирантов - и опоры на результаты соответствующих эмпирических исследований. Настоящее исследование направлено на восполнение двух описанных пробелов, его цель - определение проявлений и последствий неоднородности контингента в российской аспирантуре на индивидуальном и институциональном уровнях. Данная цель достигается через выявление различий в опыте и результативности разных групп аспирантов, а также определение ландшафта используемых практик отбора и распределенной поддержки аспирантов в России.

Научная проблема и исследовательские задачи

В зарубежной и отечественной академической дискуссии целый ряд исследовательских вопросов, ответы на которые могли бы послужить доказательной базой по реформированию систем отбора и подготовки аспирантов в условиях неоднородности аспирантского контингента, остаются открытыми. Как различается опыт обучения в аспирантуре у разных групп аспирантов в зависимости от их академического, профессионального, социального бэкграунда? Какие практики отбора и поддержки аспирантов наиболее эффективны при работе с разными группами аспирантов? Есть ли среди таких практик универсальные - подходящие для всего гетерогенного контингента? Эмпирические исследования, посвященные перечисленным вопросам, до сих пор фрагментарны и выполнены в основном в западных национальных контекстах. Прямой перенос результатов имеющихся исследований на российский контекст не представляется корректным, поскольку для российской аспирантуры все еще в большей мере характерна академическая ориентация: в отличие от многих стран, в России не предусмотрено такого многообразия моделей подготовки аспирантов, в частности, профессиональной или индустриальной аспирантуры (см. подробнее о диверсификации моделей в Bao et al., 2018). В этих условиях вопрос изучения особенностей опыта разных групп аспирантов становится еще более острым, т.к. отсутствие вариации в моделях подготовки может вносить дополнительные барьеры на пути аспирантов, не зафиксированные в зарубежных исследованиях.

6 13% по состоянию на 2022 г. См.: Основные показатели подготовки кадров высшей квалификации, научных кадров в докторантуре по Российской Федерации // Федеральная служба государственной статистики. URL: https://rosstat.gov.ru/statistics/education (дата обращения: 16.03.2024).

Настоящее диссертационное исследование вносит вклад в перечисленные открытые вопросы через комплексное изучение проявлений и последствий неоднородности контингента на двух уровнях: на уровне индивидуального опыта аспирантов и на уровне институциональных практик, реализуемых российскими вузами. На индивидуальном уровне мы фокусируемся на изучении особенностей опыта обучения в аспирантуре различных групп аспирантов; на институциональном уровне -на инструментах и практиках отбора и распределенной поддержки аспирантов, основания использования которых в условиях высокой неоднородности аспирантского контингента изложены ранее. Двум уровням анализа соответствуют четыре задачи, современное состояние исследований по которым коротко представлено далее.

Задача 1 - выявление различий в портрете аспирантов и их опыте7 обучения в аспирантуре в зависимости от наличия и длительности перерыва перед поступлением в аспирантуру. В зарубежных исследованиях к вопросу неоднородности контингента подходят через изучение опыта «нетрадиционных аспирантов» (nontraditional doctoral students). Четкого определения нетрадиционного аспиранта в литературе не представлено, но в эмпирических исследованиях эта категория выделяется на основании одного или нескольких из следующих признаков: учится по заочной форме, имеет работу на полный день, финансово независим, состоит в браке, имеет детей или других иждивенцев, поступил в аспирантуру после перерыва и проч. (Graham, Massyn, 2019; Langrehr et al., 2015). В своем исследовании в качестве индикатора принадлежности к группе нетрадиционных аспирантов мы используем наличие у аспиранта перерыва перед поступлением в аспирантуру, поскольку эта характеристика является наиболее широким из предлагаемых в литературе основанием для дифференциации: во время этого перерыва будущий аспирант может получить самый разнообразный опыт - как социальный, так и профессиональный - который в том числе может определить и специфику дальнейшего обучения в аспирантуре. Зарубежные исследования выделяют некоторые особенности мотивации и опыта нетрадиционных студентов и аспирантов: для них в меньшей степени характерно поступление в аспирантуру для закрепления в академической среде, в большей - для развития собственной карьеры и применения знаний в собственной профессиональной деятельности (Jablonski, 2001; Offerman, 2011;

7 Понятие «опыт обучения в аспирантуре» в данном исследовании является отсылкой к понятию student experience (студенческий опыт) - широкому термину, под которым в зарубежных исследованиях объединяют «все аспекты взаимодействия студента с системой высшего образования» (Arambewela, Maringe, 2012: 65) (в данном случае - аспиранта с аспирантурой).

Skakni, 2018), они демонстрируют больший уровень вовлеченности на занятиях (Wyatt, 2011), при этом более автономны (Babb et al., 2022), в том числе во взаимодействии со своим научным руководителем (Offerman, 2011), а также встречают на своем пути больше барьеров, поскольку вынуждены совмещать множество конкурирующих активностей: учебу, работу, содержание семьи (Cornwall et al., 2019; MacDonald, 2018). Ограничения большинства зарубежных исследований опыта нетрадиционных аспирантов состоят в том, что, во-первых, такие работы зачастую сфокусированы на отдельных направлениях подготовки, в основном инженерных (Mosyjowski et al., 2017; Mosyjowski & Daly, 2020; Murray et al., 2017; Peters et al., 2017; Peters & Daly, 2013), во-вторых, выполнены с применением качественного дизайна (Bendix Petersen, 2014; Naidoo, 2015), что не позволяет генерализовать полученные результаты и распространить выводы на всю категорию нетрадиционных аспирантов с учетом ее высокой гетерогенности. Для российских же исследований аспирантского опыта в большей степени характерно рассмотрение аспирантского контингента как единого целого, без выделения специфичных групп аспирантов (см., например, Бекова и др., 2017; Груздев, Терентьев, 2017), поэтому вопрос о том, как различается опыт разных групп аспирантов в России, остается открытым.

Задача 2 - оценка связи между предыдущим академическим опытом аспиранта и его последующей результативностью в аспирантуре. За рубежом проведено достаточно много исследований, показавших, что традиционно используемые при приеме на зарубежные PhD-программы критерии - средний балл на предыдущих ступенях обучения (GPA) и результаты стандартизированных вступительных экзаменов (GRE) -не способны предсказать последующие результаты аспирантов, в частности, завершение программы, необходимое время для подготовки и защиты диссертации или число публикаций (см. обзорные исследования: Kuncel et al., 2001; Bair, Haworth, 2005). В условиях неоднородности контингента и ограниченности ресурсов на проведение сложных процедур отбора (Kent, McCarthy, 2016) важной задачей становится поиск других универсальных критериев, по которым могут оцениваться аспиранты. Однако соответствующие эмпирические исследования только начинают появляться и проводятся в основном в США, где распространена практика приема в аспирантуру сразу после окончания бакалавриата - по этой причине прямой перенос результатов этих исследований на российский контексте невозможен. Кроме того, текущие исследования в основном фокусируются на отдельных индикаторах: например, имеющихся на момент

поступления публикациях (Cunningham-Williams et al., 2018; Laurance et al., 2013; Pinheiro et al., 2014), наличии опыта участия в конференциях (Cunningham-Williams et al., 2018), престиже вуза, в котором получено предыдущее образование (Stock, Siegfried, 2015), соответствии выбранной в аспирантуре области предыдущему профилю обучения (Burmeister et al., 2014; Stock, Siegfried, 2015). В представленном диссертационном исследовании мы рассматриваем роль предыдущего академического опыта аспиранта, полученного им до поступления в аспирантуру, и представляем его комплексно - как совокупность формальных академических достижений (наличия диплома с отличием, публикаций, побед в олимпиадах и др.), исследовательского опыта, не имеющего подобного формального результата, а также преподавательского опыта.

Задача 3 - оценка распространенности различных инструментов отбора в аспирантуру в российских вузах. Неэффективность отбора часто становится предметом обсуждения в дискуссии о низкой результативности российской аспирантуры (Вершинин, 2015; Рыбаков, 2018; Сенашенко, 2016; Терентьев и др., 2018; Maloshonok, 2016; Maloshonok, Terentev, 2019). В частности, эта неэффективность может быть обусловлена и тем, что используемые инструменты отбора в аспирантуру не чувствительны к неоднородности аспирантского контингента из-за своей чрезмерной формальности (Бедный, 2017; Терентьев и др., 2018). Правила отбора в аспирантуру в России устанавливаются на уровне отдельных организаций, и на текущий момент организации не ограничены в проектировании этого процесса. Однако до сих пор в России не проводилось исследований того, какие инструменты реально используются на практике и насколько они соответствуют ситуации высокой неоднородности контингента, а имеющиеся обсуждения носят скорее характер экспертных оценок. Данная задача призвана закрыть этот пробел через определение ландшафта и оценку распространенности используемых в российской аспирантуре инструментов отбора и их соотнесения с результатами решения первой и второй задач.

Задача 4 - выделение типов распределенной поддержки аспирантов российских университетов и оценка связи между этими типами и уверенностью аспирантов в защите диссертации. Под типом поддержки понимается сочетание того, какие акторы помогают аспирантам в период обучения в аспирантуре и какие именно функции они выполняют. Большинство исследований факторов результативности аспирантов сосредоточены на роли научного руководителя (Sverdlik et al., 2018), а роль других сотрудников зачастую остается без внимания исследователей. При этом в последние 20 лет, в том числе в связи

с переходом на структурированные программы, более подходящие для неоднородного контингента, за рубежом предпринято много попыток внедрить практики распределенной поддержки (Hasgall et al., 2019), а в отдельных национальных контекстах именно модели коллективного руководства или соруководства стали ведущим способом организации аспирантской подготовки (Kumar, Wald, 2024). В России исторически соруководство (наличие двух научных руководителей) официально допускалось в ограниченном числе случаев: если аспирант проводил междисциплинарное исследование или обучался на сетевой программе (Terentev, Kuznetsov, 2024). В этой связи возрастает актуальность изучения других, в том числе более неформальных, практик коллективной поддержки аспирантов. Тем не менее, эмпирические исследования на тему научного руководства, как в России, так и за рубежом, редко принимают во внимание возможное разнообразие типов академической поддержки, связанное с различными ролями и функциями принимающих в ней участие акторов.

Поставленные задачи позволяют выявить особенности аспирантского опыта и результативности разных групп аспирантов и оценить, в какой мере используемые в российских вузах практики отбора и распределенной поддержки аспирантов соотносятся с обнаруженной спецификой. Результаты решения поставленных задач отражены в четырех публикациях, информация о которых приведена в таблице 1.

Таблица 1

Соотнесение исследовательских задач и публикаций

№ Задача Публикация Авторский вклад

1 Выявление различий в портрете аспирантов и их опыте обучения в аспирантуре в зависимости от наличия и длительности перерыва перед поступлением в аспирантуру Zhuchkova S., Terentev E. Nonlinear path to a doctorate: a comparison of direct- and indirect-pathway doctoral students at Russian universities // Higher Education. 2024. Vol. 87. No. 6. P. 1729-1747. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01087-9 Обзор литературы, обработка и анализ данных, описание результатов, дискуссия

2 Оценка связи между предыдущим академическим опытом аспиранта и Zhuchkova S., Bekova S. Building a strong foundation: How pre-doctorate experience shapes doctoral student Постановка исследовательского вопроса, координация сбора данных, обработка и

№ Задача Публикация Авторский вклад

его последующей результативностью в аспирантуре outcomes // Plos One. 2023. Vol. 18. No. 9. Article e0291448. http://doi.org/10.1371/iournal.p one.0291448 анализ данных, описание результатов, дискуссия

3 Оценка распространенности различных инструментов отбора в аспирантуру Жучкова С. В. Как устроен прием в аспирантуру в российских вузах? // Университетское управление: практика и анализ. 2022. Т. 26. № 2. С. 92-104. http://doi .org/ 10.15826/umpa.2 022.02.015 Постановка исследовательского вопроса, обзор нормативных изменений, координация сбора данных, обработка и анализ данных, описание результатов, дискуссия

4 Выделение типов распределенной поддержки аспирантов и оценка связи между этими типами и уверенностью аспирантов в защите диссертации Zhuchkova S., Terentev E., Saniyazova A., Bekova S. Departmental academic support for doctoral students in Russia: Categorisation and effects // Higher Education Quarterly. 2023. Vol. 77. No. 2. P. 215-231. http://doi .org/ 10.1111/hequ.123 89 Обработка и анализ данных, описание результатов

Методология исследования

Теоретическая рамка исследования

В представленном исследовании аспирантура рассматривается как социальное поле в понимании П. Бурдье, т.е. специфическая система отношений между позициями социальных агентов со своими «правилами игры» (Бурдье, 2005). Классической аналогией для иллюстрации понятия социального поля выступает футбольное поле, на котором игроки занимают определенные позиции и играют по установленным правилам для достижения определенного результата (Thomson, 2008). Эта концептуальная рамка предлагает несколько предпосылок (Бурдье, 2005, 2007; Gopaul, 2011, 2015, 2016; Thomson, 2008), которые формируют границы и содержание нашего исследования следующим образом:

- в поле присутствуют индивидуальные и коллективные социальные агенты, взаимодействующие друг с другом в рамках неких «правил игры». В контексте аспирантуры эти агенты - абитуриенты, аспиранты, научные руководители и другие сотрудники, вовлеченные в работу с аспирантами (проводящие отбор, аттестацию и

проч., в том числе администрация аспирантских программ), а также вузы, научные институты и регулятор, задающие часть «правил игры». В широком смысле именно взаимодействие перечисленных агентов между собой (научных руководителей и аспирантов, других сотрудников университетов и аспирантов, администрации аспирантских программ и абитуриентов и т.д.) - на разных этапах обучения в аспирантуре, включая отбор в аспирантуру - становится объектом исследования в каждой из задач. Так, этот аспект проявляется в задаче 4, направленной на выделение типов распределенной поддержки аспирантов, в задаче 3, посвященной институциональным практикам отбора в аспирантуру, в задаче 1, ряд вопросов в которой посвящен взаимодействию аспирантов с научным руководителем.

- агенты в поле занимают неравные позиции. От позиции агента зависит то, что он может и не может делать в поле, и «шансы на выигрыш в данном поле» (Бурдье, 2007: 16). Сама же позиция зависит от объема и структуры накапливаемых агентом капиталов (социального, культурного, символического, экономического), причем агенты могут стартовать с разным уровнем капиталов. Описанная предпосылка, с одной стороны, закрепляет иерархичный характер отношений между аспирантом и научным руководителем, аспирантом и другими сотрудниками. С другой стороны, что особенно релевантно для нашего исследования, позволяет говорить о неравных позициях самих аспирантов и о зависимости их позиций от уровня их капиталов. Речь необязательно идет о прямой и целенаправленной конкуренции аспирантов - а лишь о том, что аспиранты не равны между собой. Роль капитала может проявляться как на этапе отбора в аспирантуру (был ли зачислен абитуриент), так и далее в процессе обучения (например, определять согласие научного руководителя на работу с аспирантом, возможность трудоустроиться в научное подразделение во время обучения в аспирантуре, подавать заявки на стипендиальные или грантовые конкурсы и т.д., и в итоге определять, защитит ли аспирант диссертацию) и существенно возрастает с повышением неоднородности контингента. Данная предпосылка становится основой для задачи 2, в рамках которой оценивается связь между предыдущим академическим опытом аспиранта (капиталом) и его дальнейшей результативностью в аспирантуре (позицией в поле). В качестве индикатора результативности аспиранта (и кульминации игры, в которую играют агенты в поле аспирантуры) мы используем защиту диссертации, поскольку многие авторы концептуализируют аспирантскую подготовку как переход аспиранта от потребителя знаний (студента) к производителю знаний

(исследователю) ^ораи1, 2016), и завершенная диссертация рассматривается нами как универсальный для разных групп аспирантов индикатор способности производить знания. Дополнительная предпосылка, фигурирующая в теории П. Бурдье, говорит о том, что агенты в поле способны «чувствовать» свою позицию. Опираясь на эту предпосылку, в задаче 4 мы используем в качестве одной из зависимых переменных уровень неуверенности аспиранта в будущей успешной защите диссертации.

- в каждом конкретном поле ценность представляет специфический капитал. Эта предпосылка объясняет выбор именно предыдущего академического опыта аспиранта в качестве предиктора будущей результативности в задаче 2, а также некоторых используемых для операционализации этого понятия индикаторов. Отдельные эмпирические исследования, применяющие теорию полей для изучения аспирантуры, демонстрируют, что в качестве необходимого для успешного завершения аспирантуры капитала сами аспиранты рассматривают опыт участия в конференциях, публикации статей, получения финансирования ^ораи1, 2016). Однако в целом вопрос определения подходящего для поля аспирантуры капитала остается открытым, в связи с чем в задаче 2 предлагается расширенный список возможных индикаторов.

Список литературы диссертационного исследования кандидат наук Жучкова Светлана Васильевна, 2024 год

Источники

1. Ambrasat, J., & Tesch, J. (2017). Structured Diversity - The changing landscape of doctoral training in Germany after the introduction of structured doctoral programs. Research Evaluation, 26(4), 292-301. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx024

2. Arambewela, R., & Maringe, F. (2012). Mind the gap: staff and postgraduate perceptions of student experience in higher education. Higher education review, 44(2), 63-84.

3. Auriol, L. (2010). Careers of Doctorate Holders: Employment and Mobility Patterns (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2010/04; OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, Vol. 2010/04). https://doi.org/10.1787/5kmh8phxvvf5-en

4. Babb, S. J., Rufino, K. A., & Johnson, R. M. (2022). Assessing the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Nontraditional Students' Mental Health and Well-Being. Adult Education Quarterly, 72(2), 140-157. https://doi.org/10.1177/07417136211027508

5. Bair, C. R., & Haworth, J. G. (2005). Doctoral Student Attrition and Persistence: A Meta-Synthesis of Research. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. 19, pp. 481-534). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2456-8 11

6. Bao, Y., Kehm, B. M., & Ma, Y. (2018). From product to process. The reform of doctoral education in Europe and China. Studies in Higher Education, 43(3), 524-541. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1182481

7. Baxter, A., & Hatt, S. (1999). Old and Young Mature Students. Painting a Fuller Picture. Journal of Access and Credit Studies, 1(2), 137-148.

8. Bekova, S. (2021). Does employment during doctoral training reduce the PhD completion rate? Studies in Higher Education, 46(6), 1068-1080. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1672648

9. Bendix Petersen, E. (2014). Re-signifying subjectivity? A narrative exploration of 'non-traditional' doctoral students' lived experience of subject formation through two Australian cases. Studies in Higher Education, 39(5), 823-834. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.745337

10. Burmeister, J., McSpadden, E., Rakowski, J., Nalichowski, A., Yudelev, M., & Snyder, M. (2014). Correlation of admissions statistics to graduate student success in medical physics. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 15(1), 375-385. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i 1.4451

11. Cardoso, S., Santos, S., Diogo, S., Soares, D., & Carvalho, T. (2022). The transformation of doctoral education: A systematic literature review. Higher Education, 84(4), 885-908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00805-5

12. Cornwall, J., Mayland, E. C., Van Der Meer, J., Spronken-Smith, R. A., Tustin, C., & Blyth, P. (2019). Stressors in early-stage doctoral students. Studies in Continuing Education, 41(3), 363-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2018.1534821

13. Cunningham-Williams, R. M., Wideman, E. S., Fields, L., & Jones, B. D. (2018). Research Productivity of Social Work PhD Candidates Entering the Academic Job Market: An Analysis of Pre- and Postadmission Productivity Indicators. Journal of Social Work Education, 54(4), 776-791. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2018.1503126

14. Enders, J. (2004). Research training and careers in transition: A European perspective on the many faces of the Ph.D. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(3), 419-429. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037042000265935

15. Francis, A. M., Klein, L. B., Thomas, S. H., Kainz, K., & Blank Wilson, A. (2021). Holistic Admissions and Racial/Ethnic Diversity: A Systematic Review and Implications for Social Work Doctoral Education. Journal of Social Work Education, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2021.1895927

16. Gokhberg, L., Shmatko, N., & Auriol, L. (2016). Rethinking the Doctoral Degrees in the Changing Labor Market Context. In L. Gokhberg, N. Shmatko, & L. Auriol (Eds.), The Science and Technology Labor Force (pp. 1-7). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3 -319-27210-8 1

17. Gonzales, L. D. (2014). Framing Faculty Agency inside Striving Universities: An Application of Bourdieu's Theory of Practice. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(2), 193218. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2014.11777324

18. Gopaul, B. (2011). Distinction in Doctoral Education: Using Bourdieu's Tools to Assess the Socialization of Doctoral Students. Equity & Excellence in Education, 44(1), 1021. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2011.539468

19. Gopaul, B. (2015). Inequality and doctoral education: Exploring the "rules" of doctoral study through Bourdieu's notion of field. Higher Education, 70(1), 73-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s 10734-014-9824-z

20. Gopaul, B. (2016). Applying cultural capital and field to doctoral student socialization. International Journalfor Researcher Development, 7(1), 46-62. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRD-03-2015-0009

21. Graham, C., & Massyn, L. (2019). Interaction Equivalency Theorem: Towards Interaction Support of Non-Traditional Doctoral Students. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 14, 187-216. https://doi.org/10.28945/4238

22. Hasgall, A., Saenen, B., Borrell-Damian, L., Van Deynze, F., Seeber, M., & Huisman, J. (2019). Doctoral education in Europe today: Approaches and institutional structures. EUA-CDE.

23. Hill, L. H., & Conceiçâo, S. C. O. (2020). Program and Instructional Strategies Supportive of Doctoral Students' Degree Completion. Adult Learning, 31(1), 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159519887529

24. Hillebrand, H., & Leysinger, C. (2023). LERU's view on holistic doctoral supervision. League of European Research Universities.

25. Jablonski, A. M. (2001). Doctoral Studies as Professional Development of Educators in the United States. European Journal of Teacher Education, 24(2), 215-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760120095606

26. Katchanov, Y. L., Markova, Y. V., & Shmatko, N. A. (2016). How physics works: Scientific capital in the space of physics institutions. Scientometrics, 108(2), 875-893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2005-3

27. Kehm, B. M. (2020). Reforms of Doctoral Education in Europe and Diversification of Types. In S. Cardoso, O. Tavares, C. Sin, & T. Carvalho (Eds.), Structural and Institutional Transformations in Doctoral Education (pp. 85-104). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38046-5 4

28. Kent, J., & McCarthy, M. (2016). Holistic Review in Graduate Admissions: A Report from the Council of Graduate Schools. Council of Graduate Schools.

29. Kumar, V., & Wald, N. (Eds.). (2024). Global Perspectives on Enhancing Doctoral Co-Supervision. Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-0460-6

30. Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2001). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Record Examinations: Implications for graduate student selection and performance. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 162-181. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.L162

31. Lachmann, D., Martius, T., Eberle, J., Landmann, M., Von Kotzebue, L., Neuhaus, B., & Herzig, S. (2020). Regulations and practices of structured doctoral education in the life sciences in Germany. PLOS ONE, 15(7), e0233415. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233415

32. Langrehr, K. J., Phillips, J. C., Melville, A., & Eum, K. (2015). Determinants of Nontraditional Student Status: A Methodological Review of the Research. Journal of College Student Development, 56(8), 876-881. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2015.0090

33. Laurance, W. F., Useche, D. C., Laurance, S. G., & Bradshaw, C. J. A. (2013). Predicting Publication Success for Biologists. BioScience, 63(10), 817-823. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.10.9

34. MacDonald, K. (2018). A Review of the Literature: The Needs of Nontraditional Students in Postsecondary Education. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly, 5(4), 159164. https://doi.org/10.1002/sem3.20115

35. Maloshonok, N. G. (2016). Doctoral Students' Reasons to Pursue a PhD as a Cause of Low Completion Rate of Russian PhD Programs. Higher Education in Russia and Beyond, 3(9), 18-20.

36. Maloshonok, N., & Terentev, E. (2019). National barriers to the completion of doctoral programs at Russian universities. Higher Education, 77(2), 195-211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s 10734-018-0267-9

37. Mosyjowski, E. A., & Daly, S. R. (2020). Investigating the ways prior experience informs the research approaches of returning and direct-pathway students in engineering PhD

programs. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 11 (2), 197-213. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-08-2019-0072

38. Mosyjowski, E. A., Daly, S. R., Peters, D. L., Skerlos, S. J., & Baker, A. B. (2017). Engineering PhD Returners and Direct-Pathway Students: Comparing Expectancy, Value, and Cost. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(4), 639-676. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20182

39. Murray, J., Daly, S., Mosyjowski, E., & Peters, D. (2017). Practitioner Experience Meets Graduate Academic Research: How Intersections Guide the Work of Returning Engineering Ph.D. Students. 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, 28749. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--28749

40. Naidoo, D. (2015). Understanding non-traditional PhD students habitus - implications for PhD programmes. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(3), 340-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1017457

41. Nerad, M. (2011). What We Know about the Dramatic Increase in PhD Degrees and the Reform of Doctoral Education Worldwide: Implications for South Africa. Perspectives in Education, 29(3), Article 3.

42. Offerman, M. (2011). Profile of the nontraditional doctoral degree student. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2011(129), 21-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.397

43. O'Shea, S., & Stone, C. (2011). Transformations and self-discovery: Mature-age women's reflections on returning to university study. Studies in Continuing Education, 33(3), 273-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2011.565046

44. Peters, D., Goldstein, M., & Lax, J. (2017). From Industry to Graduate School: How Returners (Re)Learn How to Write. 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, 28391. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--28391

45. Peters, D. L., & Daly, S. R. (2013). Returning to Graduate School: Expectations of Success, Values of the Degree, and Managing the Costs. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(2), 244-268. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20012

46. Pinheiro, D., Melkers, J., & Youtie, J. (2014). Learning to play the game: Student publishing as an indicator of future scholarly success. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81, 56-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.09.008

47. Powell, W. W., & Snellman, K. (2004). The Knowledge Economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), 199-220. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100037

48. Robertson, M. J. (2017). Team modes and power: Supervision of doctoral students. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 358-371. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1208157

49. Shin, J. C., Kehm, B. M., & Jones, G. A. (2018). The Increasing Importance, Growth, and Evolution of Doctoral Education. In J. C. Shin, B. M. Kehm, & G. A. Jones (Eds.), Doctoral Education for the Knowledge Society (pp. 1-10). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89713-4 1

50. Skakni, I. (2018). Reasons, motives and motivations for completing a PhD: A typology of doctoral studies as a quest. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 9(2), 197-212. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-D-18-00004

51. Stock, W. A., & Siegfried, J. J. (2015). The Undergraduate Origins of PhD Economists Revisited. The Journal of Economic Education, 46(2), 150-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2015.1015187

52. Sverdlik, A., C. Hall, N., McAlpine, L., & Hubbard, K. (2018). The PhD Experience: A Review of the Factors Influencing Doctoral Students' Completion, Achievement, and Well-Being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 361-388. https://doi.org/10.28945/4113

53. Terentev, E., & Kuznetsov, P. (2024). Russia. In V. Kumar & N. Wald (Eds.), Global Perspectives on Enhancing Doctoral Co-Supervision (pp. 75-86). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-0460-6 8

54. Thomson, P. (2008). Field. In Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts (pp. 67-81). Acumen.

55. Watts, J. H. (2010). Team supervision of the doctorate: Managing roles, relationships and contradictions. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(3), 335-339. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562511003740908

56. Wyatt, L. G. (2011). Nontraditional Student Engagement: Increasing Adult Student Success and Retention. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(1), 10-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2011.544977

57. Бедный, Б. И. (2017). Новая модель аспирантуры: pro et contra. Высшее образование в России, 4(211), 5-16.

58. Бедный, Б. И., Миронос, А. А. (2008). Подготовка научных кадров в высшей школе. Состояние и тенденции развития аспирантуры. Издательство ННГУ.

59. Бедный, Б. И., Рыбаков, Н. В., & Ходеева, Н. А. (2021). Практико-ориентированные аспирантские программы и профессиональные степени: анализ зарубежного опыта. Университетское управление: практика и анализ, 25(3), 70-81.

60. Бекова, С. К., Груздев, И. А., Джафарова, З. И., Малошонок, Н. Г., & Терентьев, Е. А. (2017). Портрет современного российского аспиранта (7(15); Современная Аналитика Образования, p. 60). НИУ ВШЭ.

61. Бурдье, П. (2005). Социальное пространство: поля и практики. Институт экспериментальной социологии; Алетейя.

62. Бурдье, П. (2007). Социология социального пространства. Институт экспериментальной социологии; Алетейя.

63. Вершинин, И. В. (2015). Развитие аспирантуры в России: решения в области повышения адресности отбора поступающих по программам подготовки кадров высшей квалификации. Наука. Инновации. Образование, 18, 61-72.

64. Власова, В. В., Гохберг, Л. М., & Дитковский, К. А. (2023). Индикаторы науки: 2023. Статистический сборник. НИУ ВШЭ.

65. Груздев, И. А., & Терентьев, Е. А. (2017). Данные против мифов: результаты социологического исследования аспирантов ведущих вузов. Высшее образование в России, 7(214), 89-97.

66. Жучкова, С. В. & Бекова, С. К. (2023). Аспирантура не для всех? Как за время вузовских реформ аспирантура сконцентрировалась в ведущих вузах. Вопросы образования /Educational Studies Moscow, 1, 109-125. https://doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2023-1-109-125

67. Жучкова, С. В., & Павлюк, Д. М. (2024). Аспирантура в приоритете? С Совершенствование аспирантуры как элемент программ развития вузов «Приоритета-2030». Университетское управление: практика и анализ, 28(1), 21-33. http://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2024.01.002

68. Караваева, Е. В., Маландин, В. В., Мосичева, И. А., & Телешова, И. Г. (2018). Аспирантура как уровень высшего образования: состояние, проблемы, возможные решения. Высшее образование в России, 27(11), 22-34.

69. Нефедова, А. И., & Дьяченко, Е. Л. (2019). Реформа аспирантуры в России в зеркале глобальных трендов. Мир России, 28(4), 92-111. https://doi.org/10.17323/1811-038X-2019-28-4-92-111

70. Рыбаков, Н. В. (2018). Современная модель российской аспирантуры: пилотное исследование первого выпуска. Высшее образование в России, 27(7), 86-95.

71. Сенашенко, В. С. (2016). Проблемы организации аспирантуры на основе ФГОС третьего уровня высшего образования. Высшее образование в России, 3(199), 33-43.

72. Слепых, В. И., & Рудаков В. Н. (2023). Опыт совмещения учебы и работы аспирантами и его роль в карьерных траекториях выпускников аспирантуры. Информационный бюллетень. НИУ ВШЭ.

73. Стронгин Р. Г., Бедный Б. И., Миронос А. А. (2009). Современная аспирантура: тенденции развития и проблемы качества подготовки научных кадров. Вестник Нижегородского университета им. Н. И. Лобачевского, 2, 11-16.

74. Терентьев, Е. А., Бекова, С. К., & Малошонок, Н. Г. (2018). Кризис российской аспирантуры: источники проблем и возможности их преодоления. Университетское управление: практика и анализ, 22(5), 54-66. https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2018.05.049

75. Шугаль, Н. Б., Сутырина, Т. А., & Озерова, О. К. (2022). Образовательные стратегии обучающихся: изменения за 20 лет. Информационный бюллетень. НИУ ВШЭ.

Приложение 1. Публикация "Non-linear path to a doctorate: a comparison of direct-and indirect-pathway doctoral students at Russian universities"

Аннотация: Worldwide, research reports increasing proportions of nontraditional doctoral students including those who return to a doctorate after a short or prolonged gap (indirect-pathway students (IPS)). However, studies lack knowledge about background, motivation, educational experience, and outcomes of IPS and differences between them and direct-pathway students (DPS) in regard to these characteristics. Our research aims to fill this gap using data from a survey of doctoral students at Russian universities (N = 5007). We compare three groups of students: DPS, interrupters (IPS with a less than 5-year gap), and returners (IPS with a longer gap). The analysis shows that returners stand out from the other two groups of students: they more frequently study part-time, have a full-time job, are married and have children, and enter doctoral programs with their own specific topic of dissertation. During their studying, returners less frequently interact with their supervisors and face a bigger amount of problems related to lack of academic skills, problems with knowledge of a foreign language, and family duties and the need to combine studying with work. At the same time, such students are more satisfied with their programs, develop more skills during their doctoral journeys, less often have difficulties with their supervisors or want to withdraw, and demonstrate a higher level of publication activity. We conclude that the master-apprentice model of doctoral education, elements of which are still highly widespread in Russia, could be more suitable for these students. Our findings raise questions about the necessity of doctoral programs' diversification.

Полная ссылка: Zhuchkova S., Terentev E. Non-linear path to a doctorate: a comparison of direct- and indirect-pathway doctoral students at Russian universities // Higher Education. 2024. Vol. 87. No. 6. P. 1729-1747. http://doi.org/10.1007/s 10734-023 -01087-9

Higher Education

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01087-9

\W

Check for updates

Non-linear path to a doctorate: a comparison of direct- and indirect-pathway doctoral students at Russian universities

Svetlana Zhuchkova1©- EvgeniyTerentev1©

Accepted: 21 July 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2023

Abstract

Worldwide, research reports increasing proportions of nontraditional doctoral students including those who return to a doctorate after a short or prolonged gap (indirect-pathway students (IPS)). However, studies lack knowledge about background, motivation, educational experience, and outcomes of IPS and differences between them and direct-pathway students (DPS) in regard to these characteristics. Our research aims to fill this gap using data from a survey of doctoral students at Russian universities (N = 5007). We compare three groups of students: DPS, interrupters (IPS with a less than 5-year gap), and returners (IPS with a longer gap). The analysis shows that returners stand out from the other two groups of students: they more frequently study part-time, have a full-time job, are married and have children, and enter doctoral programs with their own specific topic of dissertation. During their studying, returners less frequently interact with their supervisors and face a bigger amount of problems related to lack of academic skills, problems with knowledge of a foreign language, and family duties and the need to combine studying with work. At the same time, such students are more satisfied with their programs, develop more skills during their doctoral journeys, less often have difficulties with their supervisors or want to withdraw, and demonstrate a higher level of publication activity. We conclude that the master-apprentice model of doctoral education, elements of which are still highly widespread in Russia, could be more suitable for these students. Our findings raise questions about the necessity of doctoral programs' diversification.

Keywords Indirect-pathway doctoral students • Direct-pathway doctoral students • Transformations of doctoral education • Motivation of doctoral students • Doctoral students' experience • Nontraditional doctoral students

* Svetlana Zhuchkova [e-mail]

Evgeniy Terentev [e-mail]

1 Center for Sociology of Higher Education, HSE University, Moscow, Russia Published online: 31 July 2023

Introduction

Doctoral education experienced dramatic transformations across the globe in the last 30 years. Among the most prominent trends were massification and internationalization of doctoral education, supported by the increased need for highly skilled workers and innovations both inside and outside academia (Kehm, 2007; Nerad, 2011). These processes resulted in substantial changes of doctoral programs in different aspects including the curriculum, governance models, and supervision (Nerad, 2011).

One of the most evident consequences of these changes was the diversification of the doctoral student body. Studies in different national contexts show the increase in the number of students who were traditionally underrepresented in the higher education systems (nontraditional students): females, first-generation students, students from low-income groups and ethnical minorities, etc. (MacDonald, 2018; Remenick, 2019). One important group of nontraditional students is those who had a gap between the completion of previous level of higher education and enrollment in a doctoral program. In this paper, this group of students is referred to as indirect-pathway students (IPS). While research shows that this group makes up a big proportion of doctoral students (Nerad, 2011; Offerman, 2011), there are very few studies focused on their specifics regarding the motivation to enter a doctorate, their educational experience, and outcomes. At the same time, this knowledge is very important for designing higher quality programs that will better fit demands of different groups of doctoral students.

This paper fills this gap and makes a contribution to global discussions on the changing landscape of doctoral programs focusing on the differences between direct-pathway students (DPS) and IPS. The novelty of this study is twofold. First, this is the first study of IPS in Russia. The Russian system of doctoral education could be interesting for the international audience since it is among the ten largest systems of doctoral education in the world by the number of graduates (OECD, 2019), and its analysis is important for receiving the global view on transformations of doctoral education worldwide. The Russian case is also important in the context of global discussion around the shift from the master-apprentice model to the structured model of doctoral education (Kehm, 2007). Mixing features of both models (Maloshonok & Terentev, 2019), the Russian case enables us to discuss advantages and disadvantages of both of them, which expands the potential audience. Second, unlike a few previous studies of IPS focused on specific research areas (Mosyjowski et al., 2017; Mosyjowski & Daly, 2020; Murray et al., 2017; Peters et al., 2017; Peters & Daly, 2013) or aspects of this phenomenon (for example, motivation — Kowalczuk-Wal^dziak et al., 2017; Sok Kuan Fung et al., 2017), our study sets out to present a comprehensive picture of such students in terms of their characteristics, motivation, educational experience, and outcomes.

This study answers the following research questions:

(1) What is a typical profile of IPS at Russian doctoral programs regarding their previous experience and individual characteristics?

(2) What are the differences in motivation to enroll in doctoral programs between DPS and IPS?

(3) What are the differences in educational experience, outcomes, and satisfaction with doctoral programs between DPS and IPS?

To answer these questions, we used data from a survey of doctoral students at Russian universities conducted in 2021 on behalf of the Russian Ministry of Science and Higher Education (RMSHE). Overall, 5007 doctoral students from 248 universities participated in the survey, which represents 6% out of all doctoral students who study at universities in Russia. The questionnaire covered a broad range of questions related to motivation for embarking on a doctoral program, career plans and expectations, and satisfaction with different aspects of educational experience.

The structure of the paper is the following: (1) first, we present a brief literature review focused on the experience of the group of nontraditional students, which includes IPS; (2) second, we describe the Russian system of doctoral education; (3) third, we give the extended description of the data used in the study; (4) fourth, we present main empirical findings of the study; and (5) fifth, we finish with conclusions and discussion on the main findings.

IPS and their educational experience: a literature review

In the academic literature, IPS are rarely studied as a separate group and are usually considered as a part of the wider group of nontraditional students. Although there is no strict definition of the nontraditional student (Bean & Metzner, 1985), one can be described in opposition to a traditional student who is a white male young-age student joining a program right after the completion of previous education (Offerman, 2011). In contrast, most of the nontraditional students are women; they are older than traditional students (ibid). Typically, besides the gap before education, such students also share one or several of the following characteristics: part-time studying, full-time job, financial independence, presence of marriage, children or other dependents, and some other (Graham & Massyn, 2019). Because of the diversity of this group, some authors propose more detailed classifications of nontraditional students (see, for instance, Meuleman et al., 2015). In relation to the delayed enrollment, researchers identify such subgroups as "interrupters" and "returners" depending on the length of the gap after a previous level of education with a smaller gap (less than 5 years) corresponding to the "interrupters" category (Baxter & Hatt, 1999; O'Shea & Stone, 2011).

Bourdieu's notions of fields, capitals, and habitus frequently become a theoretical foundation for studying nontraditional students on different educational levels as these concepts explain how various backgrounds can shape academic aims, experience, and success (e.g., Nori et al., 2020; Meuleman et al., 2015; Wong, 2018). Likewise, the broader life and work experience (i.e., specific capitals and habitus) may affect a doctoral journey of nontraditional students in many ways. Research shows that nontraditional students differ from their traditional counterparts in regard to motivation for doctoral education, specifics of interaction with peers and faculty, results they obtain and barriers they face during studying, and the ways they deal with the latter. A brief description of the key differences in these aspects identified in previous research is presented below.

Discussing the reasons why nontraditional students pursue a doctorate, Offerman, (2011) posits that these students are not likely to consider doctorate a path to a full-time faculty member position since they already build a career outside academia. Instead, they embark on a doctoral program to enhance their career and somehow apply knowledge or skills to their work (Jablonski, 2001; Offerman, 2011; Skakni, 2018). Kowalczuk-Walçdziak et al., (2017) show how practicing teachers decide to get a degree because they

are "interested in a more scientific approach to dealing with their students' learning problems" (p. 343). In STEM fields, such as Engineering, returners with a background in industry have the opportunity to transfer their research into practice more directly and immediately than DPS due to their social networks and professional experience (Peters & Daly, 2013). Because of the purpose to evolve professionally, such students also more frequently prefer to study at programs of professional doctorates rather than research ones (Offerman, 2011; Wellington & Sikes, 2006). However, getting a degree is sometimes not actually a personal choice of IPS but a result of pressure at their work where the degree is mandatory (Sok Kuan Fung et al., 2017). Besides the work requirements, the decision to pursue a doctorate may be made because of various reasons related to family. One of such reasons that distinguish IPS is a desire to provide a role model for children and demonstrate the importance of lifelong learning (ibid.). For women, getting a degree may be delayed because of raising children who were born during or after the completion of previous education (O'Shea & Stone, 2011).

Previous research provides contradictory results in regard to the specificity of the interaction between nontraditional students and supervisors, faculty staff, or peers. On the one hand, adult learners come to classes unprepared less frequently and demonstrate a higher level of engagement in in-class discussions that can be explained by their richer life experience and a desire to apply it to their education (Wyatt, 2011). On the other hand, they are more autonomous, require fewer sources of academic support, and cope better with social isolation (Babb et al., 2022). They usually interact with supervisors in an intermittent manner and search for more flexible programs (Offerman, 2011). Studies of undergraduate non-traditional students reveal that academic, rather than social, reasons to attend college are paramount for such students and external factors affect the risk of attrition for such students more than the level of social integration (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Offerman, 2011), which is relevant for traditional undergraduates (Tinto, 1987).

Indeed, the external environment is a major source of concerns for IPS. In addition to experiencing academic difficulties, such students also have to balance between their education, research, work, and family responsibilities (Cornwall et al., 2019; MacDonald, 2018). Additionally, the very decision to return to education is accompanied by high level of stress, pressure, and risks for nontraditional students because they need to fit unfamiliar learning environment (Christie et al., 2008), be prepared to use modern technologies (Cherrstrom et al., 2019), and deal with a probable negative experience of previous education (Brine & Walle, 2004). However, although nontraditional students demonstrate a higher level of anxiety and life stress, they are also more psychologically prepared to deal with various obstacles due to the increased resilience associated with age and saturated life experience (Chung et al., 2017). Nevertheless, studies report higher attrition rates for nontraditional doctoral students in comparison with their traditional counterparts (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Cotton et al., 2014; Graham & Massyn, 2019).

It is important to point out that the nontraditional student is a general term that originated from the studies of undergraduates and is currently used in research of different contexts and levels of education. However, the majority of current empirical works devoted to nontraditional doctoral students represent only case studies of particular fields, mostly Engineering (Mosyjowski et al., 2017; Mosyjowski & Daly, 2020; Murray et al., 2017; Peters et al., 2017; Peters & Daly, 2013), conducted by means of the qualitative research design (Bendix Petersen, 2014; Naidoo, 2015). In line with other researchers (Graham & Massyn, 2019; Offerman, 2011), we agree that such design cannot cover the whole diversity of this group of students and the high-scale quantitative research is needed as many specific features and needs of such students are yet to be examined, especially at the

doctoral level. Taking into account the high diversity of nontraditional doctoral students and trying to deepen our analysis, in this research, we focus only on one specific characteristic of this group—presence of a gap before the doctoral program—and therefore prefer to use the terms DPS and IPS.

National context of doctoral education in Russia: brief overview

The Russian system of doctoral education has undergone a number of transformations in the last 30 years, which impacted the institutional landscape of doctoral programs and the structure of the doctoral student body (Maloshonok & Terentev, 2019). Two different periods of its development after the collapse of the Soviet Union could be distinguished. The first period (from 1993 to 2010) is characterized by the dramatic increase in the number of doctoral students, which had almost tripled (from 62,317 in 1995 to 157,437 doctoral students in 2010). Among the main drivers for such massification was the request for highly skilled workers for intensive social and economic development during the transition to market-driven economy (Strongin et al., 2009). During this period, the massification happened mostly thanks to the increase in the number of DPS (Bednyi & Mironos, 2008). There were no significant changes in the general framework of doctoral education in this period. The Soviet master-apprentice model with low educational workload and focus on communication with a single supervisor was preserved (Maloshonok & Terentev, 2019).

Contrary to the first period, the second one (from 2010) is characterized by the decrease in the number of doctoral students with the minimum of 84,265 in 2019. This was mainly a result of government policy oriented toward increasing the quality of doctoral programs and dissertations, which implied decreasing the number of organizations eligible to award doctoral degrees and strengthening the requirements for doctoral candidates (Guba et al., 2020). This period is also associated with the experimentations with the framework of doctoral education. In 2012, in order to harmonize the Russian system of doctoral education with the European approaches according to the Bologna process and to increase the quality of doctoral education, the RMSHE changed the status of doctoral education to the third level of higher education (instead of the professional training).1 This implied the transformations in the content and organization of doctoral programs with the increase of educational workload as the most visible one (Maloshonok & Terentev, 2019).

The second period was accompanied by significant changes in the structure of the doctoral student body. The most sustainable trend during this period is related to the increase in the doctoral students' average age. In 2021, 90,156 doctoral students studied at Russian universities and research institutes, out of which 29% were aged 30 or more, while in 2011, this share was 15%.2 This could be the evidence for the increase in the number of IPS in Russia. However, we should be careful with this interpretation since there is no statistics about the actual pathways of doctoral students and the increase in the average age could be related to other factors (with the increase in the length of secondary and tertiary education as the main ones).

There are also several specific characteristics of the current system of doctoral education in Russia, which should be noted to understand the further results better. First, Russia

1 To see the document: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_140174/.

2 See statistics of the Federal State Statistics Service: https://rosstat.gov.ru/statistics/education (in Russian).

still preserves the two-tier model of academic degrees introduced in the Soviet period with the "Candidate of Sciences" degree as the lower tier and the "Doctor of Sciences" degree as the higher tier. Obtaining the "Doctor of Sciences" degree is important for the academic promotion: those who want to hold professor positions should be awarded this degree. Usually, there is no special training system for those who want to be awarded the "Doctor of Sciences" degree. They only need to perform the qualification requirements related to a certain number of research papers and defense a thesis. Since in this paper we are interested in the analysis of motivations and expectations from the training programs, further in the paper, we will not include those who are on the track to the "Doctor of Sciences" degree to the doctoral student category and focus only on those who are on the track to the "Candidate of Sciences" degree.

Second, there are two different options to obtain the "Candidate of Science" degree. First option is related to the completion of the doctoral program and going through the examination procedures, including the qualification exams and thesis defense. Second option, which is named "Soiskatelstvo," does not imply the completion of the training program and includes only the completion of qualification exams and thesis defense. This option is usually relevant to those who already hold an academic position (teaching or research), published academic papers, and wrote a thesis required for the defense. Since "Soiskatelstvo" does not imply the training program, further in the text, we will not include those who are on this track in the doctoral student category.

Third, there are three types of organizations which have the right to award academic degrees in Russia—universities, research institutes, and organizations of continuing professional education. In 2021, about 87% of doctoral students studied at universities. While the requirements to the content and structure of doctoral programs are unified, there could be some specifics of their implementation in different types of organizations (to see more: Nefedova & Dyachenko, 2019). In this paper, we focus only on those doctoral students who study at universities due to the specifics of the empirical data which were collected only in universities (according to the goals of the study).

Data and methods

Empirical base for the analysis was the data from a nationwide survey of doctoral students at Russian universities, which was conducted in May-June 2021 as a part of the research project "Scientific and methodological support for the development of quality management system for higher education in Russia under the conditions of COVID-19 pandemic and after it".3 The project was initiated by the RMSHE. The goal of the project was to identify main challenges faced by the Russian higher education system during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Survey was conducted in an online mode. Targeted sample was all doctoral students who study at Russian universities.4 To access respondents, organizers used letters of support from RMSHE, which were delivered to all Russian universities via the electronic system of RMSHE. The recruitment of respondents was organized via email sending and placement of links to the survey on the individual accounts of doctoral students in university

3 See more about the project: https://high-edu-quality.ru/research_project (in Russian).

4 Doctoral students who study at research institutes were not included into the sample.

Gender

Area of research

Male Female

48

52

Year of study

Engineering and Technical Sciences Math and Earth Sciences Humanities Medicine Social Sciences Education Agriculture Other Mode of study

21

16

16

14

Russian students 91 Full-time 81

Foreign students 9 Part-time 19

Form of financing Type of pathway to a doctorate

Tuition-free 71 Direct-pathway students 71

Tuition-based 26 Interrupters 15

Returners

14

Fig. 1 Main characteristics of the sample (N=5007) (%)

learning management systems. Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous. The informed consent was integrated into the first screen of the survey. Respondents were asked to tick the box if they agreed to provide the information about their educational experience in an anonymized way for the research goals.

More than 5000 doctoral students from 248 universities participated in the survey, which represents almost 6% out of all doctoral students who study at Russian universities. Almost half out of all universities which have doctoral programs are presented in the sample (248 out of 565). There are 23 universities with the special status in the sample: 7 federal universities (out of 10), 13 national research universities (out of 28), and 13 universities which participated in the academic excellence program "5-100" (out of 21). The total number of students from these universities in the sample is 1496 (30% out of the sample). The structure of the sample does not differ significantly from the structure of the doctoral student body in Russian universities in general (differences do not exceed 5-7 percentage points) depending on all main characteristics such as gender, area of research, mode of study,5 and form of financing.6 Unfortunately, we have no official statistics about the structure of doctoral students' body depending on the year of study, but we could hypothesize

5 There are two modes of study available to doctoral students: (1) full-time and (2) part-time. These modes differ by the length of the study (3-4 years depending on the area of research for the full-time programs, and 4-5 years respectively for the part-time programs) and volume of the class workload. Part-time mode also does not allow doctoral students to receive the social bonuses provided by the full-time mode such as government scholarship, place in the student dormitory, and a draft deferment.

6 There are three forms of financing available to doctoral students: (1) tuition-free, (2) tuition-based, and (3) covered by employer. In the first case, funding for studying at doctoral programs is provided for students by government; in the second case, students pay for their doctoral education themselves; in the third case, some company covers costs for education. Usually, the latter option requires from students to work for the company for several years after finishing the program.

that first-year students are overrepresented in our study. The share of IPS in the obtained sample is 29%. Main characteristics of the sample are presented at Fig. 1.

To identify IPS, we used the question about the presence/absence of a gap between the completion of previous educational level and enrollment in a doctoral program ("Have you had a gap for at least a year after the completion of your specialist or master program?"). In line with previous research (Baxter & Hatt, 1999; O'Shea & Stone, 2011), those students that have a gap less than 5 years were referred to as "interrupters," whereas students with a gap of 5 years and more were referred to as "returners" (both groups are considered IPS). In our sample, the highest proportion of IPS is observed in Education (29% of students in this field are returners and 15% are interrupters; Fig. 2) and the lowest—in Engineering and Technical Sciences (9% and 11%, respectively).

Differences between three groups of students (DPS, interrupters, and returners) were tested using methods of bivariate analysis. In most cases, we employed chi-square tests because a variable of interest was nominal (e.g., a reason to pursue a doctorate). If significant differences were found, then we examined standardized residuals to identify specific groups of students that differed from each other. In those cases where the variable of interest was ordinal (e.g., the extent to which a student agreed with some statement), we used the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis analysis with the consequent set of the post hoc pair-wise Mann-Whitney tests to identify differing groups.

Results

According to the proposed research questions, we split the presentation of results into three main sections. In the first section, we present the profiles of IPS according to their educational background and personal characteristics, as well as comparison of these students and DPS regarding these aspects. The second section is devoted to the comparison of motivation for embarkment on a doctoral journey between IPS and DPS. In the third section, we present the comparison of educational experience at doctoral programs and its evaluation by these groups of students.

71 15 14

56 15 29

64 17 19

64 18 18

72 15 12

All sample Education Social Sciences Humanities Agriculture Medicine Math and Earth Sciences Engineering and Technical Sciences

Other 74 14

■ DPS Interrupters Returners Fig. 2 Distribution of DPS, interrupters, and returners across disciplines (%)

76

79

14

15

11 10 9 12

Profile characteristic

DPS Interrupters Returners All sample /2

Mode of study

Full-time 87 1 76 57 81 370.3***

Part-time 13 24 43 1 19

Form of financing

Tuition-free 76 1 67 53 71

Tuition-based 22 30 43 ■ 26 170.2***

Covered by employer 2 3 4 3

Gender _

Male 52 42 33 48 96.8***

Female H8 58 52

Married Not married

Marital status 36 53

64 47

70

30

43 57

303.8***

Presence of underage children

No Yes 84 69 39 76 665.2***

16 31 61 24

Employed (full-time or part-time) No 10 10 4

Yes

9

90

90

96

91

24.0***

Employed (full-time) No 34 26 18

Yes

30

74

70

9***

Studied in the same university before

No 16 28 46 ■ 23 344.5***

Yes 84 72 54 ■ 77

Decided to get a degree before graduation from previous program

No 34 62 ■ 73 43 422.3***

Yes 66 38 27 57

***p< 0.001, **p<0.01, *p < 0.05

Fig. 3 Comparison of profile characteristics (%)

A profile and background of IPS

IPS account for 29% of our sample, half of which are interrupters and half of which are returners (Fig. 2). A fifth (24%) of interrupters and 43% of returners are part-time students, whereas in the DPS group, part-time students comprise only 13% (all differences described in this subsection are statistically significant; see Fig. 3 for the results

Skill DPS Interrupters Returners All sample /2

Preparation of papers and other academic texts 70 69 71 70 0.62

Data analysis 51 51 51 51 0.05

Research methodology and data collection 46 45 48 46 2.05

Foreign language 46 45 41 45 6.05*

Presentation of scientific results 42 42 40 42 0.62

Teaching 30 28 28 29 1.83

Time management 31 29 24 29 13.39***

Search for funding of research 27 ■ 23 13.61***

Information and communication technology ■ 23 « 24 8.28**

Professional communication 22 ■ 21 22 22 0.307

Project management ,8 I 17 ■ 18 1.74

Commercialization of scientific results ,6 12 13 11.03***

Career planning 14 1 14 10 13 7.67**

Team work - 1 12 » 1.70

Job search 10 1 10 * 21.06***

None of the above 3 3 2 3 0.184

***p< 0.001, **p<0.01, *p < 0.05

Fig. 4 Prevalence of skills perceived by students as needed to study at a doctoral program (%)

of statistical tests). In comparison to DPS, returners and interrupters are more likely to study with tuition-based form.

There are significantly more females among returning students (67%) than among interrupters (58%) and DPS (48%). Seventy percent of returners, more than a half (53%) of interrupters, and only 36% of DPS are married. More than a half (61%) of returners have underage children, while in both other groups, these proportions are lower: 31% of interrupters and 16% of DPS have underage children.

While more than 90% of students of all groups have either part-time or full-time job, it is more common for returners (82%) and interrupters (74%) than for DPS (66%) to have specifically full-time job. Many doctoral students have academic-related work either at or outside their universities, but the nature of this work varies for different groups. For DPS, it is more common to have a research position. Among those students who work at their universities, 43% of DPS, 34% of interrupters, and 23% of returners have such a position (x2 = 46.01, p = 0.000). For returners, it is more common to have a teaching position at their university: 70% of returners, 62% of interrupters, and 55% of DPS who work at their universities have a teaching position (x2 = 23.47, p = 0.000).

Fifty-three percent of returners previously studied at the universities where their current doctoral program is arranged, and this percentage is significantly lower than for interrupters (72%) and DPS (84%). Less than a half of IPS (27% of returners and 37% of interrupters) decided to get a doctoral degree while previously studying at university, whereas the rest of them made this decision after graduation and some work experience. For DPS, the share of those who decided to get a doctoral degree before graduation from the previous education constitutes 66%.

Reason DPS Interrupters Returners All sample /2

To receive a research degree 86 90 90 87 12.703***

To enhance my research skills 56 54 55 55 1.505

To continue research on a particular topic 45 42 40 44 9.162**

To enhance my teaching skills 41 40 42 41 0.424

To get a draft deferment « 0 » 220.771***

To receive a doctoral program diploma » ,0 » « 1.170

To live in a students dormitory « 2 0 59.991***

•**p< o.ooi. »*p<0.01, *p < 0.05

Note. Percentage of those students who want to get a draft deferment is estimated only for males.

Fig. 5 Prevalence of reasons to pursue a doctorate (%)

Also in regard to background, survey participants were asked what skills they lacked to successfully study at doctoral programs. All three groups of students felt the need to develop hard skills related to academic tasks such as preparation of papers and other academic texts, data analysis, and research methodology (Fig. 4). The differences are observed in relation to such skills as time management, search for funding of research, job search, and ICT skills, which were less relevant for returners, and commercialization of scientific results, which was less relevant for interrupters.

The following conclusions about the profiles of doctoral students can be drawn from this descriptive analysis of their personal characteristics and background. The group of returners, i.e., doctoral students with a prolonged gap (5 + years), stands out from others in relation to many examined characteristics. This group of students has to balance between several competing spheres: studying, family, and work. When entering a doctoral program, they demonstrate little interest in developing soft skills that are now frequently offered by doctoral education providers. These two factors should be taken into account when designing doctoral programs as they indicate the need for systems of targeted support and more focused curriculum for such students. We may also assume that returners, most of whom already have teaching positions at universities, decide to get a degree because of the requirements associated with this job. In Russia, university instructors are required to have a degree to have more advanced positions such as lecturers and professors. Thus, these students may perceive a degree as a way to break the ceiling they face and move forward in their career.

Motivation to study at a doctoral program

Although for all three groups of students receiving a research degree is reported as a main goal to enroll in a doctoral program (Fig. 5), IPS select this reason more frequently (90% for both interrupters and returners) than DPS (86%). IPS are less interested in continuing research on a particular topic in comparison with DPS. Additionally, the most striking differences between these groups are identified in regard to nonacademic goals. Returners never (and interrupters—less than in 5-10%) focus on social bonuses that the enrollment in Russian doctoral programs provides such as an opportunity to live in a dormitory or a draft

Option DPS Interrupters Returners All sample /?.

He/she became my supervisor during my studying at bachelor/specialist/master program 39 24 32 285.99*«*

He/she taught at my bachelor/specialist/master program, but was not a supervisor 20 |. - 31.58***

Before my enrollment, I worked with him/her on a research or applied project „ 16 » „ 17.43***

He/she became my supervisor only after my enrollment 1" » » 18 22.36***

My department suggested him/her as a supervisor during my enrollment » 1 22 20.09***

I contacted him/her on my own before enrollment, although I had not been personally acquainted with him/her before - „ J » 53.90***

"*p < 0.001, "p <0.01, -p <0.05

Fig. 6 Prevalence of the ways students find their supervisors (%)

deferment. In contrast, the latter bonus becomes a reason to pursue a doctorate for every third of male DPS.

Opposite to what is described in the literature (Offerman, 2011), IPS are strongly oriented toward work in academia. More than 90% of them (94% of returners and 92% of interrupters) would like to work in the academic field after program completion, mostly as teaching staff. Among DPS, this share is also quite high and comprises 88% (j2 = 23.13, p = 0.000).

Educational experience and outcomes at doctoral programs

In relation to experience during training, we examined the following aspects that may distinguish IPS from DPS and are frequently mentioned in previous research: interaction with a supervisor, challenges that students face during their doctoral journey, their performance, outcomes, and satisfaction with a program.

Interaction with a supervisor

In comparison with DPS and interrupters, returners are less likely to have previous educational experience with their supervisors. While the most prevalent way for Russian doctoral students to find their supervisors is to choose those who became their supervisors during their studying at previous programs, only 7% of returners selected this option in our survey (Fig. 6). Returners also less frequently rely on those supervisors who taught at their previous educational programs (11%). This pattern is rather expected—as we showed previously (see Fig. 3), returners usually did not study at the same universities before the doctorate. Instead, returners are more likely to work with their supervisors on a research or applied project before enrollment (24%). At the same time, a quarter of returners did not have any experience of interaction with their supervisors before entering a doctoral program: they either found and contacted their supervisors on their own before enrollment (23%) or their departments suggested supervisor candidates during their enrollment (22%). Among other two groups of students, the corresponding shares are significantly lower.

Function

DPS Interrupters Returners All sample

74

58

75

57

55

73

60

54

Recommends literature on the subject of the dissertation 75 74 75

Reads your project proposal and gives advice regarding it Comments on and discusses the text of publications Helps to choose journals for publications Helps to choose conferences Comments on and discusses the text of dissertation Edits the text of publications Gives advice concerning the methods of data analysis 44 41 39

Recommends experts for consultation 38 36 33

Edits the text of the dissertation 37 34 35

Helps in the organization of the field research 31 28 24

Recommends elective courses 24 24 22

Discusses the internship with you and recommends places for it 16 14 14

None of the above 2 2 2

75

74

58

57

43 H7 36 29 24

15

2

0.75 0.54 2.92 3.11 1.71

2.36 4.92 5.02 8.52* 2.74 12.82** 0.62 2.53

2.37

***p < 0.001, **p< 0.01, *p< 0.05 Fig. 7 Prevalence of the functions performed by supervisors (%)

Difficulties

DPS Interrupters Returners All sample

*2

The need to combine studying with work

Difficulties with the preparation and publication of papers devoted to my dissertation

Absence or lack of funding for my research

Lack of academic skills (research methodology, data analysis, academic writing, etc.)

Time management issues

Hard curriculum and strict academic requirements Problems with knowledge of a foreign language Family duties

Loss of interest in the topic of my dissertation research Health issues

Difficulties in interacting with a supervisor

66

70

65

56 54

24 23

66

46

38 33 23

13.38***

5.36

4.94

18.93***

4.4

2.89

21.77*** 41.92*** 67.0*** 1.17

20.29***

***p < 0.001, **p< 0.01, *p< 0.05 Fig. 8 Prevalence of challenges during a doctoral journey (%)

As expected, IPS are more autonomous in the preparation of a dissertation. Both interrupters and returners less frequently interact with their supervisors than DPS (H7 = 23.98, p = 0.000). While more than a half (52%) of DPS communicate with their supervisors one or several times a week, only 45-48% of interrupters and returners report the same frequency of communication. In general, functions that supervisors perform do not differ significantly between three groups. The only two exceptions are observed in a group of

Kruskal-Wallis H statistics.

7

returners who less often receive help from their supervisors in recommendation of experts for consultation and organization of the field research (Fig. 7).

Even though returners less frequently interact with their supervisors, they at the same time less frequently report that they have difficulties related to this interaction. Only 16% of returners indicated that they have such problems, whereas in the groups of interrupters and DPS, almost every fourth student reported this issue (Fig. 8).

Challenges during a doctoral journey

Challenges that students face during their studies are quite similar for all examined groups: they are mostly related to absence or lack of funding and difficulties with the preparation and publication of papers devoted to a dissertation (Fig. 8). However, returners suffer more from a lack of academic skills and problems with knowledge of a foreign language. As expected, for returners, these academic challenges are accompanied with family duties and the need to combine studying with work, which interrupters and DPS experience less often.

One of the most striking differences between the groups is observed in how students relate to the topics of their dissertations. Almost a half (41%) of DPS report that one of the challenges they face is a loss of interest in the topic of their dissertation (Fig. 8). In comparison, only 23% of returners indicated this problem. Analysis of the ways students choose topics of their research reveals that returners are more proactive at this aspect. They are less likely to agree that their topics are related to the work of their supervisors and departments (H = 60.91, p = 0.000) or that they continue the topics they previously researched (H = 263.04, p = 0.000). Instead, they tend to agree that their topics are their personal choice (H = 18.06, p = 0.000) and that they find a strong personal interest in it (H=45.23, p = 0.000). It is also more common for returners that their work outside of university is connected to their dissertation topic (H=51.88, p = 0.000). This fact may explain why the supervisors of such students less often help them with recommendations of experts and organizing field work. We may assume that returners already have the necessary access to the experts and the field since their research is based on their work outside the university.

Performance, satisfaction, and outcomes

Because our sample consists of current students, our data lack information about their actual performance and results in terms of program completion and dissertation defense. The only indicator of actual performance in our data is the presence of publications related to the dissertation topic. While all doctoral students demonstrate a rather high level of publication activity, returners excel at this aspect in comparison with other students. Around 80% of returners had their papers published or accepted in a previous year, whereas for interrupters and DPS, these shares are 74% and 76%, respectively (j2 = 6.75, p = 0.034).

Finally, returners are more satisfied with the quality of their doctoral education (H=48.48, p = 0.000), less frequently want to withdraw from their programs (H=43.39, p = 0.000), and find courses more helpful for them (H = 93.23, p = 0.000) than students of the other two groups. Previously, we mentioned that students from all groups indicated that they lack academic skills before enrollment in a doctoral program (Fig. 4). The results of our analysis show that specifically returners more often find that doctoral programs helped them to develop such skills as research methodology and data collection (H = 9.32, p = 0.009), preparation of papers and other academic texts (H = 13.4, p = 0.001), knowledge

of a foreign language (H = 11.09, p = 0.004), presentation of scientific results (H=7.71, p = 0.021), and time management (H = 7.69, p = 0.021).

Conclusion and discussion

This research aimed to present a comprehensive view on IPS and the differences between them and DPS at doctoral programs of Russian universities. As our data show, the group of IPS makes up almost a third of all doctoral students in Russia. The obtained findings contribute to the academic literature in several ways.

First, we present the profile of each group of students based on their personal characteristics, motivation to pursue a doctorate, educational experience, and outcomes, as well as satisfaction with their programs. In general, the revealed profile of IPS is quite consistent with the profile of nontraditional doctoral students obtained in previous studies conducted, primarily, in the US context (Cornwall et al., 2019; Hill & Conceigao, 2020; Offerman, 2011). However, our findings do not verify the fact that such students see a doctorate as something different than a path to a full-time academic position, as it was shown in some studies (Jablonski, 2001; Offerman, 2011). Instead, IPS in our study stronger than DPS focus on work in academia. We hypothesize that such a situation could be explained by the specifics of IPS' body at Russian universities. Contrary to other national contexts, where more diverse models of doctoral education are provided and IPS are represented mostly by those who work outside academia, among IPS in Russia, there is a large share of those who already hold the academic position. Russian IPS represent a very specific group of university instructors who decide to get a degree mostly because the requirements associated with this job do not allow them to move to higher positions and enhance their career. In Russia, getting a degree formally does not have such a crucial value for specialists who work in industry or business in comparison with research and educational organizations (e.g., see requirements associated with positions in academia most of which include the presence of a doctoral degree (Androushchak et al., 2013)). Our analysis confirms this assumption as we do not observe in our data such students who want to apply a degree to their professional practice related to industry or business. This result may indicate that the system of doctoral education in Russia is currently not suited for students with such motives. This finding actualizes the discussion of the need to introduce professional doctorates in Russia which do not exist at the moment (Bednyi et al., 2021). While there is some experience of providing professional programs in the sphere of business administration in several Russian universities, these programs have the status of additional professional training. Graduates of these programs receive diplomas with the qualification "Doctor of business administration" without awarding an academic degree. Main barriers for the implementation of professional doctoral programs are related to the absence of the normative recognition of such degrees equally with the traditional academic degrees, and the absence of standards for the implementation of such programs (ibid).

The contrast to what is described in the literature in relation to the preferable academic trajectory of nontraditional doctoral students once again demonstrates the heterogeneity of this group (Offerman, 2011; Remenick, 2019; Skakni, 2018; Wyatt, 2011). Besides that, the diversity is also evident from the fact that we identified differences at many aspects not only between IPS and DPS in general but also within the latter group, i.e., between returners and interrupters.

Second, the obtained results also provide evidence that the master-apprentice model of doctoral education, elements of which are still widespread in Russia, could be more suitable specifically for returners, i.e., students who return to a doctorate after a prolonged gap. Main distinctive features of this model are related to the very limited volume of structured class workload (restricted to the activities aimed at the development of hard academic skills in the area of specialization), dyadic supervision model (when a supervisor is seen as a main person responsible for the progress of a doctoral student), and focus of the training on the preparation to the career in universities or research institutes rather than broader R&D sphere (Maloshonok & Terentev, 2019). This model implies the highly autonomous mode of doctoral study when the responsibility for the overall success is strongly dependent on student-supervisor agreements with very little institutional supervision, as well as strong orientation toward the further academic career.

Although officially the Russian programs follow the structured model of doctoral education (Maloshonok & Terentev, 2019), in reality, they still share many characteristics of the traditional master-apprentice model. Namely, supervisors still remain the main figures in a doctoral journey producing high dependence of students on them (ibid.), practices of distributed support are rare and not normatively regulated (Zhuchkova et al., 2023), and the perception of doctoral education primarily as a path to academia is rather widespread among both students (Gruzdev & Terentev, 2017) and supervisors (Maloshonok, 2019). Apparently, returners—who (1) focus on work in academia and development of specifically academic skills and (2) need fewer sources of support and are able to act independently— thrive in these conditions. As our data show, such students are more satisfied with their programs, develop more skills during their doctoral journeys, less often have difficulties with their supervisors or want to withdraw, and demonstrate a higher level of publication activity. Returners are academically successful in spite of a bigger amount of stress sources, a greater lack of research skills, and an autonomous mode of work with supervisors. Thus, features of the Russian system of doctoral education that previously were criticized seem to provide some doctoral students with benefits and help them to excel. However, this conclusion needs to be additionally verified because data in our research do not include variables describing actual specifics of how programs of these doctoral students are organized. At the same time, these findings raise questions about the importance of diversification of doctoral programs and adjusting them to the needs of DPS, who comprise the majority of this population and demonstrate lower levels of satisfaction and academic success, as well as more frequently have problems in student-supervisor interaction. The recent reform8 introduced in Russia that allows organizations to be more flexible in balancing between research activity and educational courses at their doctoral programs may positively affect the educational experience of DPS as it may decrease their educational workload, which seems to be less helpful for this group of students, and provide more sources of academic support not limited to a supervisor only.

This study has several limitations. First, our data lack information about the experience that IPS could receive during their gap before doctoral education. Because of that, we can only speculate about the underlying mechanisms that help such students to thrive academically in rather tough conditions. Second, since our research was exploratory in nature, we employed only methods of bivariate analysis. This approach does not allow to simultaneously control several factors that potentially may neutralize some of the identified effects

8 See Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation №2122 (30.11.2021): https://base.garant.ru/ 403137971/(in Russian).

of belonging to the group of IPS. Third, we could encounter a survival bias in our study as expelled students were not included in our sample. It is probable that IPS may comprise a significant number of the expelled students, and expelled IPS may share characteristics different from those identified in our analysis. Finally, our data do not contain important indicators of actual doctoral outcomes such as program completion or successful defense of dissertation. While further longitudinal research, which traces experience of doctoral students from admission to completion or attrition, is needed to overcome these limitations, our study remains the only example of a full-scale quantitative study of nontradi-tional doctoral students in Russia.

Acknowledgements This article is an output of a research project implemented as part of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University).

Data availability The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Declarations

Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests.

References

Androushchak, G., Kuzminov, Y., & Yudkevich, M. (2013). Changing realities: Russian higher education and the academic profession. In: Altbach, P.G., Androushchak, G., Kuzminov, Y., Yudkevich, M., Reisberg, L. (eds) The global future of higher education and the academic profession. Palgrave Mac-millan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230369795_3 Babb, S., Rufino, K., & Johnson, R. (2022). Assessing the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Nontra-ditional Students' Mental Health and Well-Being. Adult Education Quarterly, 72(2), 140-157. https:// doi.org/10.n77/07417136211027508 Baxter, A., & Hatt, S. (1999). Old and young mature students. Painting a fuller picture. Journal of Access

and Credit ¡Studies, 1(2), 137-148. Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition.

Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 485-540. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543055004485 Bednyi, B. I., Bekova, S. K., Rybakov, N. V., Terentev, E. A., & Khodeeva, N. A. (2021). Professional'naya aspirantura: mezhdunarodnyi opyt i rossiiskii kontekst [Professional doctorates: International experience and Russian context]. Higher Education in Russia, 30(10), 9-21. https://doi.org/10.31992/ 0869-3617-2021-30-10-9-21 Bednyi, B., & Mironos, A. (2008). Podgotovka nauchnyh kadrov v vysshej shkole. Sostojanie i tendencii razvitija aspirantury: Monografija [Research Staff Training in Higher School. State and Tendencies of Doctoral Education Development: A Monograph]. Nizhny Novgorod publishing house. Bendix Petersen, E. (2014). Re-signifying subjectivity? A narrative exploration of 'non-traditional' doctoral students' lived experience of subject formation through two Australian cases. ¡Studies in Higher Education, 39(5), 823-834. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.745337 Brine, J., & Waller, R. (2004). Working-class women on an Access course: Risk, opportunity and (re)con-structing identities. Gender and Education, 16(1), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/095402503200017 0363

Cherrstrom, C. A., Robbins, S. E., Boden, C. J., & Bixby, J. (2019). Need tech? Nontraditional student perceptions of educational technology tools. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 67(2-3), 109-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2019.1680266 Christie, H., Tett, L., Cree, V. E., Hounsell, J., & McCune, V. (2008). 'A real rollercoaster of confidence and emotions': Learning to be a university student. ¡Studies in Higher Education, 33(5), 567-581. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03075070802373040 Chung, E., Turnbull, D., & Chur-Hansen, A. (2017). Differences in resilience between 'traditional' and 'non-traditional' university students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 77-87. https://doi. org/10.1177/1469787417693493

Cornwall, J., Mayland, E. C., van der Meer, J., Spronken-Smith, R. A., Tustin, C., & Blyth, P. (2019). Stressors in early-stage doctoral students. Studies in Continuing Education, 41(3), 363-380. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/0158037X.2018.1534821 Cotton, D. R., Nash, P., & Kneale, P. (2014). The Experience of Care Leavers in UK Higher Education.

Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 16(3), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.5456/WPLL.16.3.5 Graham, C., & Massyn, L. (2019). Interaction equivalency theorem: Towards interaction support of non-traditional doctoral students. International Journal of Doctoral ¡Studies, 14, 187-216. https://doi.org/ 10.28945/4238

Gruzdev, I. A., & Terentev, E. A. (2017). Dannye protiv mifov: Rezul'taty sotsiologicheskogo issledovaniya aspirantov vedushchikh vuzov [Data against myths: Evidence from the survey of PhD students in leading Russian universities]. Higher Education in Russia, 7, 89-97. Guba, K., Sokolov, M., & Sokolova, N. (2020). Dinamika dissertatsionnoi industrii v Rossii: 2005-2015 gg. Izmenil li novyi institutsional'nyi trafaret akademicheskoe povedenie? [The dynamics of dissertation industry in Russia, 2005-2015. Did new institutional templates change academic behavior?]. Journal of Economic Sociology, 21(3), 13-46. https://doi.org/10.17323/1726-3247-2020-3-13-46 Hill, L. H., & Conceigao, S. C. O. (2020). Program and instructional strategies supportive of doctoral students' degree completion. Adult Learning, 31(1), 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159519887529 Jablonski, A. M. (2001). Doctoral Studies as Professional Development of Educators in the United States. European Journal of Teacher Education, 24(2), 215-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760120095606 Kehm, B. M. (2007). Quo vadis doctoral education? New European approaches in the context of global changes. European Journal of Education, 42(3), 307-319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2007. 00308.x

Kowalczuk-Wal^dziak, M., Lopes, A., Menezes, I., & Tormenta, N. (2017). Teachers pursuing a doctoral degree: Motivations and perceived impact. Educational Research, 59(3), 335-352. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00131881.2017.1345287 MacDonald, K. (2018). A review of the literature: The needs of nontraditional students in postsecondary education. ¡Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly, 5(4), 159-164. https://doi.org/10.1002/sem3. 20115

Maloshonok, N. G. (2019). "Student" ili "molodoi uchenyi": mneniya nauchnykh rukovoditelei o predpochtitel'noi modeli aspirantskoi podgotovki v rossiiskikh universitetakh ["Student" or "young researcher": Opinions of academic supervisors on a desired model of Russian postgraduate training].

Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, 4, 278-303. https://doi.org/10.14515/ monitoring.2019.4.14

Maloshonok, N., & Terentev, E. (2019). National barriers to the completion of doctoral programs at Russian

universities. Higher Education, 77(2), 195-211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0267-9 Meuleman, A.-M., Garrett, R., Wrench, A., & King, S. (2015). 'Some people might say I'm thriving but ... ': Non-traditional students' experiences of university. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(5), 503-517. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.945973 Mosyjowski, E. A., & Daly, S. R. (2020). Investigating the ways prior experience informs the research approaches of returning and direct-pathway students in engineering PhD programs. ¡Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 11(2), 197-213. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-08-2019-0072 Mosyjowski, E. A., Daly, S. R., Peters, D. L., Skerlos, S. J., & Baker, A. B. (2017). Engineering PhD returners and direct-pathway students: Comparing expectancy, value, and cost. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(4), 639-676. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20182 Murray, J., Daly, S., Mosyjowski, E., & Peters, D. (2017). Practitioner experience meets graduate academic research: How intersections guide the work of returning engineering Ph.D. Students. 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, 28749. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--28749 Naidoo, D. (2015). Understanding non-traditional PhD students habitus - Implications for PhD programmes.

Teaching in Higher Education, 20(3), 340-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1017457 Nefedova, A., & Dyachenko, E. (2019). Reforma aspirantury v Rossii v zerkale global'nyh trendov [The reform of postgraduate education in Russia in the context of global trends]. Mir Rossii, 28(4), 92-111. https://doi.org/10.17323/1811-038X-2019-28-4-92-111 Nerad, M. (2011). What we know about the dramatic increase in PhD degrees and the reform of doctoral

education worldwide: Implications for South Africa. Perspectives in Education, 29(3), 1-12. Nori, H., Peura, H. M., & Jauhiainen, A. (2020). From imposter syndrome to heroic tales: Doctoral students' backgrounds, study aims, and experiences. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 15, 517-539. https://doi.org/10.28945/4637 O'Shea, S., & Stone, C. (2011). Transformations and self-discovery: Mature-age women's reflections on returning to university study. Studies in Continuing Education, 33(3), 273-288. https://doi.org/10. 1080/0158037X.2011.565046

OECD. (2019). Education at a Glance 2019: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10. 1787/f8d7880d-en

Offerman, M. (2011). Profile of the nontraditional doctoral degree student. New Directions for Adult and

Continuing Education, 2011(129), 21-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.397 Peters, D. L., & Daly, S. R. (2013). Returning to graduate school: Expectations of success, values of the degree, and managing the costs. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(2), 244-268. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/jee.20012

Peters, D., Goldstein, M., & Lax, J. (2017). From industry to graduate school: How returners (re)learn how to write. 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, 28391. https://doi.org/10. 18260/1-2--28391

Remenick, L. (2019). Services and support for nontraditional students in higher education: A historical literature review. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 25(1), 113-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1477971419842880

Skakni, I. (2018). Reasons, motives and motivations for completing a PhD: A typology of doctoral studies as a quest. ¡Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 9(2), 197-212. https://doi.org/10.1108/ SGPE-D-18-00004

SokKuan Fung, A., Southcott, J., & Siu, L. C. F. (2017). Exploring mature-aged students' motives for doctoral study and their challenges: A cross border research collaboration. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 12, 175-195. https://doi.org/10.28945/3790 Strongin, R., Bednyi, B., & Mironos, A. (2009). Sovremennaya aspirantura: Tendentsii razvitiya i prob-lemy kachestva podgotovki nauchnykh kadrov [Postgraduate training today: Trends of development and problems of quality in the training of research personnel]. Vestnik of Lobachevsky University of Nizhni Novgorod, 2, 11-16. Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. University of Chicago Press.

Wellington, J., & Sikes, P. (2006). 'A doctorate in a tight compartment': Why do students choose a professional doctorate and what impact does it have on their personal and professional lives? Studies in Higher Education, 31(6), 723-734. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070601004358 Wong, B. (2018). By chance or by plan?: The academic success of nontraditional students in higher education. AERA Open, 4(2), 233285841878219. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418782195 Wyatt, L. G. (2011). Nontraditional student engagement: Increasing adult student success and retention. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(1), 10-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2011. 544977

Zhuchkova, S., Terentev, E., Saniyazova, A., & Bekova, S. (2023). Departmental academic support for doctoral students in Russia: Categorisation and effects. Higher Education Quarterly, 77(2), 215-231. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12389

Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Приложение 2. Публикация "Building a strong foundation: How pre-doctorate experience shapes doctoral student outcomes"

Аннотация: The effectiveness of doctoral programs has been a major topic of interest for national policies, universities, and researchers for decades now. However, studies that try to identify factors associated with doctoral students' success usually focus on characteristics measured during doctoral training, while the role of pre-doctorate characteristics remains underexplored. This research aims to fill this gap by examining whether and how various aspects of pre-doctorate experience-academic achievements, research experience related and unrelated to the dissertation topic, and teaching experience-contribute to the successful defense of the doctoral dissertation. Using data from a survey of the Russian doctoral programs' graduates (N = 985) and regression analysis, we show that research experience related to the dissertation topic is the only pre-doctorate characteristic associated with the successful defense of the dissertation. At the same time, the effect of this type of research experience vanishes when controlling for support from the supervisor and department that students receive during their training. The results of the study can be used for designing criteria for doctoral students' admission campaigns and introduction of integrated, or fast-track, doctoral programs, as well as to broaden our understanding of the relative importance of environmental vs. individual factors of doctoral students' outcomes.

Полная ссылка: Zhuchkova S., Bekova S. Building a strong foundation: How pre-doctorate experience shapes doctoral student outcomes // Plos One. 2023. Vol. 18. No. 9. Article e0291448. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291448

PLOS ONE

H)

Check for updates

fi OPEN ACCESS

Citation: Zhuchkova S, Bekova S (2023) Building a strong foundation: How pre-doctorate experience shapes doctoral student outcomes. PLoS ONE 18(9): e0291448. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0291448

Editor: Claudia Noemi Gonzalez Brambila, Instituto TecnologicoAutonomode Mexico, MEXICO

Received: May 17,2023

Accepted: August 28,2023

Published: September 8,2023

Copyright: © 2023 Zhuchkova, Bekova. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability Statement: The anonymized data are provided as an excel sheet as Supplemental Information.

Funding: SB received no specific funding for this work. SZ received support from the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Building a strong foundation: How pre-doctorate experience shapes doctoral student outcomes

Svetlana Zhuchkovan?1*, Saule Bekova2