South Africa’s government and higher education sector have invested a lot of time and money over the past two decades to enhance the country’s research output and cultivate the next generation of researchers.
Though there has been some progress, South Africa still isn’t close to its National Development Plan target of reaching 100 PhDs per one million people by 2030. By 2021 the rate stood at 59 PhDs per million people.
A doctoral degree is the highest academic qualification awarded by universities. Obtaining a PhD means a researcher has advanced knowledge in their field and credibility in academia. These qualities can pave the way for opportunities to make groundbreaking scientific contributions. So, efforts continue to grow South Africa’s PhD cohort. These largely take the form of funding initiatives driven by, among others, the National Research Foundation (NRF).
But these initiatives often overlook doctoral students who work full-time while pursuing their PhDs – of whom there are a significant number. For instance in a 2020 study, Stellenbosch University’s Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology tracked the demographics, work experience and career paths of more than 32,000 doctorate holders who graduated from South African universities between 2000 and 2018. The researchers found that
just over 60% of South African doctoral graduates over the past 19 years were employed full time during their doctoral studies. This means that the majority of doctoral students in this country study part time.
PhD programmes are intense and demanding. This cohort of students must manage this reality while also juggling an extra load, balancing full-time employment with family and other personal responsibilities.
The problem is that the kinds of initiatives I’ve described simply aren’t catering to this large and important group. Nor are most universities’ doctoral programmes. Research indicates that there is simply not enough money in the system to allow PhD students already working at universities to be paid a salary to study full time. This approach is common in some Scandinavian countries and allows candidates to finish their PhDs far more quickly than their South African counterparts.
I am a scholar who focuses on how public policy and developmental frameworks influence equity, access and effectiveness in higher education. In a recent study I set out to better understand the experiences of non-traditional doctoral students. I identified several key factors that influenced how their PhD journeys unfolded, what held them back in certain areas and what helped them to succeed.
My study found that none of the non-traditional doctoral students completed their PhDs in the standard three-year period. Most took five or six years instead. Various factors contributed to this delay, including personal responsibilities such as marriage and childcare. Some students also cited institutional factors from their universities, such as a lack of support, poor and slow administration, and insufficient financial support during their studies.
Understanding and addressing the unique needs of this cohort is essential for several reasons. By supporting these students, South Africa can increase its research output and meet its national research and development goals more effectively. It can also lead to higher retention and completion rates, benefiting both students and institutions.
An overlooked cohort
I interviewed 15 people who worked in the same research institution (not a university) while pursuing their doctoral degrees. Some had already graduated and others were still studying. They represented a range of fields, like politics, sociology, economics and agriculture.
My findings fell under three key themes.
The first was that the participants struggled to balance academic demands with their professional and personal responsibilities. Most were mid-career professionals or parents when they undertook their PhDs. This added a layer of complexity to their doctoral journey. One of the participants told me that they would have been able to finish their doctorate a year earlier had they not been working full time.
The second theme related to support systems. Participants told me that their employers and work mentors provided more support than their doctoral supervisors. Some said this was because their PhD projects were highly specialised and had originated from experiences and learnings in their workplaces. Others said it was simply easier to access their work mentors, since they were in the same place; still others found that their doctoral supervisors weren’t always available or responsive.
My supervisor at the university tries their level best but I feel my research organisation does a better job in terms of giving me the expertise I need. Especially with publications. I am doing my PhD through publication, and I get more insight from my mentor (at work).
The third theme was institutional flexibility. For instance, there was little room within doctoral programmes for flexible scheduling. This inflexibility extended to financial considerations. Several participants told me they registered as full-time students because part-time students didn’t qualify for fee remission or other financial assistance. One reflected:
Funding is very important because when people pursue their doctoral degrees they’re mostly in their adulthood and funding is not about your studies only, but (is) used as a means for your livelihood given our unemployment rate in South Africa. I was helping at home financially and I believe that your economic situation plays a crucial role in your success.
Recommendations
These concerns can be addressed in several ways.
Universities should establish comprehensive support systems tailored to the needs of this cohort. That includes flexible scheduling, part-time study options, and dedicated mentorship programmes that address both academic and professional challenges.
Policy reform is important, too. At a national level, policymakers should design funding programmes and scholarships that specifically target this cohort. Some bursaries only fund students registered as full time. Institutions should ensure that students who are both working and studying towards PhDs full-time can access financial benefits even if they are registered part-time. This can include fee remission and scholarships.
Finally, given that most of my participants – and those profiled in the Stellenbosch study – already work in higher education institutions (universities, research councils), there should be partnerships between the universities these students attend and their workplaces. Such collaborations can provide additional support, align academic and professional goals, and create synergies that benefit both the students and their employers.
Zama Mthombeni works for the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC)
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
