International Journal of Educational Research 96 (2019) 21–31

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

Actions and techniques in supervision, mentorships and tutorial

T
activities to foster doctoral study success: A scoping literature
review
Jose A. Salinas-Pereza, , Maria Luisa Rodero-Cosanob,e, Alina Rigabertc,
⁎

Emma Motricod,e
a
Department of Quantitative Methods, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Sevilla, Spain
b
Department of Quantitative Methods, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Córdoba, Spain
c
Department of Psychology, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Sevilla, Spain
d
Department of Psychology, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Sevilla, Spain
e
Doctoral School, Universidad Loyola Andalucía. Sevilla, Spain

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The aim of this study was to carry out a scoping review of the available research literature
Doctoral student examining how supervision, mentorships and tutorial activities can foster the doctoral study
Doctoral study success. This scoping review was conducted in light of the PRISMA and the Joanna Briggs
Doctoral supervision Institute guidelines. The search strategy produced 458 potentially relevant studies. We identified
Academic techniques
14 studies that precisely met the inclusion criteria, isolating 10 factors, 19 actions and 38
Student success
techniques related to doctoral study success. They were classified according to four broad con-
texts: institutional, program, support and personal. These findings provide supervisors and in-
stitutions with the best available research evidence for improving the completion process in PhD
studies.

1. Introduction

Recent research has identified several difficulties that complicate the process of completion of PhD studies (Levecque, Anseel, De
Beuckelaer, Van der Heyden, & Gisle, 2017). Among the more highlighted difficulties we note the following: the long time for
completing studies; no training focused on non-academic competencies; incorrect assignment of responsibilities, and high psycho-
logical and physical attrition (Juniper, Walsh, Richardson, & Morley, 2012; Levecque et al., 2017; Nutov & Hazzan, 2011; Torres
Calixto, 2011). These difficulties, in turn, have been associated with low satisfaction with the doctoral education experience and even
with the abandonment of doctoral programs (Anderson, Cutright, & Anderson, 2013; Sakurai, Vekkaila, & Pyhältö, 2017; Torres
Calixto, 2011; Wasburn-Moses, 2008). Previous research showed that dropout numbers range from 30 to 50 percent, depending on
the specific scientific discipline and country (Stubb, Pyhältö, & Lonka, 2012). This high withdrawal of PhD students influences the
viability and quality of academic research, slows scientific advancement, and hampers cognitive ability (Rindermann & Thompson,
2011).
The research literature has identified several factors that could potentially contribute to the successful production of a completed
doctoral thesis: mode of study (full time or part time doctoral studies); level of financial support; availability and quality of

⁎
Corresponding author at: Universidad Loyola Andalucía, C/ Energía Solar, 1. Edificio E, 41014 Sevilla, Spain.
E-mail address: jsalinas@uloyola.es (J.A. Salinas-Perez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.05.004
Received 6 October 2018; Received in revised form 7 March 2019; Accepted 16 May 2019
Available online 22 May 2019
0883-0355/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.A. Salinas-Perez, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 96 (2019) 21–31

infrastructure; transition from dependence to independence of doctoral candidates; issues related to student diversity; academic
isolation; quality of supervision and effectiveness of institutional research and monitoring systems (Bitzer, 2011). To address these
factors, doctoral institutions are gradually designing and implementing specific programs to improve the supervision, mentorships
and tutorial activities for doctoral students (Kumar & Johnson, 2017). To our knowledge, however, there is no review of studies or
programs focused on the factors identified in the supervision, mentorships and tutorial activities at doctoral institutions.
The aim of this research, therefore, was to carry out a scoping review of the available literature for studies focused on how
supervision, mentorships and tutorial activities are able to foster the doctoral study success from the point of view of students. Thus,
we included studies that addressed supervision, mentorships and tutorial activities that were developed in doctoral institutions and
focused on doctoral study success, as well as other research on PhD students that dealt with the role of these activities in achieving
that.
For this purpose, this review aimed to answer the following research questions:

• What are the factors involved in the doctoral study success that could be addressed by supervision, mentorships and tutorial
activities?
• What are the actions proposed to address these factors by supervision, mentorships and tutorial activities?
• What are the specific techniques suggested to implement these actions of supervision, mentorships and tutorial actions?
2. Method

2.1. Protocol and eligibility criteria

This scoping literature review was conducted considering the PRISMA guidelines Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman (2009) and
the The Joanna Briggs Institute (2015). Before starting the search and information extraction, each of the authors reviewed and
approved the search strategy.
The inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined through the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) elements following the JBI
methodology. The original studies had to discuss the role of supervision, mentorships and tutorial activities (Population) on doctoral
study success through the identification of related factors, the proposition of improvement actions, and the suggestion of specific
techniques (Concept) developed in doctoral schools across the world (Context). Thus, studies on PhD students where the supervisor,
mentor and tutor role were not specifically studied as well as studies where it was addressed but without the students’ view lie outside
the scope of this review.
The inclusion criteria covered all study designs as well as all languages but, since the keywords were English terms, the literature
had to include at least an English abstract. Our specific inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented in Table 1. Considering these
criteria, original studies were selected to review the best evidence available.

2.2. Information sources

Two researchers (AR and MLR) separately checked three electronic bibliographic databases related to Education and Educational
Psychology (Eric; PsycINFO; Psicodoc). To review the latest scientific evidence, the research was restricted to the period from
January 1 st, 2004 to June 30th, 2018. To identify possible additional publications, we checked all references included within the
selected full-text studies. The search was carried out in June 2018.

2.3. Search strategy

The review of the selected databases was carried out with a search string that used a thesaurus-like generation of keywords, along
with Boolean operators and truncation. The search string was (PhD or ‘doctoral degree’ or ‘doctoral education’ or ‘doctoral program’)
and (mentor* or ‘mentor functions’ or ‘mentor activities’ or ‘academic tutor’ or supervisor* or ‘supervising tutor’ or ‘supervising

Table 1
Definition of inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the scoping review.
Criteria Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria

Population Supervision, mentorships and tutorial activities in doctoral Any other type of population, including studies on PhD students where the
studies; and elements with influence on these activities supervisor, mentor and tutor role was not specifically analysed as well as
studies where it was addressed but without the students’ view lie
Concept Factors, actions and/or techniques related to doctoral Any other outcome
study success
Context Doctoral schools across the world Others settings
Type of sources
Publication type Original studies Other publication types
Design All designs None
Language All languages None

22
J.A. Salinas-Perez, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 96 (2019) 21–31

professor*’ or advisor* or guidance). The search strategy was first developed and tested in Psicodoc, then adapted and refined for
each electronic database.

2.4. Selected research papers

The selection of studies was managed according to the following four stages: 1) searching electronic databases, combining the
results of the search strategy, and eliminating the duplicates; 2) examining the titles, abstracts and keywords of the articles while
implementing the criteria for inclusion and exclusion; 3) when it was not possible to decide a study’s inclusion/exclusion according to
the previous steps, the full text of articles were read in order to decide whether they met the proposed research criteria; 4) detailed
inspection of references in the articles included, searching for additional documents to be reviewed according to steps 2 and 3.
Two authors separately evaluated the search results according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria (AR and MLR), and
agreement between the two reviewers was measured by the Kappa statistic (k = 0.90, 95% IC: 0.98 – 0.80). Any questions or
disagreements were solved through consultation with a third member of the team (JAS). The selection emerged through an iterative
process of individual assessments shared until a consensus was reached.

2.5. Information analysis

We developed a data extraction sheet, pilot tested it on four of the included but randomly selected studies, and then refined it
accordingly. The main characteristics of these studies were rigorously extracted by the first reviewer (AR) and verified by the second
reviewer (MLR). Any doubts or disagreements between the two reviewers were resolved by a third reviewer (JAS). For each study, the
results were summarized, and the information included the following: the authors’ names, year of publication, study country, data
collection, study participants, evaluation methods and aims.
As described in earlier work (Bitzer, 2011), factors were classified according to 4 doctoral contexts: a) institutional context (i.e.,
academic integration into the institutional scholarly community and into the department); b) program context (i.e. infrastructure,
study mode, monitoring and academic socialization); c) support context (i.e., academic isolation, student background, finances and
independence); and d) personal context (i.e., personal environment and qualities of individual doctoral candidates). Studies were
reviewed one at a time, and different authors’ interpretations were synthesized within their respective categories.

3. Results

3.1. Study selection

The search strategy produced 458 potentially relevant studies. A further 12 articles were identified from the studies’ reference
lists. After the elimination of duplicates, 424 studies remained and were assessed by title and abstract. Once 384 papers were
excluded because they failed to meet inclusion criteria, the remaining 40 were full-texts reviewed.
After full-text review, 26 studies were removed according to our exclusion criteria: 6 documents were ruled out due to the
publication type, since they were not considered original studies; in 15 studies the outcomes were not factors, actions and/or
techniques related to doctoral study success, instead they were focused on other concepts such as well-being of doctoral students or
collaborations in doctoral studies; and, finally, 5 articles did not meet the population criteria, since they did not address supervision,
mentorships or tutorial activities, but they referred to different populations such as quality of doctoral education or PhD students’
experiences. Ultimately, 14 studies met inclusion criteria and were selected. The scoping review process, with the number of studies
at each stage, is displayed in a flow diagram in Fig. 1.

3.2. Description of selected articles

Table 2 lists and describes the characteristics of the 14 selected articles: five assess doctoral mentoring, supervision and tutorial
programs, while nine explore the experiences of doctoral students with regard to their supervisors, mentors or tutors. Half were
carried out in the USA (7), and the remaining seven come from Australia (1), Belgium (1), Finland (1), Ireland (1), Spain (1) and the
UK (2). The papers included used the following methods for the data collection: interviews (6), surveys (6) and focus groups (1).
Moreover, the studies used different evaluation methods, such as qualitative analysis by using content analysis and case study (7),
quantitative analyses applying from descriptive analysis to structural equations (3), and a mixture of quantitative and qualitative
methods (3). The remaining article neither reported data collection nor evaluation method due to it consisted in the narration of the
authors’ experiences as mentors in a PhD program.

3.3. Factors, actions and techniques related to doctoral studies success

Table 3 depicts the factors related to doctoral study success along with the supervision, mentorships and tutorial actions and
techniques proposed in the studies reviewed to address them.

3.3.1. Institutional context

Factors included knowledge of the doctoral process within the institution and existing rules, as well as social integration in the

23
J.A. Salinas-Perez, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 96 (2019) 21–31

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of articles included and excluded in the scoping review.

scholarly community.

3.3.1.1. Knowledge of the doctoral process. Five studies reported that knowledge of the doctoral process was a possible key factor in
facilitating the progress of new PhD students. The improvement actions identified here were the provision of an intensive orientation
at the beginning and regular updating throughout the course of study.
With respect to intensive orientations at the beginning of one’s studies, the literature suggests that the admission process should
assess the concordance between students’ purposes and aspirations with what is expected from them within their doctoral program
(McAlpine, 2013). Specifically, Villardón-Gallego and Yániz Alvarez de Eulate (2013) showed that in-depth interviews with new
students, with efforts to know their interests, motivations, personal circumstances and training needs, as well as a use of learning
contracts, could help in this process. Additionally, several articles suggested that an introductory course or an inductive process could
help students to understand what it means to be in a PhD program (Moak & Walker, 2014). In addition, the provision of a realistic job
preview associated with the doctoral experience (Maher, Ford, & Thompson, 2004), institutional information, available resources and
a house-style guide were also found to be helpful (Andrew, 2012).
Moreover, two articles recommended that during one’s doctoral studies, faculty or staff could provide students with regularly
updated program information (Maher et al., 2004), as well as institutional resource information, encouraging students to take ad-
vantage of these resources (McAlpine, 2013).

3.3.1.2. Social integration in the scholarly community. Seven papers found that social integration in the scholarly community was a
potential factor related to doctoral success. Improvement actions identified focused on group actions and peer tutoring.
With respect to group actions in doctoral studies, several publications found that seminars related to the doctoral thesis
(Villardón-Gallego & Yániz Alvarez de Eulate, 2013) and meetings outside the school environment (McCarthy, Hegarty, Savage, &

24
 Table 2
Description of the selected studies.
Authors
M. Maher; M.E. Ford; C.M. Thompson
M.J. Noonan; R. Ballinger; R. Black
T.Wangmo; H. H. Ewen; A. K.Webb; P. B.
Teaster; R. Hatch
A. K. Webb, T. Wangmo; H.H. Ewen; P. B.
Teaster; L.R.Hatch
G. McCarthy; J. Hegarty; E. Savage; J.J.
Fitzpatrick
M. E. Broome; J. A. Halstead; D. J. Pesut; S. 2011 USA
M. Rawl; D. l. Boland
M. Andrew
25
N. Curtin; A.J. Stewart; J.M. Ostrove
L. McAlpine
L. Villardón-Gallego and C. Yániz
Stacy C. Moak and Jeffery T. Walker
S. Lindsay
K. Pyhältö; J. Vekkaila; J. Keskinen
C. Devos; G. Boudrenghien; N. Van der
Linden; A. Azzi; M. Frenay; B. Galand;
O.Klein
Year Country Data collection Participants Evaluation methods Aim (using original study wording)
2004 USA Survey 121 students (62 early finishers, 27 Quantitative and qualitative 1) Factors affecting women’s progress towards the doctoral
women; 59 late finishers, 36 women) methods (hypothesis testing and degree.
J.A. Salinas-Perez, et al.
content analysis) 2) If these factors remain consistent across different women who
finish relatively quickly and those who take considerably
longer.
2007 USA Focus groups 16 (4 protégés, 4 peer mentors, 8 Qualitative methods (content 1) To explore the nature and outcomes of mentoring from the
faculty mentors) analysis) perspectives of our mentoring program participants.
2) To check if the participants shared common beliefs,
expectations, and experiences about mentoring.
2009 USA Surveys 20 elder mentors and 24 student Quantitative and qualitative Assess the experiences of elder mentors and students and to
mentees. methods (descriptive and content determine if changes could be made to improve the program for
analysis) future cohorts of elder mentors and students.
2009 USA Surveys 28 graduated students, 26 current Quantitative and qualitative 1) Measure quality of the mentoring program.
students, and 39 faculty members. methods (descriptive and content 2) Analyse definitions of, and individual experiences with,
analysis) mentoring.
2010 Ireland Interviews Unknown number of students Qualitative methods (content Description of one strategy that the authors had embedded into
analysis) the mentoring component of one university (UCC) in Ireland
Surveys 37 PhD students and 17 PhD Quantitative methods (descriptive Description of the evolution of our distance-accessible PhD
graduates analysis) program and the pedagogical strategies that have been
implemented to achieve the goals of all PhD programs
2012 Australia Interviews 3 students Qualitative methods (case study) Description and discussion of three doctoral students at distance
and three particular supervisory situations, each of which brings
its own challenges born of its distinctiveness
2013 USA Surveys 841 students Quantitative methods (structural 1) To examine potential differences between international and
equation) domestic doctoral student experiences of graduate school.
2) To compare how advisor support and belonging related to
academic self-concept in both groups.
2013 UK Interviews Over 100 PhD students and lecturers Qualitative methods (content Description what the author has learned from her research team
analysis) studies of doctoral intentions, learning processes and
experiences. She depicts student perspectives on supervision,
followed by the views of new supervisors.
2013 Spain Interviews 11 new students, 12 current students, Qualitative methods (content A proposal to develop learning autonomy, collaborative work
4 graduated students, analysis) competence on research teams, reflection practicing and
5 supervisors scientific knowledge construction.
2014 USA – – – Description of observations and suggestions for becoming a
successful mentor based on our years of experience
2015 UK Semi-structured 8 doctoral students Qualitative methods (case study) The study’s aim was to highlight factors identified by
interviews participants as helpful or hindering thesis writing.
2015 Finland Survey 1184 doctoral students and 431 Quantitative methods (hypothesis The study aimed to better understand the dynamics of doctoral
supervisors testing) supervision by exploring how doctoral students and supervisors
perceive doctoral supervision
2017 Belgium Semi-structured 21 former PhD students from two Qualitative methods (thematic 1) Compare the experiences of PhD students having successfully
interviews Belgian universities: 8 completers analysis approach) completed their doctoral studies (completers) versus those who
and 13 non-completers. have dropped out (non-completers) in order to identify the
dimensions and processes that do and do not allow
differentiation between these two groups
2) Analyse these dimensions together in order to consider them
in a global picture.
International Journal of Educational Research 96 (2019) 21–31
J.A. Salinas-Perez, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 96 (2019) 21–31

Fitzpatrick, 2010) allowed for the integration of students into groups with similar interests. In addition, Broome, Halstead, Pesut,
Rawl, and Boland (2011) suggested implementing student-faculty interaction related interventions such as research meetings, as well
as putting more focus on the building of collegial social and scholarly communities. In the context of distance PhD programs, Andrew
(2012) found the challenge for these students emerges from having no access to a scholarly peer community, although these hurdles
could be overcome through e-communities or online conferences.
In addition, three studies spoke to the benefits of peer tutoring and its capacity to improve the social integration of students into
the scholarly community by facilitating and formalizing the support of experienced students (Maher et al., 2004; Noonan, Ballinger, &
Black, 2007; Webb, Wangmo, Ewen, Teaster, & Hatch, 2009). This improvement action can be enhanced through the creation of peer
mentorship programs for doctoral studies (Noonan et al., 2007).

3.3.2. Program context

The studies reviewed described two factors within a program context: monitoring system and knowledge of a real-life program
context.

3.3.2.1. Monitoring system. Eight studies suggested that the monitoring system was one of the most crucial elements for completing or
dropping out of doctoral studies. The actions discussed included mechanisms for ensuring the selection of adequate supervisors,
building of supervision teams, supervision training, design of a regular review system, and flexible procedures for changing mentor
assignment.
Moak and Walker (2014) highlighted that the pairing of students and supervisors should be approached carefully. They proposed
that a graduate coordinator, who knows the faculty members, could be designated to learn about incoming doctoral students and
match them accordingly.
Two studies (McAlpine, 2013; Pyhältö, Vekkaila, & Keskinen, 2015) reported that doctoral committees (or supervisory teams)
could be a good strategy for increasing students’ supervision satisfaction. McAlpine (2013) explained the utility of a doctoral
committee, where supervisors from different departments assess and discuss the situations of ‘at risk’ students and supervisors, such
as problems that have arisen because of personal issues, delays, and conflicts with peers and/or supervisors.
McAlpine (2013) and Moak and Walker (2014) suggested that new supervisors often show a lack of experience in support and
training. They could, however, be trained in effective mentoring practices through training classes or conferences, as well as faculty-
to-faculty mentoring programs.
Four studies concluded that a regular review system was a critical component of doctoral student mentoring. Thus, a high
frequency of supervision has been linked to a lower likelihood of program abandonment (Pyhältö et al., 2015). Programs could
develop regular and mandatory portfolio review systems where the student would meet with the doctoral committee to discuss their
research progress (Maher et al., 2004). With respect to students involved in distance PhD programs, regular e-meetings and e-mail, as
well as regular face-to-face meetings, have a higher significance for doctoral studies success (Andrew, 2012; Broome et al., 2011).
Finally, McAlpine (2013) explained that supervisory difficulties were common and could hamper the doctoral completion process.
These included the physical absence of advisors (sabbatical years, leaves and moves to other institutions), a lack of feedback and
follow-up, or even interpersonal issues. Since doctoral students do not usually know the procedures for supervisory change, this study
suggested that such procedures should be clear, public and easily accessible (McAlpine, 2013).

3.3.2.2. Knowledge of a real-life program context. Wangmo et al. (2009) described the positive contributions of the ‘Elder Mentorship
program’ developed at the University of Kentucky, where gerontology PhD students were paired with older adults living in the
community. In this program, students gained new perspectives on their research work related to developing personal relationships,
providing a source of encouragement to mentees by sharing experiences and knowing the reality of aging.

3.3.3. Support context

Funding resources and supervisor support were factors related to the support context in doctoral studies.

3.3.3.1. Funding resources. In two studies, the availability of funding was suggested as a key factor (Maher et al., 2004; Moak &
Walker, 2014). Limited or unstable financial resources causes stress and affects students’ degree progress. According to these authors,
supervisors should advise students about social programs and financial grants associated with the various faculty.

3.3.3.2. Supervisor support. Three studies reported that supervisor support was related to student progress in doctoral studies.
Noonan et al. (2007) recommended that mentoring programs include relationship-building strategies built through one-on-one
situations and group mentoring meetings such as periodic social gatherings for both faculty and students. Thus, being a good mentor
may require becoming involved in a student’s life beyond the classroom, as well as additional work related to the construction of
meaningful relationships (Moak & Walker, 2014). According to Curtin, Stewart, and Ostrove (2013), PhD programs should focus on
facilitate positive advisor-student relationships because they are important for their perception of being part of the department and
feeling successful.

3.3.4. Personal context

We found four factors within the personal context: emotional distress, family issues, self-motivation, and academic and research
skill gaps.

26
J.A. Salinas-Perez, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 96 (2019) 21–31

Table 3
Factors related to doctoral study success, and actions and experiences to address them from supervision, mentorships and tutorial activities.
Factors Actions Techniques Studies

Institutional context
Knowledge of the Intensive orientation at the
doctoral process beginning of the studies
Regular updating during
the studies
Social integration in the Group actions
scholarly community
Peer tutoring
Program context
Monitoring system Selection of adequate
supervisors
Supervision team
Supervision training
Regular review system
Flexibility of changing
mentor assignment
Knowledge of real-life External mentorship
program context program
Support context
Funding resources Financial aid
Supervisor support Relationship building
strategies between
supervisor and students
Personal context
Emotional distress Socialization activities
Peer tutoring
Family issues Work with families
Self-motivation Progress in doctoral
studies
Academic and research Group actions
skill gaps
Specific training activities
Scholar development
- In-depth interview
- Learning contract
- Realistic job preview
- Introductory course
- Inductive process
- Regularly updated program information
- Institutional resource information
- Seminar of doctoral thesis
- Meetings outside the school environment
- Research meetings
- E-community or online conferences
- Peer mentorship program
- Designating a graduate coordinator to match up
students and supervisors
- Doctoral committee
- Training classes and conferences in effective
mentoring practices
- Faculty-to-faculty mentoring program
- Mandatory portfolio review system
- Regular e-meetings and e-mailing
- Regular face-to-face meetings
- Clear, public and easily accessible procedures
for supervisory change
- Elderly mentoring program
- Social programs
- Financial grants
- One-to-one situations and group mentoring
meetings
- Social gatherings for faculties and students
- Development of scholarly communities
- Social activities outside of academia
- Peer mentorship program
- Social events in a non-academic setting
- Participation in a research project
- Continuous thesis writing model
- Training to build knowledge and skills needed
both doctoral process and academic professional
career
- Writing, reading, scientific reasoning and
critical thinking, collaborative abilities, how to
publish, how to present papers, how to write
grants or statistical methodologies
- Introduction of success educational
methodologies such as flipping the classroom,
project-based learning or competency-based
framework
- Research team meeting
- Regular contact with mentors and doctoral
committee
- Fostering professional conduct
- Promoting leadership
(Andrew, 2012; Maher et al., 2004; McAlpine,
2013; Moak & Walker, 2014; Villardón-
Gallego & Yániz Alvarez de Eulate, 2013)
(Maher et al., 2004; McAlpine, 2013)
(Andrew, 2012; Broome et al., 2011;
McCarthy et al., 2010; Villardón-Gallego &
Yániz Alvarez de Eulate, 2013)
(Maher et al., 2004; Noonan et al., 2007;
Webb et al., 2009)
(Moak & Walker, 2014)
(McAlpine, 2013; Pyhältö et al., 2015)
(McAlpine, 2013; Moak & Walker, 2014)
(Andrew, 2012; Broome et al., 2011; Maher
et al., 2004; Pyhältö et al., 2015)
(McAlpine, 2013)
(Wangmo, Ewen, Webb, Teaster, & Russell
Hatch, 2009)
(Maher et al., 2004; Moak & Walker, 2014)
(Curtin et al., 2013; Moak & Walker, 2014;
Noonan et al., 2007)
(Devos et al., 2017; Moak & Walker, 2014)
(Maher et al., 2004; Webb et al., 2009)
(Moak & Walker, 2014)
(Devos et al., 2017; Lindsay, 2015; Maher
et al., 2004)
(Andrew, 2012; Broome et al., 2011;
McCarthy et al., 2010; Villardón-Gallego &
Yániz Alvarez de Eulate, 2013)
(Broome et al., 2011; Lindsay, 2015;
McAlpine, 2013; Moak & Walker, 2014;
Noonan et al., 2007; Villardón-Gallego &
Yániz Alvarez de Eulate, 2013; Webb et al.,
2009)
(Broome et al., 2011; Noonan et al., 2007;
Webb et al., 2009)

3.3.4.1. Emotional distress. Four studies described how emotional distress was associated with dropping out of doctoral programs.
The corresponding improvement actions identified were socialization activities and peer tutoring.
Devos et al. (2017) highlighted the importance of socializing into scholarly communities made up of supervisors, students, peers
and departments. As a way of being involved in a student’s life, Moak and Walker (2014) recommended that supervisors, students and
their families should share social activities outside of academia.
In addition, it was argued that peer tutoring could reduce a student’s distress level as well because students receive psychological
support, as well as social and academic support, over the course of their doctoral tenure (Maher et al., 2004; Webb et al., 2009).

27
J.A. Salinas-Perez, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 96 (2019) 21–31

3.3.4.2. Family issues. Two studies found that a student’s family can slow the doctoral process in different ways such as low partner
support, child-care responsibilities, pregnancies, marital problems, dependent relative care or death of a close family member.
Although Maher et al. (2004) suggested that faculty cannot address such factors, Moak and Walker (2014) stipulated instead that
working with students’ families is essential for encouraging and supporting the doctoral student. Again, this could be promoted
through social events in non-academic settings throughout the year.

3.3.4.3. Self-motivation. Three studies identified self-motivation as yet another factor related to personal context. According to Devos
et al. (2017), what differentiated completers from non-completers was the extent to which they were moving forward on a research
project that made sense to them, taking ownership in that project, and knowing the direction their work was going to take. Similarly,
Maher et al. (2004) found that among early-finishing women, having a strong goal of finishing in a timely manner was critical. Both
studies stipulated that participation in a research project was essential to the notion of making progress. Moreover, Lindsay (2015)
stated that continuous writing of the thesis could reduce the negative effects on motivation and organization that students face when
leave the writing until the final year.

3.3.4.4. Academic and research skill gaps. Nine studies showed that PhD students come to their doctoral studies with academic and
research skill gaps that must nonetheless be filled through the doctoral process. Group actions, specific training activities and
scholarly development were recognized as improvement actions.
Four studies recommended group actions that offered training in the building of knowledge and skills needed for both the doctoral
process and an academic professional career (Andrew, 2012; Broome et al., 2011; McCarthy et al., 2010; Villardón-Gallego & Yániz
Alvarez de Eulate, 2013).
Seven studies urged the implementation of training activities that provided the knowledge, skills and autonomy students would
need for both their doctoral thesis and for their careers (Broome et al., 2011; Lindsay, 2015; McAlpine, 2013; Moak & Walker, 2014;
Noonan et al., 2007; Villardón-Gallego & Yániz Alvarez de Eulate, 2013; Webb et al., 2009). Towards that end, the articles selected
identified a range of relevant skills: writing, reading, scientific reasoning, critical thinking, statistical methodologies, collaborative
abilities, how to publish, how to present papers or how to write grants. Moreover, three studies recommended the introduction of
successful teaching methodologies, such as flipped classrooms (Moak & Walker, 2014), project-based learning in a collaborative
context with peers (Villardón-Gallego & Yániz Alvarez de Eulate, 2013), and a competency-based framework for assessing knowledge
and skills (Broome et al., 2011).
With respect to scholarly development, three studies revealed that students need to not only learn research skills but also how to
be a scholar itself. This could involve attending a research team meeting, regular contact with mentors and doctoral committee
members, or opportunities for observing faculty behaviours and interactions related to scholarship (Broome et al., 2011). Thus, in
addition to courses, workshops and seminars on research skills, doctoral programs should seek to foster professional conduct as well
(Webb et al., 2009). Lastly, programs should promote leadership roles and related experiences that prepare and/or support students
for the assumption of administrative or higher education positions (Noonan et al., 2007).

4. Discussion

We identified 14 relevant studies out of which emerged 10 factors, 19 actions and 38 techniques related to doctoral study success.
The review included articles assessing doctoral programs as well as articles focusing on PhD student experiences. Almost all of them,
except one, provided scientific evidence of the impact of their findings by using evaluation methods. The literature reviewed here
identifies diverse factors and activities at different universities and knowledge fields, which may be taken into consideration in the
improvement of existing PhD programs or in the design of new ones. The variety of factors, actions and techniques also highlights that
doctoral study success goes far beyond simply thesis completion and must include other dimensions such as satisfaction, mental
wellbeing, high standard training, support of different actors involved or career development of students.

4.1. Summary of evidence

4.1.1. Institutional context

As expected, knowledge of the doctoral process and social integration into the scholarly community appeared related to the
institutional context of doctoral studies. New doctoral students enter a whole a new academic environment with rules that are
different from their previous degree studies, and they need an intensive orientation in the beginning, as well as on-going information
from the administrative or academic staff.
Peer tutoring and group actions were identified as actions for effective social integration in the scholarly community. There was
consensus among several studies that between protégés and peer mentors, the benefits of a mentorship program are mutual (or
reciprocal) providing new students with invaluable academic, social and psychological support, personal relationships, and support
for those who are experiencing obstacles and/or delays. Moreover, group actions facilitate a motivating environment, a good rapport
with supervisors, the opportunity of defending one’s research before a non-threating group, and the promotion of a culture of
excellence within a community of scholars.
While the role of peers seems critical, Devos et al. (2017) found that peer support made no difference in the decision of PhD
students to abandon or persist, although it was something that might have had an influence on the students’ mood. Nonetheless, peer
support enables doctoral completion and should be promoted.

28
J.A. Salinas-Perez, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 96 (2019) 21–31

Thus, the existence of mentor programs, whether peers or people involved in a student’s field of research, are becoming in-
creasingly widespread at doctoral institutions. Sometimes the concepts of mentor and supervisor are used interchangeably. However,
though each one may offer personal guidance, they are different roles, each with its own responsibilities intended to accompany and
offer personal guidance.

4.1.2. Program context

A mentoring system was discussed in all the articles reviewed. Nowadays supervisors have become project managers for students’
skills development (Lee, 2008). Students demand that their supervisors possess not only more traditional skills related to guidance
and training but also coaching related skills, capable of providing emotional support, motivation, and, in such a way that shows
dedication, sincerity and a willingness to share ones’ time. These results suggest that the thoughtful assignment of supervisors and
mentors to students may ultimately reduce a supervisor’s already demanding responsibilities and increase the satisfaction of students.
The increasing demands on supervisors relate to student demands for mechanisms by which they can easily change their supervisor
when the supervisor to whom they were assigned does not possess the aforementioned characteristics. This study also showed that
actions designed to improve the satisfaction of students with their supervisors could entail the development of a regular supervision
system that simply increased the frequency of supervision.
Consequently, there is increasing interest in training supervisors in both research and mentoring skills (Torres Calixto, 2011),
helping them to adopt leadership styles that lead to satisfactory and constructive work relations (Black, 2017; Kumar & Johnson,
2017; Levecque et al., 2017). Thus, they should be measured according to their capacity for meeting career, psychological, research
and intellectual needs (Carpenter, Makhadmeh, & Thornton, 2015).
The results also showed that the success of a doctoral process does not depend only on the supervisor assigned to a student.
Several articles underscore the need to build extended scholarly communities made up of a team of supervisors or committees,
mentors (peers and other types) and student peers. Anderson et al. (2013) referred to this as a lively collegial community, where
scholars share experiences, resources, and opportunities to help the progression of doctoral students. Hence, doctoral programs
should provide comprehensive/integrated support that spans academic success to psychological wellbeing.

4.1.3. Support context

Support for doctoral students varies in origin, from supervisors to families. Towards this end, both financial support and su-
pervisor support were identified from the reviewed literature. Financial issues could act as an impediment, when students must work
during their doctoral studies, or an enabler, when they are funded by their families or organizations such as universities, non-profit
organizations or financial institution social programs. The studies reviewed stipulated such support actions as the availability of
grants and scholarships for different activities such as tuition fees, travels, conferences or academic visits. In previous articles, the
type of financial aid itself was considered relevant (de Valero, 2001). Moreover, the design and inclusion of relationship building
strategies in order to strengthen personal relationships between supervisors and students seems to be a promising approach to
improving the support context.

4.1.4. Personal context

Doctoral students’ relationships outside of academia are not very well addressed in the research literature and yet they are
considered important and valuable for completing PhD studies (Nutov & Hazzan, 2011). Thus, Lovitts (2005) in her model did not
include personal issues among the factors needed to complete PhD studies. Some years later, they were incorporated by Bitzer (2011)
as a context in his conceptual framework for exploring doctoral success.
Various articles referred to the influence of students’ families, but actions for overcoming or controlling this influence during the
doctoral process are very limited and contradictory. It would be very interesting to learn more about the role that this informal
support plays in the doctoral process.
A second weighty factor, and very related to the first, is the emotional labour of a PhD student. Specifically, students must not
only develop their career prospects (Sakurai et al., 2017) but also experience the personal meaning of their doctoral studies (Stubb
et al., 2012) while avoiding the psychological disturbances often associated with the process (Nutov & Hazzan, 2011). Thus, linking
student theses to funded research projects provides students with goals, gives meaning to the process and fosters the self-motivation.
In addition, doctoral programs should indicate, transparently and in advance, what is expected from students for them to attain their
aspirations and for reducing the impact of unforeseeable and uncontrolled events (Levecque et al., 2017). Again, the design of
doctoral programs is essential for making the doctoral process certain for all students.
Other common factors identified in the literature reviewed are feelings of distress and/or fear, which can occur throughout the
doctoral education. The importance of these feelings lies in the fact that they are seen as barriers to accomplishing the doctorate. How
students address these feelings depends both on their own individual coping abilities and the supporting environment (Levecque
et al., 2017). Once more, doctoral institutions that foster student socialization and peer mentoring along with the development of a
scholarly community may help in the management of student feelings and mental wellbeing on their way to successfully completing
their thesis dissertation. University social and psychological services should consider the specific needs and characteristics of doctoral
students (Juniper et al., 2012). We have not found, however, any actions related to the professional assessment or emotional care of
students.
Finally, our results suggest that the gaps in students’ academic skills should be approached through specific training activities
tailored to individual needs of particular students. Moreover, PhD programs should adopt educational methodologies that have been
successfully introduced at lower educational levels, such as flipped classrooms, project-based learning or competency-based learning

29
J.A. Salinas-Perez, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 96 (2019) 21–31

(Velasco, Learreta, Kober, & Tan, 2014).

4.2. Strengths and limitations

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first literature synthesis that provides a large number of factors and improvement actions
involved in the successful completion of doctoral studies. The methodology of this scoping review follows rigorous and well-es-
tablished international standards guidelines. Finally, the findings of this review involved different participants and various doctoral
institutions, which supports the external validity of our results.
This review, however, also has some limitations. Firstly, the search filter was focused on scientific articles on supervision,
mentorships and tutorial activities. This means that other relevant factors may not have been included in this review, such as the role
of the examiner and other evaluative elements (Lovat, Holbrook, & Bourke, 2008). In addition, some of the factors identified have
rarely been analysed in the literature, such as family and financial issues. Secondly, the selected studies included different doctoral
realities, such as distance programs, international students, gender perspective or specific knowledge areas, which do not involve
unified practices even so factors, actions and techniques identified are mostly common to all of them. Finally, the majority of studies
reviewed were developed in the USA and in several European university contexts. This must be taken into account when applying the
actions identified in different contexts.

5. Conclusions

The present scoping review offers numerous factors and improvement actions related to completing doctoral studies and was
ultimately based on fourteen studies developed from various countries. From a higher education perspective, doctoral schools should
consider these factors when designing their programs or when taking specific actions, such as those identified in this review. A
successful thesis needs the participation of all involved: organizations (universities, doctoral schools and doctoral programs) and
actors (supervisors, mentors, administrative staff, peers and families). Each actor, for instance, has a different but critical role to play
in the life of a PhD student. Doctoral programs, however, have typically approached such actors separately and not as elements of a
broader and more integrated process or strategy.
Furthermore, some mentoring activities have been identified as key in the doctoral process. The integration of students in the
academic community, the support of a tutor, whether through peer support programs or mentor programs, and the links of the
mentor with personal environment of the PhD student appear to be relevant issues in the doctoral programs design.
Finally, it should be noted that this review otherwise underscores the scarcity of relevant studies, as well as the need for additional
research on how the supervision, mentorships and tutorial activities can foster doctoral study success.

Funding details

This research was developed within the framework of the project [Design of a tutorial and support action plan for PhD students].
This work was supported by the teaching innovation grant of the Universidad Loyola Andalucía (2015/2016) [grant number 205505-
15].

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

Together with the authors, Francisco Amador Hidalgo, David Becerra Alonso, Inmaculada Carmona Pérez, Alfonso Carlos
Martínez Estudillo, Laura Montero Perales, Ana María Pacheco Martínez, Laura Padilla Angulo were members of the project team.
Authors would also like to acknowledge the assistance during the literature search process of the research assistant student Pedro
Moreno Cuéllar.

References

Anderson, B., Cutright, M., & Anderson, S. (2013). Academic involvement in doctoral education: Predictive value of faculty mentorship and intellectual community on
doctoral education outcomes. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 8, 195–215. https://doi.org/10.28945/1923.
Andrew, M. (2012). Supervising doctorates at a distance: Three trans‐Tasman stories. Quality Assurance in Education, 20(1), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09684881211198239.
Bitzer, E. M. (2011). Doctoral success as ongoing quality business: A possible conceptual framework. South African Journal of Higher Education, 25(3), 425–443.
Black, R. (2017). E-mentoring the online doctoral student from the dissertation prospectus through dissertation completion. Journal of Learning in Higher Education,
13(1), 1–8.
Broome, M. E., Halstead, J. A., Pesut, D. J., Rawl, S. M., & Boland, D. L. (2011). Evaluating the outcomes of a distance-accessible PhD program. Journal of Professional
Nursing, 27(2), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2010.09.011.
Carpenter, S., Makhadmeh, N., & Thornton, L.-J. (2015). Mentorship on the doctoral level: An examination of communication faculty mentors’ traits and functions.
Communication Education, 64(3), 366–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1041997.
Curtin, N., Stewart, A. J., & Ostrove, J. M. (2013). Fostering academic self-concept. Advisor support and sense of belonging among international and domestic graduate

30
J.A. Salinas-Perez, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 96 (2019) 21–31

students. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 108–137. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212446662.

de Valero, Y. F. (2001). Departmental factors affecting time-to-degree and completion rates of doctoral students at one land-grant research institution. The Journal of
Higher Education, 72(3), 341–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2001.11777098.
Devos, C., Boudrenghien, G., Van der Linden, N., Azzi, A., Frenay, M., Galand, B., et al. (2017). Doctoral students’ experiences leading to completion or attrition: a
matter of sense, progress and distress. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0290-0.
Juniper, B., Walsh, E., Richardson, A., & Morley, B. (2012). A new approach to evaluating the well-being of PhD research students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 37(5), 563–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.555816.
Kumar, S., & Johnson, M. (2017). Mentoring doctoral students online: mentor strategies and challenges. Mentoring & Tutoring, 25(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13611267.2017.1326693.
Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03075070802049202.
Levecque, K., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., Van der Heyden, J., & Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy,
46(4), 868–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008.
Lindsay, S. (2015). What works for doctoral students in completing their thesis? Teaching in Higher Education, 20(2), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.
2014.974025.
Lovat, T., Holbrook, A., & Bourke, S. (2008). Ways of knowing in doctoral examination: How well is the doctoral regime? Educational Research Review, 3(1), 66–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EDUREV.2007.06.002.
Lovitts, B. E. (2005). Being a good course‐taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2),
137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500043093.
Maher, M. A., Ford, M. E., & Thompson, C. M. (2004). Degree progress of women doctoral students: Factors that constrain, facilitate, and differentiate. The Review of
Higher Education, 27(3), 385–408. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2004.0003.
McAlpine, L. (2013). Doctoral supervision: Not an individual but a collective institutional responsibility. Infancia Y Aprendizaje, 36(3), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.
1174/021037013807533061.
McCarthy, G., Hegarty, J., Savage, E., & Fitzpatrick, J. J. (2010). PhD away days: A component of PhD supervision. International Nursing Review, 57(4), 415–418.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-7657.2010.00828.x.
Moak, S. C., & Walker, J. T. (2014). How to be a successful mentor. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 30(4), 427–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1043986214541608.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine,
6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
Noonan, M. J., Ballinger, R., & Black, R. (2007). Peer and faculty mentoring in doctoral education: Definitions, experiences, and expectations. International Journal of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), 251–262.
Nutov, L., & Hazzan, O. (2011). Feeling the doctorate: Is doctoral research that studies the emotional labor of doctoral students possible? International Journal of
Doctoral Studies, 6, 019–032. https://doi.org/10.28945/1354.
Pyhältö, K., Vekkaila, J., & Keskinen, J. (2015). Fit matters in the supervisory relationship: Doctoral students and supervisors perceptions about the supervisory
activities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.981836.
Rindermann, H., & Thompson, J. (2011). Cognitive capitalism: The effect of cognitive ability on wealth, as mediated through scientific achievement and economic
freedom. Psychological Science, 22, 754–763. https://doi.org/10.2307/25835449.
Sakurai, Y., Vekkaila, J., & Pyhältö, K. (2017). More or less engaged in doctoral studies? Domestic and international students’ satisfaction and motivation for doctoral
studies in Finland. Research in Comparative and International Education, 12(2), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499917711543.
Stubb, J., Pyhältö, K., & Lonka, K. (2012). The experienced meaning of working with a PhD thesis. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(4), 439–456.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.599422.
The Joanna Briggs Institute (2015). The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual 2015: Methodology for JBI scoping reviews. Joanne Briggs Institute. Adelaide: The Joanna
Briggs Institutehttps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Torres Calixto, M. G. (2011). La tutoría en programas de doctorado: Tensiones tutoriales Doctorado en Ciencias de la Educación Rudecolombia. Revista Historia de La
Educación Latinoamericana, 13(17), 315–344. https://doi.org/10.19053/01227238.1607.
Velasco, P. J., Learreta, B., Kober, C., & Tan, I. (2014). Faculty perspective on competency development in higher education: An international study. Higher Learning
Research Communications, 4(4), 85. https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v4i4.223.
Villardón-Gallego, L., & Yániz Alvarez de Eulate, C. (2013). Propuesta de un Plan de Tutoría y Apoyo a Estudiantes de Doctorado. REDU. Revista de Docencia
Universitaria, 11(2), 135. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2013.5570.
Wangmo, T., Ewen, H. H., Webb, A. K., Teaster, P. B., & Russell Hatch, L. (2009). Mentoring in gerontology doctoral education: The role of elders in mentoring
gerontologists. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 30(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960802690274.
Wasburn-Moses, L. (2008). Satisfaction among current doctoral students in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 29(5), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0741932507312014.
Webb, A. K., Wangmo, T., Ewen, H. H., Teaster, P. B., & Hatch, L. R. (2009). Peer and faculty mentoring for students pursuing a PhD in gerontology. Educational
Gerontology, 35(12), 1089–1106. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601270902917869.

31