Individual and Structural Challenges in Doctoral Education: An Ethical Perspective

Aim/Purpose: The study set out to understand the challenges doctoral students experience at different systemic levels of education through perspective ethical principles. Background: Doctoral various on their journey degree, and as high dropout rates indicate, these become critical for many students. Several individual structural level aspects, such student characteristics, supervisory relationship, academic community well national policies international trends, influence studies, students’ experiences have been researched quite extensively. Although some may be in nature, few studies investigated specifically from an ethics perspective. Methodology: drew qualitative descriptions significant negative incidents 90 online survey. data were first analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis, then themes located within studies: (e.g., student, relationship with supervisor) institution, faculty, community). Finally, principles stake identified, applying framework five common principles: respect autonomy, benefiting others (beneficence), doing no harm (non-maleficence), being just (justice), faithful (fidelity). Contribution: Understanding locating among contributes better understanding experience’s complexities. Ethical considerations should integrated when creating implementing procedures, rules, education. Making aspects visible will also allow universities develop supervisor faculty training by concretely targeting highlighted ethically challenging. Findings: In experiences, out-weighed breaches studies. principle beneficence was risk form lack support community, financial support, bureaucracy. Here, system unsuccessful contributing positively welfare fostering growth. At level, supervision abandonment inadequate supervision, struggle keep study-related commitments breached fidelity, which another frequently compromised principle. are rooted level. Additionally, progress review reporting assessment process recurrent topic non-maleficence, justice stake. Recommendations Practitioners: Going beyond dyadic student-supervisor responsibility, where university, supervisors, share mutual could alleviate problematic experiences. Recommendation Researchers: We recommend that further research focus around in-depth interviews committee members. Impact Society: Dropout time degree completion is long. An shed light why fail efficiency. considered defining quality Future Research: A follow-up supervisors members contribute developing conceptual combining