Navigating the PhD thesis journey: A qualitative study of doctoral students and supervisors at a medical university in Iran

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The PhD thesis serves as a cornerstone of doctoral education, yet it is often accompanied by considerable stress and inefficiencies for both students and supervisors. Although global research has extensively addressed issues such as supervision quality, institutional support, and student well-being, there is limited investigation into these dynamics from a qualitative perspective in non-Western academic settings. This study examines the lived experiences of doctoral students and their supervisors at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences to identify challenges and propose tailored reforms for this specific context.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Employing a qualitative exploratory design, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 54 participants (31 PhD students and 23 faculty supervisors) chosen through purposive sampling. The collected data underwent conventional content analysis, with themes integrated across both groups to form a unified framework.

RESULTS:

The analysis revealed five overarching themes and 21 associated categories, including supervisory competencies, administrative ambiguity, resource limitations, psychological stress, and the importance of early research engagement. While students stressed the need for emotional support and resource availability, supervisors emphasized clearer regulations and opportunities for professional development. Both groups underscored the necessity of fostering a supportive academic environment.

CONCLUSION:

The PhD thesis process operates as a dynamic system influenced by interpersonal relationships, institutional frameworks, and procedural clarity. Efforts to reform this process should prioritize supervisor training programs, simplified administrative procedures, enhanced resource availability, and comprehensive psychological support embedded throughout the doctoral journey.

Introduction

Pursuing a doctoral degree is often seen as the pinnacle of academic success, involving the development of advanced research skills, critical thinking, and a sense of scholarly independence. Yet, the journey to completing a PhD thesis is rarely straightforward and is filled with challenges that go beyond just academic demands. Doctoral writing is influenced by shifting interpersonal relationships and unpredictable paths, which can shake students’ confidence and hinder their progress.[1] Common hurdles—like poor time management and insufficient guidance—are frequently mentioned in discussions about postgraduate education.[2] Research based on real cases reveals ongoing struggles, such as limited access to feedback from supervisors and unclear institutional expectations.[3] Additionally, social factors, including feelings of isolation and a perceived lack of support, significantly impact the mental health of doctoral students.[4]

Recent analyses of the economy and policies show that the psychological struggles faced by PhD candidates aren’t just individual hurdles; they’re part of a larger systemic issue within academic settings.[5] Central to this experience is the PhD thesis, which showcases a student’s ability to create and carry out original research that truly adds value to their field.[6]

Supervisors are also feeling the impact of changes in the educational landscape, which means they need to rethink how they mentor and what they expect from their students. Even though there’s more focus on supervision these days, many still lack structured support and practical feedback, which is a common shortfall.[7] Despite the growing focus on supervision, many still face the challenge of lacking structured pedagogical support and actionable feedback, which is a common issue.[8,9]

The relationship between supervisors and students plays a crucial role in determining the quality of research, the success of completion outcomes, and the overall well-being of doctoral candidates.[10,11]

However, while these challenges have been thoroughly documented in Western academic environments, there’s a noticeable absence of qualitative insights into how these dynamics play out in non-Western, resource-constrained settings. This is especially true in medical universities, where the demands for research are high but institutional support is often inconsistent.[12,13] In Iran, the landscape of doctoral education is influenced by frequent changes in policy, limited funding, and shifting expectations from academic stakeholders.[14,15]

While quantitative studies have looked into doctoral satisfaction and dropout rates,[16,17] there’s a scarcity of research that captures the rich, lived experiences of both students and supervisors. Additionally, the perspectives of these two groups are seldom combined to create a comprehensive understanding of the thesis journey.[18,19] This study aims to fill these gaps by exploring the experiences of PhD candidates and faculty supervisors at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. Using a qualitative approach, it highlights the interpersonal, procedural, and structural challenges faced, and proposes a conceptual framework that views the thesis process as a dynamic system influenced by relationships, institutional contexts, and academic expectations.[20,21]

Materials and Methods

Study design and setting

We took a qualitative exploratory approach to really dive into the PhD thesis process, aiming to capture the intricate lived experiences and the context-sensitive challenges that come with it.[22] We analyzed the interview data using conventional content analysis as described by Graneheim and Lundman.[23] To ensure trustworthiness, we followed Lincoln and Guba’s criteria, which include credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability.[24]

Study participants and sampling

We brought together 54 participants from Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, which included 31 PhD candidates and 23 faculty supervisors. To ensure a mix of perspectives, we used purposive sampling, focusing on diversity in gender, academic fields, and years of experience.[24]

Data collection tools and technique

We collected data through detailed, semi-structured interviews that typically lasted between 45 and 60 minutes. These conversations were guided by a flexible framework that matched the objectives of our study.[25] Conducted in Persian, every interview was recorded with the participants’ permission and transcribed verbatim.[25] Previous research indicates that doctoral students who don’t have clear procedures or consistent emotional support during data collection can become disengaged from their research activities. This disengagement is a significant factor in doctoral attrition, as highlighted by Lovitts.[26]

Data analysis

We analyzed the interview transcripts using conventional content analysis as outlined by Graneheim and Lundman.[23] Thematic coding was done separately for students and supervisors, and then we integrated the findings across groups to create a cohesive framework.[27,28]

Trustworthiness

To maintain a high standard, we applied Lincoln and Guba’s criteria: credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability.[29] We used techniques like member checking, peer debriefing, and audit trails to ensure thoroughness.

Ethical considerations

The study was granted ethical approval by the Research Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (IR.MUI.RESEARCH.REC.1398.239). Every participant provided written informed consent.

Results

A summary of the recommended reforms derived from the qualitative findings is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Summary of recommended reforms

Challenge Area		Recommended Reform		References
Supervisory deficiencies		Structured mentorship programs		[24,32]
Procedural ambiguity		Centralized thesis workflow systems		[10,25]
Skill gaps		Embedded writing and methodology instruction		[27,30,33]
Resource limitations		Reform in budgeting and research infrastructure		[2,29]
Emotional distress		Counseling services and wellness initiatives		[5,6,18,31]
Academic isolation		Peer writing groups and community-based learning		[30,34]
Joint supervision challenges		Clearly defined supervisory roles and expectations		[34]

Theme 1: Human Dynamics in Supervision

“My supervisor had the technical know-how, but during the toughest times of my thesis, I felt emotionally abandoned.” (Student 12) “We aren’t trained to provide emotional support to students. We learn how to supervise through trial and error.” (Faculty 5)

Theme 2: Administrative and Structural Barriers

“I was lost about what to do next. No one clearly explained the process.” (Student 7) “The regulations can be vague, and even we as faculty sometimes struggle to interpret them.” (Faculty 10)

Theme 3: Research Skill Development

“We weren’t adequately prepared for writing proposals or conducting research.” (Student 15) “Some of the newly hired faculty lack experience and could benefit from training workshops.” (Faculty 3)

Theme 4: Resource and Financial Constraints

“I had to change my thesis topic because the lab didn’t have the materials I needed.” (Student 5) “When funding is tight, students often cut corners, which negatively impacts the quality of their theses.” (Faculty 10)

Theme 5: Institutional Culture and Support Systems

“I felt like I was sailing through a storm all by myself.” (Student 18) “A good supervisor makes sure the student doesn’t feel abandoned.” (Faculty 2). The demographic characteristics of the faculty supervisors are shown in Table 2. Table 3 presents the demographic s of the phd students who participants in the study. Our analysis revealed five main themes and 21 integrated categories. These themes highlight the intricate relationships between human interactions, institutional frameworks, and the clarity of procedures in the PhD thesis journey.

Table 2.

Demographic Characteristics of Faculty Supervisors (n=23)

Participant ID		Gender		Age		Academic Discipline
P1		Male		34		Health Promotion
P2		Female		48		Health Promotion
P3		Female		50		Reproductive Health
P4		Male		40		Medical Education
P5		Male		47		Medical Education
P6		Female		40		Nutrition Sciences
P7		Female		44		Medical Physics and Engineering
P8		Male		50		Immunology
P9		Female		55		Physiology
P10		Male		35		Molecular Biology and Genetics
P11		Male		47		Pharmaceutical Chemistry
P12		Male		35		Pharmaceutical Biotechnology
P13		Female		50		Nursing
P14		Male		38		Environmental Health Engineering
P15		Female		38		Nutrition Sciences
P16		Male		51		Orthotics and Prosthetics
P17		Female		36		Epidemiology
P18		Male		32		Health Services Management
P19		Female		28		Medical Library and Information Science
P20		Male		42		Disaster and Emergency Health
P21		Male		35		Medical Library and Information Science
P22		Female		45		Reproductive Health
P23		Male		45		Biochemistry

Table 3.

Demographic characteristics of PhD students (n=31)

Participant ID		Gender		Age		Academic Discipline
S1		Male		34		Health Promotion
S2		Male		32		Health Promotion
S3		Female		38		Reproductive Health
S4		Male		50		Medical Education
S5		Male		45		Biochemistry
S6		Male		43		Medical Education
S7		Female		38		Medical Education
S8		Female		30		Nutrition Sciences
S9		Female		32		Medical Physics and Engineering
S10		Male		34		Immunology
S11		Male		40		Physiology
S12		Female		32		Molecular Biology and Genetics
S13		Female		28		Physiology
S14		Male		35		Pharmaceutical Chemistry
S15		Male		33		Pharmaceutical Biotechnology
S16		Female		30		Nursing
S17		Male		34		Environmental Health Engineering
S18		Female		32		Nutrition Sciences
S19		Male		34		Orthotics and Prosthetics
S20		Female		29		Epidemiology
S21		Male		32		Health Services Management
S22		Female		28		Medical Library and Information Science
S23		Male		42		Disaster and Emergency Health
S24		Male		35		Medical Library and Information Science
S25		Female		33		Reproductive Health
S26		Female		41		Medical Education
S27		Female		27		Health Economics
S28		Female		31		Physiology
S29		Female		29		Medical Physics
S30		Female		29		Parasitology
S31		Female		44		Molecular Medicine

Discussion

The results of this study highlight ongoing global concerns about the stress faced by doctoral students and the gaps in supervision, while also shedding light on the unique challenges encountered at Iranian medical universities. It seems that the supervisory relationships often lack the emotional connection that’s so crucial, which aligns with broader discussions about the shortcomings in mentorship and the changing expectations for faculty members.[12,15] The lack of structured teaching frameworks adds to the inconsistencies in how supervision is carried out, underscoring the urgent need for formal mentorship programs and systematic training.[16,17,27] Both doctoral students and supervisors have pointed out administrative and procedural uncertainties, which echo criticisms of institutional inefficiency and unclear workflows.[25,30] Implementing centralized and digital supervision models could help streamline these processes and clear up any confusion. Additionally, many students feel underprepared for research—especially when it comes to academic writing and developing proposals—indicating a gap between what the curriculum offers and what’s expected for their theses.[14,27] Therefore, it’s crucial to introduce method training and writing instruction early on.[31]

Writing groups have become not just effective teaching tools but also vital emotional support systems in doctoral education—something Aitchison and Guerin have explored in various international settings.[32] These collaborative spaces can significantly boost doctoral students’ feelings of belonging, motivation, and resilience as they navigate their research journeys.[33] Manathunga and Goozée highlight practical frameworks for tackling the challenges of doctoral work, focusing on structured reflection, proactive engagement, and learning alongside peers as essential strategies for fostering academic perseverance.[33] However, when the roles and expectations in joint supervision aren’t clearly laid out, it can lead to confusion and inconsistent guidance, which may negatively affect the quality of thesis outcomes.[34] Therefore, having well-defined supervision protocols and clear role assignments is crucial for upholding academic standards and supporting student well-being. Such findings reaffirm that addressing doctoral students’ mental health and psychological wellbeing must be considered a central priority in supervision practices.[6]

Conclusion

This qualitative study views the PhD thesis process as a dynamic and complex journey shaped by interpersonal relationships, clear procedures, and institutional frameworks. Insights gathered from doctoral students and supervisors at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences reveal key areas that need reform, such as supervisory practices, research readiness, resource distribution, and emotional support. To improve the quality of doctoral education, here are some recommendations:

• Create structured mentorship programs to enhance supervisory skills.

• Simplify administrative processes with centralized digital workflows.

• Introduce academic writing and research methodology training early in doctoral programs.

• Increase access to research funding and infrastructure to support academic excellence.

• Establish psychological support systems to alleviate emotional distress and build resilience.

• Foster structured writing communities to help combat academic isolation.

• Clearly define roles and expectations in joint supervision to ensure consistent guidance. By implementing these reforms, we can work towards developing more equitable, efficient, and supportive doctoral programs, especially in academic settings with limited resources.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study is part of PhD dissertation number 398301, with ethics code IRMU.RESEARCH.REC.1398.239, granted by Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. All participants gave their written informed consent and were guaranteed confidentiality and the choice to participate voluntarily.

Author’s contributions

SG: Conceptualization. SG: Data collection and curation. FJ and SG: Formal analysis. SG: Writing – original draft. AY and FJ: Writing – review and editing. AY: Supervision.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Funding Statement

Nil.