Frontline Learning Research 2 (2013) 12-34 ISSN 2295-3159 Focusing on doctoral students’ experiences of engagement in thesis work Jenna Vekkailaa, Kirsi Pyhältöa, Kirsti Lonkaa aUniversity of Helsinki, Finland Article received 13 June 2013 / revised 18 September 2013 / accepted 19 September 2013 / available online 20 December 2013 Abstract Little is known about what inspires students to be involved in their doctoral process and stay persistent when facing challenges. This study explored the nature of students’ engagement in the doctoral work. Altogether, 21 behavioural sciences doctoral students from one top-level research community were interviewed. The interview data were qualitatively content analysed. The doctoral students described their engagement in terms of experiences of dedication and efficiency. They rarely reported experiences of absorption. The primary sources of their engagement in their thesis work were increased sense of competence and relatedness. In addition, three qualitatively different forms of engagement in doctoral work including adaptive engagement, agentic engagement and work-life inspired engagement were identified from the doctoral students’ descriptions. Further, there was a variation among the students in terms of what forms of engagement they emphasised in different phases of their doctoral studies. This study contributed to the literature on doctoral student engagement by opening the nature of engagement at the interfaces of studying and working by shedding light on the dual role of doctoral students as both students and professional researchers. Moreover, this study broke down the complexity of engagement by identifying qualitatively different experiences and sources of engagement. The results encourage designing such engaging learning environments for doctoral students that promote their experiences of being competent researchers and integrated into their scholarly community. Keywords: Engagement; Doctoral education; Doctoral experience; Scholarly community Corresponding author: Jenna Vekkaila, Department of Teacher Education, Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 9 (Siltavuorenpenger 7), 00014 Helsinki, Finland. E-mail: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.14786/flr.v1i2.43 12 | F L R J. Vekkaila et al. 1. Introduction Doctoral studies are about learning in terms of research work and becoming an acknowledged researcher in a scholarly community. This takes place at the interfaces of studying and working. Conducting doctoral research can be seen as both academic work and studying. Doctoral students take their first steps as professional researchers by carrying out doctoral research and teaching undergraduates, which both can be considered to be academic work (Brew, Boud, & Namgung, 2011; Golde, 1998; Turner & McAlpine, 2011). However, doctoral students also take courses in the role of a student (Brew et al., 2011; Golde, 1998; Turner & McAlpine, 2011). Such dual role at the interfaces of studying and working are nowadays required also more generally in life-long training to various professions in business, industry and government by the wider knowledge economy (Boud & Tennant, 2006; Bourner, Bowden, & Laing, 2001; Park, 2005) where solving complex, ill-defined problems (Alexander, 1992; Lonka, 1997) is constantly increasing. Although doctoral students are highly competent and successful based on their academic backgrounds, earning the doctorate is always a highly challenging process. For instance, in doctoral education literature students‟ experienced distress (e.g., Hyun, Quinn, Madon, & Lustig, 2006; Kurtz-Costes, Helmke, & Ülkü- Steiner, 2006; Toews et al., 1997) and remarkably high attrition rates varying from 30% to 50% (Gardner, 2007; Golde, 2005; Lovitts, 2001; McAlpine & Norton, 2006) depending on the contexts have been identified as huge challenges. Especially in social sciences high attrition rates among doctoral students are a major concern (Lovitts, 2001; Lovitts & Nelson, 2000; McAlpine & Norton, 2006; Nettles & Millet, 2006). So-called “soft” or “ill-defined” domains such as the social and behavioural sciences are characterised by relatively loose theoretical structure and target of interest as well as unspecific strategies of inquiry (Alexander, 1992; Biglan, 1973a, 1973b). In such domains researchers often define and are involved in their own individual projects (e.g., Lovitts, 2001). Therefore, individualistic research structure may promote the idea of independent thinkers (Chiang, 2003). However, it can also entail separation, which, in turn, is likely to promote negative experiences (e.g., Chiang, 2003; Lovitts, 2001) and consideration of interrupting doctoral studies (e.g., Stubb, Pyhältö, & Lonka, 2011). In order to find ways to support doctoral student persistence research on doctoral education has for a long time focused on attrition and negative experiences (e.g., Golde, 1998, 2005; Lovitts, 2001; Vassil & Solvak, 2012; Vekkaila, Pyhältö, & Lonka, 2013). Research among undergraduate students, however, suggests that by focusing on strengths, positive emotions and full functioning (Bresó, Schaufeli, & Salanova, 2011; Krause & Coates, 2008; Ouweneel, Le Blanc, & Schaufeli, 2011), a better understanding on doctoral students‟ engagement can be attained. This understanding provides tools for creating increasingly engaging environments for doctoral students (e.g., Pontius & Harper, 2006). Our study aimed at filling the gap in the doctoral education literature by exploring the nature of doctoral students‟ engagement in their thesis work in the domain of behavioural sciences. 1.1 Engagement in doctoral work Owing to the dual nature of doctoral research, our study draws both on research on work engagement (e.g., Schaufeli, Martínez, Pinto, Salanova, & Bakker, 2002a; Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002b) and on study engagement (e.g., Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004) to examine doctoral student engagement in doctoral work. Engagement refers to a student‟s active involvement in a task or an activity at hand (e.g., Case 2008; Fredricks et al., 2004; Reeve et al., 2004). Accordingly, doctoral student engagement entails active involvement in the learning opportunities and practices provided by their environments. Engagement is characterised by positive, fulfilling experiences including vigour, dedication and absorption (Salanova, Schaufeli, Martínez, & Bresó, 2010; Schaufeli et al., 2002a, 2002b). Vigour refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort in one‟s work, and persistence in the face of difficulties (Schaufeli et al., 2002b). Dedication, on the other hand, is characterised by a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and challenge (Schaufeli et al., 2002b). Being fully concentrated 13 | F L R J. Vekkaila et al. on and immersed in one‟s work characterises absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002b). Absorption is close to the flow experience in which an individual is deeply immersed in an activity that is intrinsically enjoyable (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). There is evidence that engaged doctoral students were likely to feel effective and satisfied with their thesis work, and remained determined when encountering challenges (Virtanen & Pyhältö, 2012). In contrast, students who suffered from disengagement from their doctoral studies, were likely to feel less satisfied and more likely to give up (Vekkaila et al., 2013). Moreover, engaged doctoral students have, for instance, been shown to attain better learning outcomes and relationships within their scholarly community (Gardner & Barnes, 2007). Several factors contribute to engagement (e.g., Llorens, Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2007; Reeve et al., 2004; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). For instance, in previous studies on doctoral education good quality supervision, support and constructive feedback (e.g., Golde, 2005; Hoskins & Goldberg, 2005) as well as meaningful interaction within the scholarly community (e.g., Gardner, 2007; Deem & Brehony, 2000; Lovitts, 2001; Pyhältö, Stubb, & Lonka, 2009; Stubb et al., 2011) have been identified as predictors of doctoral students‟ satisfaction, study persistence and well-being. For instance, Weidman and Stein (2003) found a link between the number of faculty-student interactions and students‟ involvement in their research projects. Moreover, Ives and Rowley (2005) showed that a constructive supervisory relationship was associated with students‟ progress and satisfaction with their doctoral studies, and hence their involvement in their thesis projects. 1.2 Engagement and dynamic interplay between doctoral students and their environments The scholarly community often provides the primary work environment for doctoral students (Brew et al., 2011; Gardner, 2007; McAlpine & Amundsen, 2008; Pyhältö et al., 2009). Hence, doctoral students‟ learning is highly embedded in the practices of a scholarly community. However, this community itself is a complex, multilayered, nested entity (McAlpine & Norton, 2006) that can be defined as a discipline such as „Education,‟ as a faculty, or as a specific research group (e.g., Austin, 2002; Pyhältö, Nummenmaa, Soini, Stubb, & Lonka, 2012a; White & Nonnamaker, 2008). Accordingly, the community provides various arenas and forms for student participation such as interaction with faculty, participation in international conferences, peer collaboration, working in a research group and teaching undergraduate students (Brew et al., 2011; Pyhältö & Keskinen, 2012). Further, students‟ involvement in the various arenas such as conducting research work, attending courses and participating in research collaboration may promote their experiences of dedication to and vigour in earning the doctorate as well as absorption in conducting research work. The previous findings on doctoral education imply that the doctoral student engagement is regulated by a complex, dynamic interplay between the student and the environment rather than a single individual or environmental attribute (e.g., Golde, 2005; Virtanen & Pyhältö, 2012; Vekkaila, Pyhältö, Hakkarainen, Keskinen, & Lonka, 2012; Vekkaila et al., 2013). This includes that doctoral students‟ experiences of engagement are constantly constructed and re-constructed in the student-environment interaction. Such interaction entails the students‟ prior learning experiences, beliefs, goals, and the practices and culture of the environment. Doctoral students‟ perceptions, participation and other practices are mediated by their prior experiences and knowledge that have developed during their undergraduate studies and in their other professional careers or personal lives. The culture and practices of the environment, in turn, affect doctoral students‟ thinking, actions, and engagement. Accordingly, the complex doctoral student-learning environment interrelation mediates students‟ engagement in the doctoral process. The dynamic interplay between the learner and learning environment (e.g., Lindblom-Ylänne & Lonka, 2000) contributes to not only whether or not students engage in their studies (e.g., Fredricks et al., 2004; Leiter & Bakker, 2010) but also to the ways in which they engage in their studies. Accordingly, the quality of the dynamics between the doctoral student and the environment is likely to contribute to the ways the student engages in doctoral work. Dynamics between students and their environment can contribute 14 | F L R J. Vekkaila et al. to students‟ sense of relatedness, competence, autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 2002, 2008) and contribution (Eccles, 2008). Deci and Ryan (2002) have proposed that the experiences of relatedness, competence and autonomy are the prerequisites for individuals‟ personally meaningful actions and experiences (see the Self- Determination Theory). The sense of relatedness refers to feeling connected to others, having sense of belonging both with other individuals and with one‟s community, and be integral to and accepted by others (Deci & Ryan, 2002). The sense of competence, in turn, focuses on feeling effective and confident in one‟s on-going actions within the social environment and experiencing opportunities to express and exercise one‟s capacities (Deci & Ryan, 2002). When individuals are autonomous they feel as if they are the source of their own actions and behaviour even when those actions are influenced by outside forces (Deci & Ryan, 2002). That is, their actions are based on their own personal interests and values. Furthermore, it is important to feel a sense of contribution when acting in a personally meaningful way (Eccles, 2008). Thus, the experiences of belonging, competence, autonomy and contribution are necessary in order to promote doctoral students‟ engagement (Mason, 2012; Virtanen & Pyhältö, 2012). For instance, Appel and Dahlgren (2003) found that doctoral students were inspired in their studies by the opportunities available for intellectual development, feelings of having internal locus of control and academic freedom as a researcher, and chances to make a difference by their doctoral project. In addition, Stubb et al. (2011) and Pyhältö and Keskinen (2012) more recently found that the doctoral students who experienced their scholarly community in a positive way, that is, as empowering, or who perceived themselves as active agents, less often reported lack of interest towards their own studies and considered interrupting their doctoral process less often than those students who had negative experiences or perceived themselves as passive objects. This indicates that doctoral students can be active in certain interaction arenas of a scholarly community whereas in some other communities they may participate infrequently and be more in a role of an observer. This, in turn, is likely to contribute to their engagement in doctoral work. It follows that also students‟ engagement in terms of how agentic (Reeve & Tseng, 2011) they experience themselves in their doctoral work may vary. At its best a doctoral student‟s peripheral role gradually evolves towards active, relational agency as the student is involved more intensively in the research group‟s shared knowledge creation practices, and develops a sense of ownership of one‟s own doctoral research and identity as a researcher (Hakkarainen, Hytönen, Makkonen, Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, & White, 2013; Hopwood, 2010; Pyhältö & Keskinen, 2012; Pyhältö et al., 2012a; Vekkaila et al., 2012). Relational agency (Edwards, 2005) refers to the capacity of doctoral students to work with other members of their research community in order to better respond to complex research problems (Pyhältö & Keskinen, 2012). This means that doctoral students are not influenced only by the scholarly community but can, at least to some extent, choose their primary arenas in which to participate and take initiative, direct and re-direct their own activity and learning (Pyhältö & Keskinen, 2012). Therefore by adopting different strategies, the students can actively modify their environment, and hence their opportunities to engage in the scholarly community in question (Virtanen & Pyhältö, 2012) and, further, in their doctoral work. Sometimes students‟ engagement in doctoral work may be inspired mainly by their work-life experience. Mäkinen, Olkinuora, and Lonka (2004) showed that especially in fields such as teacher education, law, and medicine, where the student aimed at professional development rather than abstract, theoretical understanding, the so-called work-life orientation dominated. In previous studies those university students who expressed so-called work-life orientation were interested in professional development and saw their studying as training for a certain profession or vocation (Lonka & Lindblom-Ylänne, 1996; Mäkinen et al., 2004; Vermunt, 1996). They appreciated directly useful, concrete and applicable knowledge (Lonka & Lindblom-Ylänne, 1996; Mäkinen et al., 2004; Vermunt, 1996). Such orientation on studying was considered to reflect practical interest rather than scientific ambition (Lonka & Lindblom-Ylänne, 1996; Mäkinen et al., 2004). Brint, Cantwell, and Hannerman (2008), for instance, found in their study on undergraduate students that the culture of engagement in the arts, humanities and social sciences focused on participation and interest in ideas, whereas the culture of engagement in the natural sciences and engineering focused more on improvement of research skills, collaborative study, and the labour market. In our recent study on natural sciences doctoral students, this was not as straightforward: the students‟ inspiration and engagement in the doctoral work was often due to a strengthened sense of belonging and participation in the various practices 15 | F L R J. Vekkaila et al. of their research community (Vekkaila et al., 2012). This suggests that students may have different ways of being engaged in their doctoral process and earning the doctoral degree. The present study focused on exploring behavioural sciences students‟ engaging doctoral experiences. 2. The aim of this study This study is a part of a larger national research project on doctoral education in Finland that aims to understand the process of PhD education (see Pyhältö et al., 2009). The present study aimed at gaining a better understanding of doctoral student engagement in thesis work. In our study, the following research questions were addressed: 1. What kinds of experiences of engagement did the doctoral students describe? 2. What were the sources of engagement in doctoral work? 3. Were there qualitatively different forms of engagement? 3. Method 3.1 Doctoral education in Finnish context In Finland, doctoral studies are heavily focused on conducting thesis research. There is no extensive separate course work required before launching the doctoral research project. In fact, course work from 40 to 80 European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) credits worth of postgraduate studies depending on the discipline included in doctoral studies are usually individually constructed and based on personal study plans that typically include international conferences and some methodological studies. In behavioural sciences, an article compilation with a summary has become the dominant form of thesis (66%) during recent years (Pyhältö, Stubb, & Tuomainen, 2011). The article compilation is more dominant in psychology, whereas in educational sciences the dominant form is the monograph (a book format). The article compilation consists of three to five internationally refereed journal articles often co- authored with the supervisors and a summary that includes an introduction and a discussion bringing together the separate articles. Doctoral supervision is usually based on an apprenticeship, in both research groups and supervisor-student dyads (Löfström & Pyhältö, 2012). In Finland, students can conduct doctoral studies full-time or part-time. The general target duration for full-time studies for the doctorate is four years. However, often the completion time for the doctorate is longer than this. According to a recent survey the average time for completing the degree in behavioural sciences is five to six years (Sainio, 2010). However, some sources indicate that the average completion time may be higher ranging from seven to over ten years (Pyhältö et al., 2011). This may be explained by the heavy requirements of earning the doctorate. The articles included in the article compilation need to be published in peer reviewed journals, students need to write the summary of them, the thesis need to examined by two or three pre-reviewers, a students need to defend the thesis publicly before the Faculty Council decides whether to award the doctoral degree. Long completion times may also be explained by the nature of Finnish doctoral education system, that is, doctoral studies are free for the students, the licence to conduct doctoral studies is valid for life and students can conduct their doctoral studies part-time and have other professional full-time jobs. Although the doctoral education is publicly funded, the students have to cover their costs of living, which is typically done through personal grants, project funding or wages earned by working outside the university (Pyhältö et al., 2011). Doctoral education in Finland is more detailed described by the International Postgraduate Student Mirror (2006) and Pyhältö et al. (2012a). 16 | F L R J. Vekkaila et al. 3.2 Participants The participants were 21 behavioural sciences doctoral students (female: 17; male: 4) from a major research-intensive Finnish university. All the participants were from the same case community participating in the larger national research project on doctoral education in Finland (see Pyhältö et al., 2009) and its all doctoral students were invited to participate in the study. Participation was voluntary. The case community was chosen because it represented a national and international well-established research group and was considered to be good representative of organisation of doctoral education. Eleven of the participants were full-time doctoral students and ten were part-time. Six participants were pursuing a monograph, seven a summary of articles; eight participants were unsure of the form their theses would take. All the participants had Master‟s degrees, typically in educational sciences and they were in different phases of their doctoral process. According to the participants‟ own estimates, twelve of them were in the beginning of the doctoral process meaning that they were typically launching their research projects, collecting and/or analysing data, or writing their first and/or second article. Four were in the middle part of the process that typically included data analysis, and writing the monograph, or writing third and/or fourth article. Four of the participants were in the last part of the process that typically meant finalising the monograph or the last articles and the summary of the articles. One of participants had already graduated. All the participants were interviewed on a voluntary basis. 3.3 Interviews Semi-structured interview (e.g., Kvale, 2007) data were collected in 2007–2008. The interviews were designed to investigate the doctoral students‟ experiences of their thesis process and their views of themselves within it (see Appendix 1). At the beginning of the interviews, the students were asked some background information questions about their discipline or subject, time spent on their thesis/studies, the phase of the process and time of graduation, as well as the form of the thesis and whether they were working on it full-time or part-time. The interview focused both on the retrospection of previous experiences of the Ph.D. process and on the present situation. (Stubb, 2012.) The interview was piloted before the actual data collection. In the first stage, it was tested with four doctoral students in behavioural sciences, and minor modifications to the questions were made. Then the interview was tested with seven science students and no further modifications were required. All interviews were conducted by a researcher from the authors‟ research group (except one, which was done by a trained research assistant). Each interview lasted approximately one hour (ranging from thirty minutes to almost three hours). The interviews were recorded and transcribed. (Stubb, 2012.) 3.4 Analysis The interview data were qualitatively content analysed (e.g., Patton, 1990) by relying on an abductive strategy (e.g., Coffey & Atkinson, 1996; Morgan, 2007). Hence, the data observations and prior understanding based on theories were repeatedly assessed in relation to each other in order to acquire the most optimal understanding of the phenomenon (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996; Morgan, 2007), that is, doctoral student engagement, when categorising the data. At the beginning of the first analysis phase, all the text segments in which the doctoral students referred to engaging experiences in terms of their doctoral work were coded into the same hermeneutic category by using a grounded strategy (e.g., Harry, Sturges, & Klingner, 2005; Mills, Bonner, & Francis, 2006). Accordingly, all the text segments referring to engaging doctoral experiences from the 21 interviews were grouped together and formed the ground data for further analysis. The unit of analysis included the totality of thought referring to engaging experiences ranging from a sentence to dozen sentences. These text segments included expressions of interest, inspiration, energy, devotion, meaningfulness and positive doctoral thesis related emotions. 17 | F L R J. Vekkaila et al. After this, the analysis focused on what the participants experienced, that is, the different qualities of engaging doctoral experiences. Data were coded into three exclusive main categories by relying on research on characteristics of engagement introduced in the literature review (e.g., Salanova et al., 2010; Schaufeli et al., 2002a, 2002b) as follows: (a) Dedication including participants‟ experiences where they expressed earning the doctorate, being a doctoral student, and conducting research and studies as personally highly meaningful and significant, and entailing strong devotion and positive emotions such as joy, enthusiasm and inspiration; (b) Efficiency including participants‟ experiences of having willingness to invest effort in their research work and studies, strengthened self-images of themselves as researchers and having the effective and energetic drive to conduct doctoral work, and (c) Absorption including participants‟ experiences of intensive situations where they experienced being fully concentrated on and engrossed in their research work and studies. The three main categories reflected the main experiences of engagement in doctoral work. The category labelled “efficiency” came close to vigour (e.g., Schaufeli et al., 2002a, 2002b), however, the category was named as efficiency because in students‟ descriptions experiences of strengthened self-efficacy beliefs and an energetic drive with the research work were emphasised. At the end of the first phase, the analysis focused on what contributed to students‟ experiences of engagement in their doctoral work. The text segments in the categories representing the main experiences of engagement were coded into four basic categories according to the primary sources of, that is, causes for engagement as described by the participants by relying on Deci and Ryan‟s (2002, 2008) as well as Eccles‟s (2008) works introduced in the literature review: (a) Competence including participants‟ descriptions where their experiences of engagement in doctoral work were promoted by development of their academic skills and expertise, learning and developing understanding of the domain and own topic, and gaining insights into their own research; (b) Relatedness including participants‟ descriptions where their experiences of engagement in doctoral work were strengthened by having dialogues and collaboration with supervisors, other researchers and peers, as well as participating in and becoming a valued part of a scholarly community; (c) Autonomy including participants‟ descriptions where their experiences of engagement in doctoral work were promoted by being in control of their own research work, and following their own interest in their doctoral process, and (d) Contribution including participants‟ descriptions where their experiences of engagement in doctoral work were strengthened by producing such significant scientific knowledge that make a difference, and seeing the value of their own research in practice. A visualisation of the first analysis phase is provided in Figure 1. The agreement between the two classifiers regarding the independent parallel analysis of 30% (f = 36) of the text segments in relation to the main experiences of engagement was 94% and in relation to the sources of engagement was 97%. Interrater reliability measured with Cohen‟s kappa (κ) in regard to the main experiences of engagement was 0.91 and in regard to the sources of engagement was 0.95, indicating almost complete agreement. The text segments related to the main experiences and sources of engagement were quantified and the relation between them was analysed with cross-tabulation and χ²-tests. 18 | F L R J. Vekkaila et al. Figure 1. A visualisation of the first analysis phase. In the second phase of the analysis, a person-oriented analysis strategy was applied. The person- oriented analysis involved that the analysis focused on identifying the forms of student‟s engagement in doctoral work. In practice, each participant‟s engaging experiences that were identified at the very beginning of the analysis from the interview data were grouped together, that is, formed own unity, and were separated from the experiences reported by the other participants. At first, the different forms of engagement presented in each participant‟s descriptions were investigated to delineate the initial categories by exploring the patterns, that is, differences and similarities in the main experiences and sources of each individual student‟s engaging experiences. Also, each participant‟s engaging experiences were interpreted within the larger interview context. Then, the similarities and differences in the main experiences and sources were explored across all participants‟ descriptions of engaging experiences. As a result, the experiences were divided into their own categories based on their differences, following the idea that the experiences presenting a certain form of engagement in one category were mutually similar, while being distinct enough from the other categories. The categories appeared to differ from each other in terms of how the participants expressed: (1) the dynamics between themselves and their scholarly community in the engaging experiences, and (2) the source of inspiration in their doctoral work in the engaging experiences. From the participants‟ descriptions three categories representing the qualitatively different forms of engagement in doctoral work were identified: adaptive form of engagement, agentic form of engagement and work-life inspired form of engagement. In adaptive and work-life inspired forms of engagement the dynamics between the doctoral students and their scholarly community was expressed as being static in nature, that is, providing an arena for adjusting and acquiring knowledge, whereas in the agentic form of engagement the dynamic was expressed as being reciprocal, that is, an arena for dialogue. In the students‟ expressions the source of inspiration in doctoral work in adaptive form of engagement was adapting and conforming to the current conditions and acquiring 19 | F L R J. Vekkaila et al. the knowledge and skills that were valued in the scholarly community. In turn, in agentic form of engagement creating new knowledge was more emphasised as source of inspiration in doctoral work, whereas in work-life inspired form of engagement the students highlighted the importance of applying the new knowledge and skills acquired in the scholarly community in order to solve practical problems and contribute to the work-life outside academia. The qualitatively different forms of engagement were also studied in relation to the phase of studies. Study phase was determined based on students‟ own evaluation of whether they were at the beginning, middle, or end of their own doctoral process. Although in the participants‟ descriptions typically at least two of the forms of engagement were present, one of the forms was emphasised in their descriptions. In the results, we provide quotations of participants‟ descriptions that were translated from Finnish into English. 4. Results The results suggested that there was a variation in the participants‟ experiences of engagement. The doctoral students‟ descriptions of dedication, efficiency and absorption ranged from experiencing their doctoral work as highly meaningful to having energetic drive while conducting it. Moreover, the sources of engagement varied from developing an understanding of one‟s own research into belonging to the scholarly community. The students also described qualitatively different forms of engagement. 4.1 Main experiences of engagement in doctoral work The participants emphasised experienced dedication (53%) in their doctoral work (see Table 1). For instance, the students perceived earning the doctorate and training as personally meaningful and significant, and described their strong devotion in their doctoral process and interest in their research. They also expressed extremely positive emotions including pleasure, satisfaction and joy. They were also enthusiastic about being doctoral students and pursuing their PhDs in the training program. For instance, as one of the students described: I like this graduate school because every time we have here a seminar, I leave it with a growing zeal. I think that conducting research is the right work for me. Participating in this graduate school and its seminars really promote my excitement and inspiration. (P10) The students also often highlighted a sense of efficiency in conducting their doctoral work (40%). They reported positive, strengthened perceptions of their self-efficacy beliefs as researchers and their clear perceptions of the next steps in their research, and ability to organise and steer their own doctoral process. They were also willing to make efforts for their doctoral work and described having active, efficient and energetic drive when conducting it. As one of the students shared: When I present my work in different seminars and receive feedback . . . it has a practical influence on my work and then I really need to get to work with my research; then I know what I have to get working on next . . . It gives me energy to conduct my research further and I try to find time to conduct it . . . Then my research moves forward . . . (P17) The students rarely described experiences of absorption in the doctoral work (7%). In these cases, for example, they described intensive episodes during which they were fully immersed in their work, including data analysis or writing the thesis. They were involved in the doctoral work even to the extent that other activities were brushed aside. As one student described: 20 | F L R J. Vekkaila et al. Then came this very intensive period . . . I was in the field collecting data every day for several months . . . I was immersed in the data collection for several years, because I found the situation in the field really interesting. (P21) 4.2 Sources of engagement in doctoral work The sources that the participants identified as contributing to the engaging experiences varied. However, the engagement was often described in relation to learning and developing as a researcher as well as interacting with other researchers. Table 1 shows that the participants emphasised an increased sense of competence (39%) as an important source of their engagement. The students‟ sense of competence often emerged as development of understanding or new academic skills. Hence, their engagement often stemmed from learning and development as scholars. These experiences included, for instance, deepening their understanding of research work and theories, creating new knowledge, and developing their thinking and learning about their themes in more profound ways, as well as providing new insights in their research. As one student remarked: I think that finding and learning new knowledge is fun. My supervisor says that I should not read anymore, but when new research is published, I have to read it. I suppose I like to gain new insights and understanding about my research theme. They are really the best experiences in this work. (P15) Almost as often, the students highlighted their sense of relatedness (37%) as a significant source of engagement in their doctoral work (Table 1). Characteristic of the situations in which the students‟ experiences of relatedness were promoted was that they perceived being actively involved in their scholarly community, and having a sense of belonging to it and being valued by others. They also described various participation and interaction arenas including research collaboration, receiving constructive feedback and discussions, and sharing interest and expertise with more experienced researchers, supervisors, and peers on research work in general and especially on their own doctoral research. As one of the students described: Usually I become inspired by our seminars and discussions. The first thing that comes to my mind is Professor H’s ways of stating concepts. He somehow makes theories clearer and adds new perspectives. I have also participated in a group where we have discussed the doctoral theses of other advanced doctoral students and through those discussions I have had many new ideas . . . I get the feeling that it is wonderful that I am able to do this and it is amazing to be here, that this work is really fun. (P1) Sometimes the students described their sense of autonomy (13%) as the source of engagement in their doctoral work. They expressed the significance of being able to conduct such research work that was one of their personal interests, based on their own decisions, were in their own control, and defined on their own terms even though they often worked in research projects with other researchers. As one student commented: That seminar began and there we read the central texts related to the theory together in our graduate school group. It was an amazing time and we were given time and space to think . . . It was really nice time . . . [it was a] time when I did not have to limit myself and had the freedom to do and be. (P16) Less often, the students expressed sense of contribution (11%) to be a source of their engagement. When the students described sense of contribution they typically reported the importance of being able to produce original scientific knowledge with significance and develop such understanding of the research themes that would be valued and making a difference especially in the practical work-life outside academia. As one of the students shared: 21 | F L R