A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W - Change and continuity in Australian doctoral education - PhD completion rates and times (2005-2018)

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Mary Man

Study of doctoral education policy in Australia uses new national completion data (2005–2018) from the Department of Education and Training to examine changes and continuities in PhD completion outcomes. Results show completion rates and times changed only slightly, exceed normative expectations, and vary systematically by student characteristics, disciplines, and institutions. The article argues that improved completion data are needed to investigate structural conditions and to align reforms with observed completion realities rather than assumptions.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages14

Reading Time35 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Historical debates on PhD completion

Policy focus on completion times and rates

Australia-specific policy developments

A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W Change and continuity in Australian doctoral education PhD completion rates and times (2005-2018) Marc Torka University of Sydney Australia is following a global trend in doctoral education policy to improve PhD completion times and rates. It is widely believed that accurate data on PhD completion are needed to assess the success of reforms and drive changes in doctoral education. In this article, new national completion data (2005-2018) provided by the Australian Department of Education and Training (DET) have been employed to examine changes and continuities in the Australian doctoral education system. The findings demonstrate that Australian completion rates and times have changed only slightly over time, exceed normative expectations and systematically differ by student characteristics, disciplines and institutions. The article suggests that better completions data are needed to guide detailed research into the structural conditions that determine completion. This knowledge would help to base future reforms on evidence rather than normative expectations and to realign expected with actual completion times and rates. Keywords: Doctoral education, institutional change, completion times and rates Introduction Completing a PhD has always been a matter of concern, but the focus of the discourse has changed over time. Early debates raised the question of whether the completion of a PhD should be a necessary requirement to obtain academic positions ( James, 1903; Parsons & Platt, 1968). Since the late 1980s, high attrition rates and concerns that many students start but never complete their PhD dominated the discourse (Bourke et al., 2004; Lovitts, 2001). Today the question is how long it takes and should take to complete a PhD. It has been argued that low completion rates and long completion times are detrimental to students’ self-esteem, employability and career progress (Lovitts & Nelson, 2000). It is further argued that poor completion rates and times may damage the reputation of institutions and their capacity to attract promising students as well as funding. PhD students who take longer than expected may occupy free slots, and overload unpaid supervisors or coursework capacities (Horta et al., 2019). For funding agencies and governments low completion rates and long completion times are simply an ‘unacceptable wastage of private and public resources’ that undermines the expectation to gain ‘reasonable return on their investments’ (Kemp, 1999, pp. 2, 18). As a result of these concerns, PhD completion developed from an individual intellectual challenge to an abstract indicator of institutional, organisational or systemic levels of success. Although the reliability and validity of this indicator is contested, information on completion ratesand times is highly sought after and has been widely used to allocate funding, compare and restructure doctoral programs within and across national doctoral education systems (Gevenet al., 2018; Hall et al., 2006; Palmer, 2016; Spronken-Smith et al., 2018). This international trend towards a data driven‘governance by numbers’ (Heintz, 2008) heavily relies on a ‘trust in numbers’ (Porter, 1995). For this reason, higher vol. 62, no. 2, 2020 Change and continuity in Australian doctoral education Marc Torka 69 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W education policies around the globe aim to create and use more trustworthy data sets to drive change and improve PhD completion in doctoral education systems. In Australia, concerns about PhD completion can be traced back to the 1960s (Rodwell & Neumann, 2008) culminating in the Dawkins reforms in the late 1980s. Given the late introduction of Australian PhD degrees, with the first not awarded until 1948, early reforms primarily aimed to increase PhD numbers by creating specific postgraduate pathways, training programs and funding opportunities to enco

FAQs

What data are used to analyze Australian PhD completion?

The analysis uses new national completion data (2005–2018) provided by the Australian Department of Education and Training (DET).

How do PhD completion rates and times change over 2005–2018?

Completion rates and times changed only slightly over time, exceed normative expectations, and differ systematically by student characteristics, disciplines, and institutions.

Why does the article argue for better completion data?

Better data are needed to guide detailed research into structural conditions that determine completion and to base future reforms on evidence rather than normative expectations.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Mary Man