Doctoral survey 2014 by TU Delft

TU Delft Graduate School

Doctoral Candidate Survey 2014

Colophon Research, production and final editing Jasper Meeuwissen (Graduate School, TU Delft) Research Support Laurens van der Vuurst (Downsideup, Amsterdam) Co-editor Stella van der Meulen (Graduate School, TU Delft) Editorial team Young Mi Poppema (Graduate School, TU Delft) Design and lay-out Dominique Meijer (Media Solutions, TU Delft) Photography Sam Rentmeester (photograph in foreword) ÂŠ TU Delft 2014 A digital version of this report is also available on the website: graduateschool.tudelft.nl and on: issuu.com

Contents Management Summary ........................................................................................................................... 5 Research questions ............................................................................................................................. 6 Interventions ....................................................................................................................................... 6 1.

Introduction and methods .............................................................................................................. 9

Response Group ............................................................................................................................ 13 2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 14 2.2 Response rate .............................................................................................................................. 14 2.3 Validity of response group .......................................................................................................... 15 2.4 Background information.............................................................................................................. 17 2.5 PhD project information .............................................................................................................. 20

Descriptive statistics: faculties and TU Delft ................................................................................. 27 3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 28 3.2 Project and Planning.................................................................................................................... 30 3.3 Professional Embedding .............................................................................................................. 38 3.4 Supervision .................................................................................................................................. 45 3.5 Doctoral Education ...................................................................................................................... 63 3.6 Working Environment, Facilities and Teaching ........................................................................... 72 3.7 Career Planning ........................................................................................................................... 87 3.8 Graduate School (organization and process) .............................................................................. 95 3.9 Online Education ....................................................................................................................... 102 3.10 Final grade of PhD programme ............................................................................................... 104 3.11 Faculty-related questions ........................................................................................................ 107 Aerospace Engineering ................................................................................................................ 107 Civil Engineering and Geosciences .............................................................................................. 108 Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Sciences .................................................... 109 Technology, Policy and Management ......................................................................................... 110

Subgroup Differences .................................................................................................................. 111 4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 112 4.2 Scale questions .......................................................................................................................... 113 4.3 Gender ....................................................................................................................................... 116 4.4 Nationality ................................................................................................................................. 119 4.5 VSNU category ........................................................................................................................... 126 4.6 Pre-GS/GS .................................................................................................................................. 131 2

4.7 Go/No Go................................................................................................................................... 134 4.8 Research School......................................................................................................................... 135 4.9 Teaching .................................................................................................................................... 137 4.10 Peer group learning ................................................................................................................. 139 4.11 Meetings with supervisors ...................................................................................................... 141 4.12 Supervision satisfaction ........................................................................................................... 143 5.

Cause and Effect .......................................................................................................................... 145 5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 146 5.2 Correlations ............................................................................................................................... 146 5.3 Regression ................................................................................................................................. 148

Foreword Delft University of Technology, November 1, 2014

Dear Reader, This report presents the results of a survey among all doctoral candidates at Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) – the PhD Survey 2014 – about their experience of various aspects of the doctorate graduation process and the Graduate School. In 2011 we held our first big “Doctoral Climate” Survey, followed by the implementation of the TU Delft Graduate School in 2012. The purpose of the PhD Survey 2014 is to see how doctoral candidates view their working environment, their research endeavours and the processes involved. By comparing the two surveys, we aim to assess the impact which the establishment of the Graduate School has had on our Doctoral candidates. The results of the PhD Survey 2014 will be used by the Graduate School’s Dean and Board to continue to develop the Doctoral climate and key aspects such as the quality of doctoral education and doctorate supervision at the university. The Graduate School (GS) is still ‘under construction’; we expect the first cohort of GS Doctoral candidates to defend their dissertation by the beginning of 2016. Therefore, we are glad that our Doctoral candidates already value the overall doctorate climate at TU Delft slightly more than in 2011, namely 7.34 out of 10 (to 7.20 in 2011). It seems that many of the changes implemented by the TU Delft Graduate School have indeed improved the doctorate climate. An example is a comprehensive package of generic training courses as part of the Doctoral Education programme. The aim of this report is to define, in depth, how and where the Doctoral climate has been enhanced. It is our ambition that the Graduate School will continue to play an important role in improving the various areas of and the doctorate graduation process as a whole.

Stella van der Meulen MSc, Coördinator TU Delft Graduate School

Prof.dr.ir. Peter Wieringa, Dean TU Delft Graduate School

Management Summary

Research questions This report provides answers to the most important issues that lie at the heart of the doctorate climate at Delft University of Technology (TU Delft). These issues can be summarized in the following categories: • • • • • •

Project and Planning Professional Embedding Supervision Doctoral Education Working Environment, Facilities and Teaching Career Planning

Three research questions ran through the survey: 1. What are the characteristics of our current doctoral population in 2014? (i.e. demographics, background information and satisfaction scores) 2. What are the differences between faculties, between 2011 and 2014 and between significant subgroups? 3. Which issues require the most attention? E.g.: Which aspects(s) of the doctoral process influence(s) doctoral candidates’ general satisfaction the most? Over 100 questions have been presented to and answered by 667 respondents,. These answer have provided detailed insight into the doctoral climate at TU Delft.. The response group was tested for validity and all conclusions from this report can be extrapolated to the entire Doctoral population. The graphs and statistical tests visualise these questions and provide input for the Graduate School and the Board for Doctorates to make evidence-based policy decisions. Overall grade Doctoral candidates grade the doctoral climate with an average score of 7.34 regardless of the faculty they belong to. In 2011, the average overall score was 7.2.; i.e. there was a slight increase in overall satisfaction in 2014, when comparing to 2011 (the difference with 2014 is statistically significant).

Interventions To highlight which issues doctoral candidates perceive as ‘most pressing’, the overall grade is also used in a regression analysis. The following three categories with specific items have the strongest influence on the overall grade: 1. Project and Planning • Items: Clear overview of PhD project, progress is in line with expectations, promotor and daily supervisor motivate the doctoral candidate to finish in 4 years • Item where the largest difference can be made: 38% of doctoral candidates do not think that their progress is in line with their expectations. 2. Supervision • Items: Own input is taken seriously, doctoral candidate receives help to expand professional network, it is clear what to expect from supervision, support/help with methodology

•

Item where the largest difference can be made: 31% of doctoral candidates do not think that they receive enough help expanding their professional network. 3. Working Environment, Facilities and Teaching • Items: Available facilities (e.g. laboratories, equipment, software), content of own work, social relationships at work, contact with the research group • Item where the largest difference can be made: 18% of doctoral candidates is dissatisfied with their contact with other staff members of their research group. It seems that working on the abovementioned items will positively influence the doctoral experience of a doctoral candidate and will thus have a significant impact on the overall grade. Furthermore, doctoral candidates will be more satisfied with their supervision and perform better when they are well-embedded in their working environment (professionally and socially). In a broader sense, it appears that all the items in the questionnaire dealing with data collection, data analysis and methodology are strong predictors of general satisfaction regarding the doctorate climate. Subgroups When looking at the 4 most important subgroups within the whole population, it can be said that: • • • •

•

Male doctoral candidates are more satisfied than female doctoral candidates Dutch doctoral candidates are more satisfied than international Doctoral candidates Doctoral candidates that started from 2012 onwards (as a part of the Graduate School) are more satisfied than doctoral candidates before 2012 The level of satisfaction is also dependent of a doctoral candidate’s VSNU category: external doctoral candidates (VSNU 4) are most satisfied, followed by contract doctoral candidates (VSNU 3), then standard doctoral candidates (VSNU 1) and at lastly Internal Doctoral candidates (VSNU 2) who are least satisfied. Six other subgroups were studied as well. A surprising result was that passing the Go/No Go meeting seems to have no influence on how well a doctoral candidate oversees their whole PhD project.

Connection to TU Delft The most notable change between 2011 and 2014 in the doctoral population is the way in which doctoral candidates are professionally connected to TU Delft. The results in the graph are for the whole population in 2011 and 2014.

25%

50% 63%

75% 27%

100% 9%

2011

VSNU 1 VSNU 2 VSNU 3

53%

39%

2014

VSNU 4

With a single glance, it is obvious that the increase in the percentage of contract doctoral candidates is derives from a decrease in percentage of standard and external doctoral candidates. This is an 7

interesting trend because contract doctoral candidates have a different relation to TU Delft (partner instead of employer) and this has consequences for e.g. financing, teaching capacity at TU Delft, etc.

1. Introduction and methods

1.1 The Graduate School of Delft University of Technology This survey is the follow-up to a baseline survey performed in in the summer of 2011. In 2010 the Executive Board of Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) had expressed the wish to found a Graduate School (GS). In 2011, it was decided that there should be a University Graduate School for central affairs (intake, registration, Doctoral Education, monitoring) and a Faculty Graduate School at every faculty for local affairs (mentor, discipline-related courses, supervision). The implementation of the Graduate School started in 2011 with the formation of the University Graduate Office and as of January 1st 2012 all faculties had formed their Faculty Graduate School. The main task of the Graduate School is to streamline the whole doctoral process and make it more transparent both for the doctoral candidate and the organization. The ultimate goal hereby is to raise the doctorate graduation quality and speed.. There are dedicated teams at the University Graduate School and Faculty Graduate School that are pursuing this goal every day and it can now be concluded that the Graduate School is fully embedded in the organisation.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; The other main task of the Graduate School is to facilitate the Doctoral Education programme (according to the third cycle of education as stated in the Bologna Agreements). Doctoral Education is a mandatory programme for doctoral candidates since the start of the GS. Doctoral Education aims to help doctoral candidate develop in terms of their research skills, discipline-related skills and skills related to personal and professional development. Ultimately, this will help them work towards becoming independent researchers that will thrive in their further career regardless of whether this is in industry or academia. The University Graduate School offers training for transferable (generic) skills. The training for research and discipline-related skills is coordinated at the faculty level.

1.2 Objective of this survey The main objective of this survey is to monitor, report and evaluate the doctoral experience climate at TU Delft. This led us to formulate three questions: 1. What are the characteristics of our current doctoral population in 2014? Demographics, background information and satisfaction scores 2. What are the differences? Between faculties, between 2011 and 2014 and between significant subgroups 3. Which issues require the most attention? What/which part(s) of the doctoral process influence(s) the general satisfaction the most? This survey is part of a broader objective to monitor, report and evaluate all the doctoral processes..

1.3 Data collection and products All the doctoral candidates at TU Delft are registered in the Doctoral Monitoring Application (DMA). This is a web-based application where the key actors involved in the doctoral project can monitor progress: the doctoral candidate, the promotor(s) and the daily supervisor(s). The mailing list for the questionnaire was generated using DMA. This list contains the e-mail addresses of2334 doctoral candidates(see Appendix 1). During the whole month of April, it was possible for doctoral candidates to fill out the questionnaire using the online survey tool EvaSys. This tool is used throughout TU Delft to evaluate all the bachelor, master and doctoral education. 10

1.4 Data analysis (in SPSS) All the analyses were carried out in close cooperation with Laurens van der Vuurst 1. Types of charts For all the items (both Likert and non-Likert scale), a stack graph has been created by doing a cross tabulation of the different items with the respondents per faculty and for the whole population. It shows the percentages of the individual answers per category. All the data is from the 2014 questionnaire. For all the Likert scale items, a differences chart has been made by doing an ANOVA-test, which means treating the categorical variables as continuous variables. It shows the mean scores of the Likert scale items of the 2011 and 2014 questionnaire, again for the whole doctoral community at TU Delft and also per faculty level. Tests of significance Two different tests of significance have been used. The Likert scale questions in the questionnaire of 2011 had only 4 categories. Since the 2014 questionnaire had to be compared to the questionnaire from 2011, the most statistically sound option was to also use a Likert scale with 4 categories for 2014. However, for a categorical variable, 4 categories are not enough to do variance analysis using an ANOVA-test (F) . This is why the a Pearson’s chi-squared test (χ2) was done in combination with cross tabulation. The result is a stack graph and a χ2-test of significance. To compare the mean scores per Likert scale item for 2014 and 2011, it was necessary to create the differences chart by doing an ANOVA-test with a F-test of significance. For the presentation in this report, all scores have been lowered by 2.5 point to create a neutral value in the graph of 0. By doing this, the differences graph runs from -1.5 (strongly disagree) till +1.5 (strongly agree). The elements in the formula of the two different tests mean the following (the numbers are random): χ2(21, 612) = 16.74, p > .05 F(7, 1424) = 1.87, p > .05

χ2(degrees of freedom, N of valid cases) = χ2-value, p > .05 F(degrees of freedom, corrected total of cases) = F-value, p > .05

How to interpret the three different statistical tests In this report, there are three types of statistical tests: 1. A χ2-test of statistical differences between faculties and TU Delft in 2014 2. A F- or χ2-test of statistical differences between 2011 and 2014 on the faculty level 3. A F- or χ2-test of statistical differences between 2011 and 2014 for the whole of TU Delft For stack graphs the tests are always a χ2-test, for differences charts always a F-test. The results of the three tests tell us different things: 1. If the χ2-test is significant it means that there are significant statistical differences in the way individual doctoral candidates score on a category (e.g. the number of appointments with a supervisor) or how they perceive a situation (e.g. how satisfied one is with the number of

Co-founder of Downsideup – laurens@downsideup.nl - 0645086958 11

appointments with a supervisor). Of course, if the test is not significant there are no significant statistical differences between individual candidates of the faculties. 2. If the F- or Ď&#x2021;2-test is significant it means that there are statistical differences in the way doctoral candidates score on a category or how they perceive a situation, as a group in 2011 or as a group in 2014 . 3. If the F- or Ď&#x2021;2-test is significant it means that there are significant statistical differences in the way the doctoral community at TU Delft perceived a situation in 2011 or in 2014. If the test is not significant, it means that the changes between the response groups of 2011 and 2014, if any, are not generalizable for the whole doctoral community.

A test is significant if p < .05 (confidence interval of 95%) or for some items even p < .01 (99%).

2. Response Group

2.1 Introduction Every research starts and ends with the population. (In the case of this survey, the population refers to all doctoral candidates at TU Delft.) Besides being the providers of the data, the population is also the initial reason for doing the research. Their input is needed to see what is going well and what can be improved. Not all members of the population will fill out the questionnaire. The members who do respond are referred to as the response group, or sample. Two aspects must be borne in mind when applying survey conclusions to an entire population: 1. Is the response group representative? 2. Is the response group valid? The first question is expressed in the response rate, the second question in significance levels. Since this research compares the results of 2014 to the results of 2011, it is also important to look at the inter response group validity (i.e. the whole response group of 2014 compared to the whole response group of 2011.

2.2 Response rate The response rate is the result of dividing the number of doctoral candidates who were invited to participate by the total number of doctoral candidates at TU Delft. The response rate table is based on the numbers provided by EvaSys. Unfortunately, some respondents were mislabelled in the Doctoral Monitoring Application (DMA). This meant that in the dataset a couple of respondents had to be relabelled (see Appendix 1). However, since the need for relabeling was quite even amongst all the faculties, the response rates provided by EvaSys could be maintained. Only TPM had only 7 respondents instead of 33: 23 of the candidates turn out to belong to Architecture, 3 to Applied Sciences (AS). Below is a snapshot of the population and response rate per faculty on December 31st 2013. Faculty

Number of respondents

Number of responses

Response rate

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM Total

309 165 205 397 503 409 140 206 2334

107 47 69 132 146 119 40 7 667

35% 28% 34% 33% 29% 29% 29% 3% 29%

For an internal questionnaire the response rate is not very high, despite two reminders and intensive promotion in newsletters and with leaflets. However, when the response group is highly valid, conclusions from the response group are still applicable to the whole population.

2.3 Validity of response group In order to check the validity of the response group (face value), the following four indicators have been used: 1. Gender 2. Nationality 3. Faculty 4. VSNU category This check gives enough ground to conclude that the response group is valid and that the conclusions of the research apply to the whole doctoral candidate population at TU Delft. Gender 0%

25%

50%

75%

33%

100%

Response group

67%

female male

28%

Population

72%

Response group Population

Female

Male

Total

217 724

446 1847

663 2571

4 respondents did not submit their gender.

Nationality 0%

25%

50%

30%

75%

100%

Response group

70%

National International

33%

Response group Population

Population

67%

National

International

Total

195 851

465 1720

660 2571

7 respondents did not submit their nationality.

Faculty 0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

3mE AE

16%

11%

19%

22%

18%

Response group

Arch AS CEG EEMCS

13%

16%

22%

18%

6% 8%

Population

IDE TPM

Response group Population

3mE

Arch

CEG

EEMCS

IDE

TPM

Total

107

127

148

120

667

339

202

239

419

573

452

141

206

2571

VSNU category 0%

25%

50%

75%

52%

100%

38%

VSNU 1: Standard

Response group

VSNU 2: Internal VSNU 3: Contract VSNU 4: External

28%

44%

Response group Population

Title

17%

Unknown

Population

VSNU 1

VSNU 2

VSNU 3

VSNU 4

Unknown

Total

350

255

667

1134

732

198

440

2571

Category

Explanation

VSNU 1

Standard

VSNU 2

Internal

VSNU 3

Contract

VSNU 4

External

Full time doctoral candidate (employed at TU Delft) Part time doctoral candidate (combined with another job profile at TU Delft) Full time doctoral candidate funded by a third party (e.g. fellowship, scholarship, industry, FOM, EU, M2i) Part time self-funded doctoral candidate

At a single glance, it is obvious that the increase in the percentage of contract doctoral candidates derives from the group of standard and external doctoral candidates. This is an interesting trend because contract doctoral candidates have a different relation to TU Delft (partner instead of employer) and this has consequences for e.g. financing. Individual answers for all full time and part time categories over the whole TU Delft in 2011 and 2014 0%

25%

50%

75%

87%

100%

2011

10%

full time part time other

90%

2014

Ď&#x2021;2(2, 1555) = 4.85, p > .05

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Individual answers for all full time and part time categories per faculty 2014 0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

94% 94% 32%

66% 98% 88% 95% 80% 86% Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

9% 5% 20% 14%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM

full time part time other

Ď&#x2021;2(14, 666) = 82.19, p < .01

3.4

Do you have a PhD mentor?

Individual answers per faculty in 2014 0%

25%

50%

75%

100% 16% 19% 11% 22% 19% 13% 8%

21%

64% 55% 65%

26% 24% 38%

40%

28%

53%

18%

68% 90% 100%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM

yes no don't know

χ2(14, 667) = 49.27, p < .01

Test 2014 (faculties)

TU Delft wide in 2011 and 2014 4 0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

74%

26%

2011

yes no don't know

59%

25%

2014

χ2(2, 1544) = 155.17, p < .01

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD) 3.5

16%

Have you ever met your PhD mentor? 5

Individual answers per faculty and over the whole TU Delft in 2014 0%

25%

50% 66%

77%

65% 67% 70%

95% 97% 86% 77%

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD) 4 5

75%

100% 34%

23%

35% 33% 30%

14% 23%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

yes no

χ2(7, 667) = 37.36, p < .01

In 2011 there were two options (yes and no), in 2014 three (yes, no and don’t know). This question was only present in the 2014 questionnaire – 395 respondents have a mentor. 24

3.6

I know for which matters I can contact my mentor 6

Individual answers per faculty and over the whole TU Delft in 2014 0%

25%

50%

75%

87% 92% 91% 80% 75% 90% 97% 100% 86%

13% 8% 9% 20% 25% 10% 14%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

yes no

χ2(7, 667) = 37.36, p < .01

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD) 3.7

100%

Who appointed your PhD mentor? 7

Individual answers per faculty and over the whole TU Delft in 2014 0%

25% 58% 57% 59% 62%

50% 94%

75% 12% 9% 9% 10% 8% 6%

79% 64% 57% 70%

14%

8% 6%

100% 23% 24% 26% 20% 17% 25% 29% 18%

staff of FGS

Arch

promotor

CEG IDE

daily supervisor other don't know

TU Delft

χ2(28, 395) = 62.86, p < .01

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD) 3.8

3mE

Are you a member of a Research School?

Individual answers per faculty in 2014 0%

25%

50%

75% 36%

47%

17%

39% 39%

38% 39%

45% 38% 45%

26% 35% 23% 57%

Test 2014 (faculties)

16%

44%

40%

100%

23% 22% 28% 28% 33% 43%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM

yes no don't know

χ2(14, 666) = 23.26, p > .05

This question was only present in the 2014 questionnaire. This question was only present in the 2014 questionnaire. 25

TU Delft wide in 2011 and 2014 8 0%

25%

50%

34%

75%

100%

2011

66%

yes no don't know

33%

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

42%

25%

2014

Ď&#x2021;2(2, 1555) = 261.58, p < .01

In 2011 there were two options (yes and no), in 2014 three (yes, no and donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know). 26

3. Descriptive statistics: faculties and TU Delft

3.1 Introduction This chapter gives the most complete and broad overview of the opinions of doctoral candidates at TU Delft. In the underlying graphs, tables and text information on all the items of the questionnaire are displayed (starting at the cluster Project and Planning). (Background and PhD project information are the subject of chapter 2.) All the items are grouped in separate coherent clusters. The data of every separate item has been grouped per faculty and for all of TU Delft, both for the respondents in 2011 and 2014. At the end of the chapter, there is a section with items that were only available to doctoral candidates of a specific faculty (in 2011 there were no faculty specific questions). Cluster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Project and Planning Professional Embedding Supervision Doctoral Education Working Environment, Facilities and Teaching Career Planning Graduate School (organization and process) Online Education

No. of items in 2014

No. of items same as in 2011

No. of items on satisfaction

9 8

9 7

6 8

23 12 23

23 6 14

17 10 17

13 12

6 Cluster not present in 2011

8 6

4 104

Not present in 2011 65

0 72

Significant statistical differences between subgroups As previously mentioned, this is the broadest overview and it shows that doctoral candidates agree more with almost every single item in comparison to 2011; both at the faculty level and for all of TU Delft. When looking at the final grade for the PhD programme, it can be seen that doctoral candidates from 5 faculties gave a higher grade in comparison to 2011 and the grade at TU Delft level went up from 7.2 to 7.34. Generally speaking, there is much to be proud of. The broadness of the research makes it difficult to discern specific needs, if there are any. That is why chapter 4 zooms in on different subgroups of the doctoral candidate community (e.g. male/female, Dutch/international candidates, pre-Graduate School/belonging to the Graduate School). In this chapter, the different Likert scale items that cause for significant differences between subgroups will be pinpointed. Besides Graduate School and Online Education, all clusters were included in this analysis. The following numbers correspond to the subgroups where there were significant differences on the items in this chapter. In the tables at the beginning of every cluster you will find these numbers.

Male/female

2 3 4

Dutch/ international VSNU categories Pre-Graduate School/belonging to the Graduate School

The tables at the start of every cluster show the result of separate univariate analyses on every item for the subgroups in this table. So for these subgroups you can draw quite distinct conclusions about their mutual differences. In chapter 4, 7 more subgroups are defined but the above four are the most important ones. Establishing correlations and cause-effect relationships The main goal of the questionnaire is to measure satisfaction. The items are grouped so itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s possible to make statements about the satisfaction per cluster; between and within faculties and/or between 2011 and 2014. In chapter 4, it is also possible to see where there are significant statistical differences between subgroups on scale questions, certain items and the final grade of the PhD programme. However, all these analyses donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t give us information on the correlations between the items or the cause and effect relationships of items on satisfaction. For this reason, two final statistical tests will be the subject of chapter 5. Firstly, a correlation table will be presented that shows that all clusters are quite strongly interrelated: satisfaction on one cluster of items has a strong influence on another cluster of items. Secondly, regression analyses will be carried out to determine which items have the highest predictive value for the final grade of the PhD programme. The final grade is used as a general derivative of satisfaction. All Likert scale items of the clusters in this chapter were included in this analysis (with exception of those of Graduate School and Online Education). It appears that all the items in the questionnaire that deal with data collection, data analysis and methodology are strong predictors of general satisfaction about the PhD programme. In the tables at the beginning of every cluster, information has been added which items are the best predictors for a higher final grade.

3.2 Project and Planning Introduction The items in this cluster are related to the planning of the PhD project, which usually lasts 4 years but can differ under influence of several factors. There are 9 items in this cluster: 4.1 till 4.6 are Likert scale items that measure to what extent doctoral candidates agree or disagree with factors that are affecting the progress of their project. The rest are more factual items with different categories. Especially items 4.8 and 4.9 are interesting because they cover the progress/status of the PhD project and any possible delays. Test 2011 Influence on Item Test 2014 Test 2011 vs. vs. 2014 general (faculties and TUD) 2014 (faculty) (TUD) Subgroup* satisfaction 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9

    

1 4 1, 4 2, 3, 4 2, 3, 4 1, 2, 3, 4

X X X X

 1, 2, 3

Separate statistical tests have been executed for all four subgroups.

Besides the four subgroups in the table, the subgroup ‘supervision satisfaction’ showed significant statistical differences when it came to items 4.5, 4.8 and 4.9 (see chapter 4 for the results). Summary The most striking conclusion in this cluster is that 6 of the 9 items have a significant p-level when 2011 and 2014 are compared on TU Delft level. The change on item 4.6 was negative: in 2014 doctoral candidates feel that their PhD project is less in line with their expectations than in 2011. In the ideal situation no significant differences can be found between the different faculties when looking at the 2014 questionnaire. In this cluster only item 4.1 shows a significant difference between the faculties but this can partly be explained by the extreme score at TPM. However, TPM has only 7 respondents so the impact of TPM on the whole 2014 response group is not as strong as, for example, the impact of CEG with 146 respondents. When taking a closer look at the changes on items 4.8 and 4.9, it can be seen that there are no differences between faculties in 2014 and also not between 2011 and 2014 at faculty level. At TU Delft level, there are no differences between 2011 and 2014 on item 4.9 (reasons for delay). On item 4.8, there is a significant statistical difference and the change is negative: in 2011 58% of the respondents were on schedule and 32% behind schedule, in 2014 these groups were 52% and 43% respectively. The following can be concluded about the different subgroups: • Females agree less on the items than males and have different reasons for delay; • This also the case when comparing Dutch doctoral candidates and international doctoral candidates; • Internal doctoral candidates are worst off, in terms of finishing tasks and progress/status; • Pre-Graduate School doctoral candidates are less satisfied on most items than doctoral candidates that belong to the Graduate School 30

Questions -1,5 -1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5 4.1

0,6

4.2

0,7

4.3

0,9

4.4

0,4

4.5

0,5

4.6

0,2

These are the TU Delft wide results for the Likert scale questions over 2014

4.1

I have a clear overview of the different phases of my PhD project (from intake to the doctoral defence ceremony and everything in between)

25% 22% 19% 9% 9% 14% 10% 8% 14% 13%

-1,5

-1,0

50%

75%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

30% 30%

47% 51%

44%

45%

28% 35% 36% 43%

57% 44% 50% 48%

86% 35%

48% -0,5

100%

0,0

0,5

1,0

0,4

0,6 0,5 0,6 0,6

0,5 0,6 0,5 0,6 0,4

0,7 0,7

0,6 0,5

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE AE Arch

0,8

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS IDE

0,8

0,6

1,4

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 663) = 38.89, p < .05

F(7, 1542) = 2.13, p < .05

F(1, 1542) = 11.74, p < .05

4.2

My promotor motivates and supports me to finish my PhD project in 4 years

25%

50%

100%

33% 31%

50% 56% 60%

37% 16% 29% 14% 27% 13% 23% 10% 14% 14% 30% 12%

38% 48% 54% 62% 71% 50%

27%

16%

-1,5

75%

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

1,0 0,6

0,5

0,6 0,5 0,6 0,5

Arch

0,6

strongly agree

1,0

0,7

slightly agree

3mE 0,9

0,8 0,7

slightly disagree

1,5

0,7

0,6

strongly disagree

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS IDE

0,9 1,1

0,7

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 636) = 24.54, p > .05

F(7, 1467) = 1.72, p > .05

F(1, 1467) = 12.49, p < .01

4.3 0%

My daily supervisor motivates and supports me to finish my PhD project in 4 years 25% 29% 10% 23% 9% 20% 5% 29% 8% 29% 6% 24% 9% 22% 8% 14% 26% 8%

50%

75% 59% 61% 68% 54% 55% 64% 60% 86% 60%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0 0,8 0,5

1,5 3mE

1,0

0,9

0,6 0,6 0,7 0,7

0,7

Arch

1,0 0,8

2011

0,8

CEG

2014

1,0 0,8 0,8 0,9

EEMCS IDE TPM

1,4

TU Delft

0,9

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 612) = 16.74, p > .05

F(7, 1424) = 1.87, p > .05

F(1, 1424) = 16.79, p < .01

4.4

Usually I can finish my tasks within the time allocated for them

25%

50%

-1,0

-0,5

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

35% 21% 29% 30% 31% 14% 26%

0,0

0,5 0,1

100% 17% 22%

53% 50% 26% 53% 43% 44% 46% 57% 46%

24% 24% 33% 18% 19% 20% 18% 14% 22% -1,5

75%

1,0

0,3 0,3

0,1 0,3 0,3

slightly agree strongly agree

3mE AE

0,4

Arch

0,4 0,4 0,5

0,2 0,2 0,3

slightly disagree

1,5

0,4

0,3

strongly disagree

0,3

0,5

0,4

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 648) = 28.46, p > .05

F(7, 1515) = .79, p > .05

F(1, 1515) = 14.71, p < .01

4.5

I believe I can finish my PhD within the time set

25%

50%

17% 27% 14% 18% 8% 10% 43% 15% -1,0

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

57% 38%

35% -0,5

100%

34% 34% 44% 40% 32% 42% 39%

42% 34% 19% 34% 33% 39% 44%

14%

-1,5

75%

0,0

0,5

1,0

0,4 0,5 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,5 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,4 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE AE Arch AS

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS IDE 1,1

0,4 0,5

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 655) = 31.5, p > .05

F(7, 1500) = 1.4, p > .05

F(1, 1500) = 1.57, p > .05

4.6

The progress of my PhD project is in line with my expectations

25% 30% 26% 23% 26% 25% 20% 30% 14% 25%

50%

75%

42% 41% 40% 36% 37% 41% 43% 43% 39%

100% 20% 24% 27% 22% 22% 25% 20%

43% 23%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

0,3

0,2 0,3 0,3 0,4 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,2

3mE AE Arch AS

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS 0,7

IDE TPM

0,8

0,4

TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 659) = 13.5, p > .05

F(7, 1534) = .56, p > .0

F(1, 1534) = 8.04, p < .01

4.7 0%

Have you had a Go/No Go review meeting? 25%

50%

25%

50%

57%

100% 25% 21% 18% 24% 22% 30% 23% 29% 24%

13% 23% 18% 17% 28% 15% 10% 14% 19%

62% 55% 63% 59% 50% 55% 68% 57% 58%

75%

22%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

yes no not yet

100%

21%

2011

yes no not yet

58%

18%

24%

2014

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (14, 666) = 18.39, p > .05

χ (14, 1555) = 27.02, p < .05

χ2(2, 1555) = 5, p > .05

4.8

Please indicate your progress/status:

25%

50%

75%

25%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

46% 43% 41% 34% 51% 36% 60%

51% 53% 55% 55% 45% 59% 38% 71% 52%

100%

29% 43%

50%

75%

58%

on schedule behind schedule time out or discontinue finished

100%

2011

32%

on schedule behind schedule time out or discontinue

52%

2014

43%

finished

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 666) = 30.34, p > .05

χ (21, 1555) = 20.96, p > .05

χ2 (3, 1554) = 24.6, p < .01

4.9 0%

Which of these reasons has contributed the most to your delay? 25%

47%

45%

41%

39%

41%

35%

38%

41%

50% 8%

15%

18%

23%

28%

17%

100%

17%

18%

75%

20%

41%

21%

16%

25%

21%

100%

14%

15%

11%

5% 8%

7% 5% 7% 8%

5% 7%

13%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

research is difficult issues supervision too busy (research) too busy (private) personal other no specific

25% 46%

50% 13%

75% 18%

100% 7%

12%

2011

research is difficult issues supervision too busy (research) too busy (private) personal

41%

17%

21%

5% 7%

2014

other no specific

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (42, 286) = 42.44, p > .05

χ (42, 570) = 57.2, p > .05

χ2(6, 570) = 9.49, p > .05

3.3 Professional Embedding Introduction A total of 8 Likert scale items cover the topic of professional embedding. Professional embedding refers to certain aspects in the working environment of a doctoral candidate that give a feeling of embedding. Especially item 5.8 (‘I receive good support during the collection of my data’) is interesting because regression analysis shows it is being a strong predictor for general satisfaction about the PhD programme, like all the items in the questionnaire that deal with data collection, data analysis and methodology. Influence on Test 2014 Test 2011 vs. Test 2011 vs. general Item (faculties and TUD) 2014 (faculty) 2014 (TUD) satisfaction 5.1 X 5.2 X X 5.3 5.4 X X *5.5 X No data 5.6 X 5.7 5.8 X * This item was only present in the 2014 questionnaire.

   No data  

X X

Summary As in the cluster ‘Project and Planning’, almost all items in this cluster show significant differences at TU Delft level between 2011 and 2014. This pattern can also be seen in the following clusters. In this cluster, more items show a negative change. The changes are not great (.1 or .2 on a scale of 0 to 4) and it’s too simplistic to say that in 2014 doctoral candidates feel less professionally embedded. Items 5.4 and 5.5 show significant differences between faculties (i.e. not every doctoral candidate at every faculty has the same level of awareness about who else is working on a topic closely related, anywhere). On the other hand, no significant differences on any level exist on item 5.3 (awareness of who in Delft works on a topic closely related). This means that the links between doctoral candidates in Delft are more solid than the links with other doctoral candidates in the Netherlands or elsewhere. Items 5.7 and 5.8 are still a concern. On item 5.7 no negative significant change took place but between 30 and 40% of the doctoral candidates at every faculty is not satisfied about the number of experts in their working environment to help them deal with typical issues in their projects. On item 5.8 around 30% disagrees that they receive enough support during data collection and the change with 2011 is negative and significant. One final notable item is 5.2. Apparently there is a very strict regime at Applied Sciences when it comes to research group meetings.

Questions -1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5 5.1

0,6

5.2

0,5

5.3

0,3

5.4

0,1

5.5

0,5

5.6

0,1

5.7

0,3

5.8

0,4

These are the TU Delft wide results for the Likert scale questions over 2014

5.1

I have regular (formal or informal) contact with fellow PhD candidates about my PhD project

25%

50%

35%

25%

40%

11%

38% 33% 41% 14% 38%

15% 16% 15% 29% 16% -1,0

-0,5

100%

57% 38%

0,0

0,5

1,0

0,3 0,3 0,2 0,2

0,3

slightly agree strongly agree

1,5

Arch 0,7

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS

0,7

IDE

0,6 0,3

slightly disagree

0,5

0,4 0,4

0,2

strongly disagree

3mE

0,6

0,5

0,2

0,8 0,6

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 638) = 23.49, p > .05

F(7, 1506) = 2.9, p < .01.

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

39% 34% 26% 44% 34% 45% 36%

40% 40%

14% 15%

-1,5

75%

TPM TU Delft

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD) F(1, 1506) = 26.21, p < .01

5.2

My research group meets at least once every two weeks

25%

50%

22% 24% 18%

-1,0

32% 54% 26% 29%

31% 43%

14% 17% -1,5

45%

22% -0,5

0,0

0,5

-0,2

1,0

strongly agree

Arch 0,6 0,1

0,2

1,2

2011

CEG

2014

IDE TPM

0,4

0,0

AS EEMCS

0,7

0,1

-0,5

TU Delft

0,5

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 622) = 119.57, p < .01

F(7, 1447) = 35.03, p < .01

slightly agree

-0,2

-0,4

5.3

slightly disagree

3mE

0,3

-0,3

strongly disagree

1,5

0,4

-0,4 -0,4

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

23%

15%

80% 23%

12% 12%

100% 38% 36%

28% 24% 30%

18% 27% 7%

75%

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD) F(1, 1506) = 83.8, p < .01

I am aware of who else at TU Delft is working on a topic closely related to mine 25% 27% 23% 21% 26% 20% 30% 20% 29% 25%

50% 34% 40% 49% 30% 40% 37% 48% 29% 38%

75%

100% 30% 23% 22% 37% 26% 28% 20% 29% 28%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5 0,3 0,2

0,3 0,3

3mE Arch

0,5 0,5 0,5

0,4 0,4

TU Delft

F(7, 1528) = 1.73, p > .05

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD) F(1, 1528) = 2.68, p > .05

I am aware of who else in the Netherlands is working on a topic closely related to mine

25%

50%

23% 26% 26% 27% 28% 26% -1,0

75%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

17% 13% 13% 37% 25% 41% 29% 34% 26% 32% 15% 43% 10% 36% 14% 57% 21% 36% 41%

23%

-0,5

0,0

0,5 0,0 0,1

-0,5

0,1

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE AE

0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,1

1,0

0,3

0,2

-0,2

0,3 0,3 0,3

Arch 0,5

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS IDE 0,3

TPM

0,3

TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

χ (21, 654) = 45.39, p < .01

F(7, 1525) = 6.56, p < .01

2014

TPM

0,4 0,3

χ (21, 649) = 23.86, p > .05

-1,5

2011

CEG IDE

0,4

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

5.4

AS EEMCS

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD) 2

1,5 AE

0,4 0,3

0,3

0,2

1,0

0,4 0,3

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD) F(1, 1525) = 15.45, p < .01

5.5

I am aware of who else in the world is working on a topic closely related to mine

25%

50%

75%

71% 50%

16% -1,5

-1,0

-0,5

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

19% 26% 26% 32% 30% 33% 25% 29% 28%

53% 45% 55% 44% 52% 48% 50%

21% 15% 10% 17% 14% 14% 18%

100%

0,0

0,5

1,0

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5

0,3

3mE

0,3

AE 0,5

Arch

0,5

AS 0,6

CEG

0,6

EEMCS IDE

0,4

TPM

0,8

TU Delft

0,5

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 662) = 21.23, p > .05

No data from 2011

5.6 0%

I know several other PhD candidates who use the same research methods as I do 25% 21% 24% 33% 26% 28% 24% 30% 14% 26%

50%

75%

49% 38% 39% 43% 33% 40%

3mE AE 5% Arch AS 23% CEG 15% EEMCS 14% IDE 18% TPM 29% TU Delft 17% 21% 17%

38% 35%

29%

100%

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

0,0 0,1 0,1

0,0

3mE AE

0,1

-0,1

Arch

0,2 0,1

0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0

0,3

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS 0,2

IDE

0,3

0,1 0,2 0,1

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 636) = 21.15, p > .05

F(7, 1495) = 2.35, p < .05

F(1, 1495) = 4.38, p < .05

5.7

A sufficient number of experts are available in my working environment to help me deal with typical issues in my project

25%

50%

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

42% 38% 35% 39% 43% 29% 38% 0,0

0,5 0,2

100%

1,0

0,3 0,3

0,2 0,1 0,2

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE AE Arch

0,4 0,4

0,2 0,2 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,3 0,3

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

27% 30% 17% 32% 24% 25% 23% 43% 26%

40% 33%

22% 17% 34% 19% 25% 26% 20% 14% 23%

75%

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS IDE 0,5

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ2(21, 658) = 19.2, p > .05

F(7, 1528) = 1.86, p > .05

F(1, 1528) = .17, p > .05

5.8

I receive good support during the collection of my data

25%

50%

75%

37%

29% 36%

19% 22% 14% 14%

37% 44% 40% 60% 39%

20% -1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

0,6 0,4 0,4 0,5

0,1 0,1

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

28% 36% 19% 37% 28% 28% 34% 40% 30%

43% 36%

22% 19%

100%

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE AE Arch

0,3 0,4 0,3 0,4

0,6 0,5 0,5 0,6

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS

0,5 0,5 0,5

IDE 0,9

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 588) = 18.09, p > .05

F(7, 1399) = 4.17, p < .01

F(1, 1399) = 4.96, p < .05

3.4 Supervision Introduction This cluster has the most items as supervision is considered to be a very important topic for doctoral candidates. Correlation analysis shows that supervision correlates the strongest to all other clusters (especially for international doctoral candidates). This means that if a doctoral candidate is satisfied about supervision, they are more likely to be satisfied about other clusters as well. Regression analysis shows that satisfaction on certain items in this cluster are the strongest predictors for general satisfaction about the PhD programme (see chapter 5 for correlation and regression analyses).

Item 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22 6.23

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD) X X X X

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty) X X X X X X X X

X X X

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Subgroup*

Influence on general satisfaction



     

       

2, 4 4 1, 4 1,4 1,4 2, 4 1, 4 1, 2, 4 4 1, 4 1, 2, 4 1, 4 1, 2, 4 1, 4

X X X

* Separate statistical tests have been executed for three subgroups: female/male, VSNU category and preGS/GS.

Besides the four subgroups in the table, there are three more subgroups that show significant statistical differences on a number of items (see chapter 4 for full results). These are: • ‘Peer group learning’ on items 6.2, 6.5 and 6.7 (higher peer group learning results in a higher score) • ‘Meetings with supervisors’ on item 6.7 (more meetings results in higher supervision satisfaction) • ‘Research school’ on item 6.21 (a member of a research school has better methodological support)

Summary The changes at TU Delft level are all positive. Therefore, in general it can be concluded that the quality supervision is heading in the right direction. There are however statistically significant differences when looking at the first six items (6.1 to 6.6) and this may have an impact on general satisfaction about the PhD programme per faculty. Surprisingly, still not all doctoral candidates know who their promotor is (6.1). An even larger percentage of doctoral candidates – between 6 and 17% amongst the faculties – does not have a daily supervisor (or does not know if they have one). Items 6.2, 6.3, 6.5 and 6.6 show statistical differences. This means that there are differences in: • •

The way and how often meetings are organized with promotors (regular or on demand) The way and how often meetings are organized with daily supervisors (regular or on demand) In general, the meetings are on demand. More than half of all doctoral candidates see their promotor every month and around 90% see their daily supervisor every month. Subgroup analyses in chapter 4 on the number of meetings with supervisors show: •

A higher number of meetings with the promotor does not have a significant effect on general satisfaction about the PhD programme • A higher number of meetings with the daily supervisor does have a significant effect on general satisfaction about the PhD programme It can therefore be concluded that having a low number of meetings with the daily supervisor or having no daily supervisor at all, has a large effect. This can cause significant differences per faculty on general satisfaction about the PhD programme. Correlation analysis shows, dissatisfaction on supervision can spill over to other clusters. General satisfaction on supervision has increased between 2011 and 2014, satisfaction on the numbers of meetings with the promotor and daily supervisor is high and has increased between 2011 and 2014. Doctoral candidates experience guidance as being available on short notice. Items that also have improved between 2011 and 2014 but score a bit lower are: 6.12 6.18 6.20 6.21

At meetings my promotor is usually well prepared My promotor and/or daily supervisor help(s) me to build a professional network I receive sufficient theoretical support I receive sufficient methodological support

Regression analysis (chapter 5) shows that items 6.18 and 6.21 are important predictors for general satisfaction about the PhD programme. For item 6.18, there are also minor statistical differences in 2014 between the faculties. Furthermore, it must be said that for items 6.18 and 6.20, approximately one quarter of all doctoral candidates are not satisfied. Making a difference on these topics is not easy but could make a large difference.

Questions -1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

0,7

6.7

0,7

6.8 1,0

6.9

0,9

6.10

0,9

6.11 6.12

0,6 0,8

6.13

0,8

6.14

0,8

6.15 6.16

0,9

6.17

0,8

6.18

0,4

6.19

0,8 0,5

6.20

0,5

6.21 6.22

0,8

6.23

0,7

These are the TU Delft wide results for the Likert scale questions in 2014 6.1 0%

Do you know who your promotor is? 25%

50% 99% 98% 99% 97% 99% 97% 98% 100% 98%

75%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

yes no

25%

50%

75%

100%

2011

99%

yes no 2014

98%

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (7, 663) = 3, p > .05

χ (7, 1552) = 9.58, p > .05

χ2(1, 1552) = 2.43, p > .05

6.2

How often do you have an appointment with your promotor? (indication) 9

25%

50%

47% 21% 28% 11% 13% 53% 9% 10% 36% 16% 11% 41% 21% 9% 31% 17% 15% 28% 15% 29% 14% 40% 18% 10%

25%

13%

15%

50%

30%

75%

100%

5% 18% 22% 24% 24% 7% 9% 20% 6% 19% 10% 20% 10% 44% 14% 43% 6% 6% 20%

75%

28%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

100%

7% 6%

2011

daily once per week once per two weeks monthly every half year yearly never

daily once per week once per two weeks monthly every half year

10%

18%

40%

20%

6% 6%

2014

yearly never

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (42, 652) = 69.55, p < .01

χ (42, 1531) = 152.60, p < .01

χ2(6, 1531) = 30.58, p < .01

In the questionnaire used in2011, this item had 9 categories and in 2014 it had 7 categories. The 9 categories of 2011 have been computed into the 7 categories of 2014 (see appendix).

6.3

How are the meetings organized?

25%

50%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

50% 52% 56% 43% 60% 65% 62% 71% 55%

51% 48% 44% 57% 40% 35% 39% 29% 45%

75%

25%

50%

75%

41%

regular basis on demand

100%

2011

59%

regular basis on demand 45%

2014

55%

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (7, 651) = 16.03, p < .05

χ (7, 1482) = 29.65, p < .01

χ2(1, 1482) = 2.5, p > .05

6.4 0%

Do you know who your daily supervisor is? 25%

50% 91% 89% 82% 93% 82% 93% 95% 100% 89%

75%

100% 9% 9% 17% 6% 17% 6%

10%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

yes no no supervisor

25%

50%

75%

100%

79%

2011

19%

yes no no supervisor

89%

10%

2014

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (14, 666) = 22.32, p > .05

χ (14, 1555) = 24.22, p < .05

χ2(2, 1552) = 30.04, p < .01

6.5

How often do you have an appointment with your supervisor? (indication) 10

25%

50%

29%

53%

9% 7%

38%

41% 40%

26% 48%

17%

40%

33%

6% 11%

59% 34% 57%

37% 29% 9%

75%

44%

25%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

8% 12%

22% 9% 23% 18% 23% 21% 14% 13% 32%

50%

37%

100%

75%

25%

100%

18%

2011

daily once per week once per two weeks monthly every half year yearly never

daily once per week once per two weeks monthly every half year

44%

32%

13%

2014

yearly never

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (42, 594) = 78.97, p < .01

χ (42, 1316) = 161.42, p < .01

χ2(6, 1316) = 31.99, p < .01

In the questionnaire used in2011,this item had 9 categories and in 2014 it had 7 categories. The 9 categories of 2011 have been computed into the 7 categories of 2014 (see appendix).

6.6

How are the meetings organized?

25%

50%

75%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

44% 48% 53% 53% 48% 36%

56% 52% 47% 47% 52% 64% 71%

29%

14%

86%

48%

52%

25%

50%

41%

75%

regular basis on demand

100%

2011

59%

regular basis on demand 52%

2014

48%

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (7, 594) = 20.65, p < .01

χ (7, 1311) = 18.74, p < .01

χ2(1, 1311) = 15.54, p < .01

6.7

I am satisfied with the way my supervision is organized

25%

50%

40% 36% 31%

15% 9% 10% 17% 16% 10% 13% 13%

35% 31% 36% 33% 43% 35%

75% 43% 49% 54% 38% 44% 48% 46% 43% 45%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

0,5

1,5 3mE

0,7

0,3

0,8

0,5

Arch

0,9

0,5 0,5 0,5

0,6 0,5 0,7 0,7 0,6 0,6

0,5

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS

0,8

IDE TPM TU Delft

0,7

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 662) = 17.85, p > .05

F(7, 1544) = 1.41, p > .05

F(1, 1544) = 18.13, p < .01

6.8

I am satisfied with the number of appointments I have with my promotor(s)

25%

50%

75%

-1,0

-0,5

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

42% 47%

34% 17% 36% 16% 26% 10% 35% 12% 32% 14% 26% 18% 23% 15% 14% 29% 31% 15% -1,5

100%

61% 41% 46% 48% 56% 43% 47%

0,0

0,5

1,0 0,6 0,6

0,2

0,5

0,4

slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 AE

1,0

0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,7 0,7

0,6

slightly disagree

3mE 0,8

0,5

strongly disagree

Arch AS

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS 0,9 0,8

0,7

IDE TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 662) = 17.85, p > .05

F(7, 1512) = 2.89, p < .01

F(1, 1512) = 7.94, p < .01

6.9

I am satisfied with the number of appointments I have with my daily supervisor

25%

50%

-1,0

-0,5

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

59% 64% 70% 60% 63% 67% 61% 57% 63%

33% 6% 24% 10% 18% 11% 25% 14% 21% 9% 21% 6% 18% 13% 29% 14% 24% 10% -1,5

75%

0,0

0,5

1,0

0,7 0,8 0,5

0,7

1,0

3mE

1,0

1,1 0,9 0,9

0,7

slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5

0,7 0,5

strongly disagree

1,0

0,9 0,8 0,9 0,9

1,0

Arch AS

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 589) = 23.27, p > .05

F(7, 1354) = 1.6, p > .05

F(1, 1354) = 39.68, p < .01

6.10

When I need guidance on short notice, my promotor or daily supervisor is available

25% 10% 9% 9% 7% 11% 12% 8% 29% 10%

27% 28% 31% 31% 22% 27% 40% 28%

50%

75% 63% 53% 56% 57% 60% 58% 45% 71% 58%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0 0,8 0,6

0,7

1,5 3mE

1,0

AE 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,9

0,8

Arch

0,9

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS

0,9 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,8

IDE TPM

1,2

TU Delft

0,9

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 662) = 20.71, p > .05

F(7, 1535) = 2.1, p < .05

F(1, 1535) = 9.61, p < .01

6.11

I feel my contributions to my PhD project are taken seriously

25%

50%

-1,0

-0,5

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

51% 59% 70% 54% 52% 55% 63% 71% 56%

38% 10% 28% 7% 22% 6% 31% 7% 32% 10% 31% 5% 29% 5% 29% 31% 8% -1,5

75%

0,0

0,5

1,0 0,8 0,9 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,9

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE AE Arch

1,1

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS 1,0

0,8 0,9

1,2 1,2

IDE TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 1534) = 2.55, p > .05

F(7, 1534) = 2.62, p < .05

F(1, 1534) = 2.55, p > .05

6.12

At our meetings my promotor is usually well prepared

25%

50% 41% 35%

14% 13%

35% 32% 30% 45%

20% 19% 19% 18% 17% 18% -1,0

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

67% 40%

34% -0,5

100%

35% 41% 48% 37% 41% 42% 29%

34%

19%

-1,5

75%

0,0

0,5 0,3

1,0

0,4 0,4

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE AE

0,7

0,5

0,5 0,5 0,4 0,6 0,6 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,6

0,8

0,5 0,6

Arch AS

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS IDE 0,8

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 603) = 14.36, p > .05

F(7, 1480) = 1.51, p > .05

F(1, 1480) = 1.22, p > .05

6.13 0%

At our meetings my daily supervisor is usually well prepared 25% 37% 10% 29% 10% 21% 12% 35% 12% 24% 13% 31% 14% 45% 5% 29% 31% 11%

50%

75% 52% 57% 67% 48% 55% 48% 42% 71% 52%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

0,4 0,3 0,5

1,5

0,9

3mE

0,9

AE Arch

1,0

0,5 0,4 0,6 0,6

0,8

2011

0,8

CEG

2014

0,7

EEMCS

0,7

IDE

0,6

TPM

1,2

0,5

TU Delft

0,8

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

: χ (21, 586) = 26.09, p > .05

F(7, 1463) = 1.28, p > .05

F(1, 1463) = 51.75, p < .01

6.14

My promotor and/or daily supervisor provide(s) me with adequate feedback

25%

50%

-1,0

-0,5

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

53% 60% 64% 47% 54% 58% 51%

30% 13% 28% 9% 25% 10% 36% 10% 23% 14% 27% 9% 31% 13% 14% 28% 12% -1,5

75%

86% 55% 0,0

0,5

1,0 0,7 0,6

0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7

0,7

slightly agree strongly agree

3mE AE

0,9 0,9 1,0

0,8

slightly disagree

1,5

0,8

0,9 0,8 0,8 0,7

strongly disagree

Arch AS

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS IDE 1,2

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 658) = 18.78, p > .05

F(7, 1538) = 1.44, p > .05

F(1, 1538) = 8.29, p < .01

6.15

My promotor and/or daily supervisor show(s) commitment to my project

25%

50%

-1,0

-0,5

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

51% 47%

37% 10% 36% 13% 19% 7% 33% 14% 28% 9% 36% 9% 28% 5% 14% 31% 10% -1,5

75%

71% 47% 53% 49% 62% 86% 53% 0,0

0,5

1,0 0,7 0,6

0,6

strongly agree

3mE Arch

1,1

0,7 0,7

0,7

slightly agree

0,8 0,8

0,8

slightly disagree

1,5

0,9

0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8

strongly disagree

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS IDE

1,0

0,8

1,2

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 658) = 30.8, p > .05

F(7, 1536) = 2.68, p < .01

F(1, 1536) = 6.98, p < .01

6.16

My promotor and/or daily supervisor encourage(s) me to present my work at conferences

25% 24% 40% 24% 10% 28% 10% 28% 7% 27% 23% 5% 14% 27% 8%

50%

75% 58% 51% 63% 53% 60% 65% 64%

13%

86% 60%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

0,8 0,9

0,7

3mE AE

0,9

0,5

Arch

1,0

0,8 0,8

0,9 0,9 0,9

1,0 1,0 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,9

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS IDE TPM

1,4

TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 633) = 20.65, p > .05

F(7, 1485) = 2.36, p < .05

F(1, 1485) = 4.09, p < .05

6.17

Generally speaking, my promotor and daily supervisor agree with each other on matters regarding my research

25% 12% 8% 31% 19%

11% -1,0

36%

38% 37% 35% 17% 36% -0,5

75%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

44% 54% 62% 37% 50% 47% 46% 67% 48%

41% 33%

7% 14% 14%

-1,5

50%

0,0

0,5

1,0 0,7 0,5

0,7

0,6 0,6

slightly agree strongly agree

3mE AE

0,9

0,6 0,5 0,7

slightly disagree

1,5

0,8

0,4

strongly disagree

1,0

0,9

0,8 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,8

Arch AS

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 560) = 29.28, p > .05

F(7, 1355) = 1.77, p < .05

F(1, 1355) = 13.32, p < .01

6.18

My promotor and/or daily supervisor help(s) me to build a professional network

25%

50%

27% 12% 17% 26% 14% 21%

-0,5

39% 35% 29% 34% 44% 45% 57% 35%

0,0

0,5 0,2

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

24%

23% 39% 33% 41% 29% 24% 14% 34%

19%

-1,0

100%

38%

27% 30%

-1,5

75%

0,4

0,3

strongly agree

1,5

Arch

0,4 0,5 0,4

0,6 0,5 0,6

0,3

slightly agree

AE 0,5

0,3

slightly disagree

3mE

0,4

0,1 0,2

1,0

strongly disagree

0,6

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

0,4

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 639) = 33.21, p < .05

F(7, 1478) = 2.5, p < .05

F(1, 1478) = 6.22, p < .05

6.19

I have a clear picture of what I can expect of my promotor and daily supervisor

25%

16% 11% 13% 11% 8% 13% 8% 11%

43% 36% 29% 35% 36% 32% 38% 29% 14% 35%

50%

75% 36% 49% 59% 45% 51% 50% 55% 43% 48%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

0,4

1,5

0,5 0,6

3mE AE

0,8

0,5

0,6 0,6 0,6 0,5 0,6

Arch

1,0

0,6 0,7 0,6

0,8

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS

0,8

IDE

1,0

TPM TU Delft

0,8

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 655) = 25.59, p > .05

F(7, 1529) = 1.95, p > .05

F(1, 1529) = 29.05, p < .01

6.20

I receive sufficient theoretical support

25%

50%

-1,0

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

47% 46%

28% 23%

30% 34% 38% 38%

37% 38% 33% 23% 57%

14%

36%

34% -0,5

100% 32%

44%

20% 15% 24% 20% 16% 21% 33% 29% 20% -1,5

75%

0,0

0,5 0,4 0,2

1,0

0,4 0,5

slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 AE

0,6

0,6 0,4 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,4 0,5

slightly disagree

3mE

0,5

0,3

strongly disagree

Arch AS

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS IDE 0,8

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 663) = 29.43, p > .05

F(7, 1543) = 1.04, p > .05

F(1, 1543) = 3.38, p > .05

6.21

I receive sufficient methodological support

25%

50%

21% 26% 21% 17% 19% 33% 43% 20% -1,0

29% 38% 42% 33% 23%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

57% 35%

37% -0,5

100%

31% 43% 33% 34% 31% 42% 36%

46% 26%

18%

-1,5

75%

0,0

0,5

1,0

0,4 0,3 0,2

slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE

0,5

Arch

0,3

0,5 0,5 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,4 0,4 0,4

strongly disagree

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS

0,6

IDE 1,1

TPM TU Delft

0,5

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 655) = 27.06, p > .05

F(7, 1533) = 1.41, p > .05

F(1, 1533) = 4.62, p < .05

6.22

I receive sufficient feedback on my writing skills

25% 11% 5% 7% 21% 10% 14% 11% 29% 13%

50% 38% 38% 38% 30%

37% 27% 32% 14% 34%

75% 48% 50% 46% 42% 47% 57% 49% 57% 49%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

0,8 0,8

0,5

3mE AE

0,8

0,5

Arch

0,7 0,7

0,6 0,6

0,8 0,8 0,9

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS

0,7 0,7 0,8 0,8 0,7 0,8

IDE TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 615) = 25.19, p > .05

F(7, 1455) = 2, p > .05

F(1, 1455) = 2.62, p > .05

6.23

I receive sufficient feedback on my presentation skills

25% 17% 7% 20% 19% 13% 14% 9% 33% 15%

-1,5

-1,0

50%

75%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

32% 44% 33% 37% 39% 45% 42%

48% 42% 42% 37% 45% 39% 42%

67% 39%

42% -0,5

100%

0,0

0,5 0,4 0,4

1,0

0,7

0,6 0,5

0,7

0,6

0,7 0,7 0,8

0,7 0,6

0,6 0,7

slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5

0,7 0,6

0,5

strongly disagree

1,2

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

2011 2014

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ2(21, 603) = 17.38, p > .05

F(7, 1438) = 1.83, p > .05

F(1, 1438) = 2.3, p > .05

3.5 Doctoral Education Introduction A lot has changed in the area of Doctoral Education between 2011 and 2014 and this is reflected in the cluster of items. Five items are new, so only 7 out of the 12 items can be compared to the results of 2011. The first two items are background information on the PhD agreement and a Doctoral Education plan, the rest are Likert scale items measuring satisfaction.

Item *7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 *7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 *7.9 7.10 *7.11 *7.12

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

X X

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

No data No data X X No data

No data No data   No data    No data  No data No data

X No data X No data No data

Subgroup**

Influence on general satisfaction

4 4 3, 4 4 3, 4 3 3 3

X X

* This item was only present in the 2014 questionnaire. ** Separate statistical tests have been executed for two subgroups: VSNU category and pre-GS/GS.

Besides the four subgroups in the table, the subgroup ‘Research school’ showed significant statistical differences when it came to items 7.4 to 7.9 and 7.12. Members of a research school score higher on every single item. Summary Item 7.6 is an important indicator of the importance attached to transferable skills by supervisors. The results tell us that less doctoral candidates feel motivated by their supervisors to take courses that are not directly related to their PhD project. Item 7.7 could tell us something about the degree of freedom a doctoral candidate has to shape their own doctoral education programme. Fewer doctoral candidates indicate that they have agreed on a personal budget and there are significant statistical differences between the faculties. Doctoral candidates are more satisfied than in 2011 with regard to the range of courses provided by the Graduate School and the faculties. However, a critical assessment tells us four things. 1. Not every doctoral candidate at every faculty is equally satisfied about the range of researchrelated courses. 2. Overall scores on the number of discipline-related courses are not very high. 3. Doctoral candidates are pleased with the range of transferable courses offered by the Graduate School. 4. 39% of the doctoral candidates do not agree that the PhD Start-Up training contributed to a good start of their PhD project. The analyses on the two subgroups tell us that in general: • •

Pre-GS doctoral candidates are less satisfied about Doctoral Education Internal PhD candidates (category 2) are least satisfied about Doctoral Education 63

Questions -1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

0,8

7.3

0,8

7.4 7.5

1,0

7.6

0,0

7.7

-0,3

7.8

0,2

7.9

0,0

7.10

0,8

7.11

0,5

7.12

0,2

These are the TU Delft wide results for the Likert scale questions in 2014

7.1 0%

I have a PhD agreement 25%

50%

100%

19% 12% 14% 27% 15% 18% 21% 29% 14% 18% 15% 16% 18% 16%

65% 74% 58% 61% 57% 67% 66% 100% 63%

75%

16%

21%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

yes no don't know

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (14, 592) = 17.68, p > .05

No data from 2011

7.2

I have a Doctoral Education plan as part of my PhD agreement 11

25%

50%

75%

100%

16% 9% 15% 12% 13% 11% 16% 14% 7% 20% 14% 29% 11% 12% 11%

73% 88% 74% 76% 70% 91% 80% 57% 78%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

yes no don't know

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (14, 377) = 22.18, p > .05

Not comparable to 2011

7.3

I have enough room for personal development within my PhD project

25%

75%

36% 34%

6% 17% 10% 9% 5% 14% 10%

38% 32% 36% 38%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

86% 51%

35% -1,0

100%

51% 57% 59% 40% 54% 50% 58%

36%

11%

-1,5

50%

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

0,5

0,2 0,4 0,4

1,0

Arch

strongly agree

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS

0,8

IDE

1,0

0,4 0,4

1,0

0,9 0,6

slightly agree

3mE

0,6

0,3

slightly disagree

1,5

0,9

0,1

strongly disagree

1,4 0,8

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 657) = 23.25, p > .05

F(7, 1514) = 2.48, p < .05

F(1, 1514) = 154.9, p < .01

This item was present in both the 2011 and 2014 questionnaire but could not be compared because in 2011 a continuous variable was used (Likert scale) and in 2011 a categorical variable (see appendix).

7.4

I know where I can find information on all available courses (research and discipline related, transferable)

25%

50%

75%

71%

14%

-1,5

49%

35%

12% -1,0

-0,5

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

52% 54% 43% 47% 45% 48% 55%

34% 26% 45% 32% 41% 37% 23%

10% 17% 8% 18% 9% 10% 20%

100%

0,0

0,5

1,0

0,3 0,1 0,2

3mE

0,8

0,2 0,2

strongly agree

2011

0,8

CEG EEMCS

2014

0,8

IDE

0,8

0,3

0,9

0,2

slightly agree

Arch

0,7

0,2

slightly disagree

1,5

0,8

0,2

strongly disagree

0,8

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 646) = 23.69, p > .05

F(7, 1514) = 2.48, p < .05

F(1, 1514) = 154.9, p < .01

7.5

I know how to enrol for the courses offered by the Graduate School

25% 9% 6% 11% 9%

25% 13%

31% 23% 24% 25% 18%

24%

50%

75% 69% 76% 59% 64% 64% 66% 71% 86% 66%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5 1,1

3mE

1,1

AE Arch

0,9 1,0

1,0

CEG

1,0

EEMCS

1,1

IDE

1,1

TPM TU Delft

1,0

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 628) = 23.07, p > .05

No data from 2011

7.6

My promotor and/or daily supervisor motivate(s) me to participate in additional courses not directly related to my PhD project

25%

50%

75% 35% 38% 28% 38% 28% 27% 57% 33%

26% 35% 30%

-1,5

-1,0

27% 35% 19% 14% 29% -0,5

0,0

-0,1 -0,1

19%

0,5 0,1

0,2

1,0

0,3

0,1 0,0

slightly agree strongly agree

1,5

Arch 0,3

0,2

0,3

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS 0,4

0,3 0,0

slightly disagree

3mE

0,3

-0,1

strongly disagree

0,1

-0,2

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

24% 15% 16% 16% 13% 22% 24%

36%

25%

29%

100%

IDE 0,8

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 617) = 32.06, p > .05

F(7, 1460) = 1.98, p > .05

F(1, 1460) = 28.68, p < .01

7.7

I have agreed on a personal budget with my supervisors to do research and discipline related courses

25%

50%

75%

25% 14%

25%

19% 25% 13% 20%

26% 22% 13% 15% 14% 29% 22% 16% 20% 20%

80%

-0,5 -0,5

-0,6

0,0

0,5

1,0

slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

3mE AE

-0,2

Arch

0,0 0,0

-0,2 -0,3 -0,1 -0,3 -0,2 -0,4 -0,2 -0,3

strongly disagree

1,5

0,1

-0,4

18%

22%

20% -1,0

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

13%

20% 33% 18%

22%

-1,5

100%

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS IDE 1,3

-0,1

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 517) = 42.09, p < .01

F(1, 1269) = 1.15, p > .05

F(1, 1269) = 10, p < .01

7.8

The range of research related courses available at TU Delft is satisfying

25%

50%

75% 47%

24% 26% 41% 33% 17% 24% 19% 29% 26%

36% 21% 38% 48% 36% 46% 43% 40%

100% 18% 14% 26% 18% 22% 22% 14% 29% 20%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5 0,1

-0,3 -0,3

1,0

1,5 3mE

0,2

-0,1 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,1

-0,1

Arch

0,3

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS IDE

0,0

0,1

TPM

0,5

TU Delft

0,2

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 587) = 33.65, p < .05

F(7, 1370) = 4.15, p < .01

F(1, 1370) = 4.86, p < .05

7.9

My faculty provides enough discipline-related courses

25%

50%

75%

20%

34%

39%

32% 22% 33% 29% 43% 28% -1,0

35% 26% 34% 43%

18%

33%

-0,5

0,0

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

20% 22% 12% 12% 20% 22% 11%

36% 32%

26% 27%

-1,5

100%

0,5

1,0

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5

0,1

3mE

0,1

AE Arch

-0,4

0,0 0,0

CEG

0,0

EEMCS IDE

-0,2 0,6

TPM TU Delft

0,0

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 577) = 26.94, p > .05

No data from 2011

7.10

The Graduate School offers a sufficient range of transferable courses (e.g. writing and presentation courses, job application training)

25%

50%

75%

32%

17% 38% 46% 42% 42% 41%

12% 9% 11% 8% 6%

71%

14%

-1,5

45%

41%

10% -1,0

-0,5

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

42% 42% 47% 42% 45% 47% 50%

43%

13%

100%

0,0

0,5

1,0

0,4 0,1

0,3 0,4 0,3

slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 AE

0,8

Arch

0,8

2011

0,8

CEG

2014

EEMCS

0,8

0,3

0,9

0,3 0,3

slightly disagree

3mE

0,7 0,6

0,3

strongly disagree

0,9 0,8

IDE TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 567) = 16.51, p > .74

F(7, 1345) = 2.25, p < .05

F(1, 1370) = 140.26, p < .01

7.11

The Graduate School offers the right courses to further develop my transferable competences and skills

25%

50% 52%

13%

49%

15% 24%

36% 60% 48% 47% 50%

8% 16% 16% 13% 15%

43% 50%

75% 29% 21% 35% 24% 30% 30% 22% 43% 28%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5 0,2

1,0

0,5

1,5

Arch

0,5

CEG

0,5

EEMCS

0,5

0,3

0,5

3mE

IDE

TPM

0,6

TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 539) = 23.32, p > .05

No data from 2011

7.12

The PhD Start-Up training contributed to a good start of my PhD project

25%

50%

20% 22% 27% 23% 27%

33% 44% 29% 30% 40% 40%

21% 42% 29%

39% 43% 36%

25% -1,5

-1,0

75%

-0,5

0,0

0,5

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

25% 16% 32% 32% 19% 31% 10% 29% 25% 1,0

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE

0,1

0,1 0,3

Arch

0,3

AS CEG

0,2 0,4

EEMCS IDE

0,0 0,5 0,2

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 440) = 24.61, p > .05

No data from 2011

3.6 Working Environment, Facilities and Teaching Introduction In this cluster a lot of items have been added to the questions of 2011 (8.15-8.23). The first 14 items are on a Likert scale (i.e. they all start with ‘I am satisfied with …’) and are mostly about practicalities such as IT, lab and library facilities or research budgets. Other items are on ‘social’ topics such as social relationships at work. The second section (8.15 to 8.18) covers the Graduate School student counsellor and the third section contains items about the teaching requirement for (some) doctoral candidates.

Item 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.11/8.12 8.13 8.14 *8.15 *8.16 *8.17 *8.18 *8.19 *8.20 *8.21 *8.22 *8.23

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD) X

X X X X

X X X

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

X X X X X X X X X

        

X X X No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data

   No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data

Subgroup**

Influence on general satisfaction

X X X

2 2 2

2 2

* This item was only present in the 2014 questionnaire. ** Separate statistical tests have been executed for one subgroup: Dutch/international.

Summary Looking from a distance, doctoral candidates are very satisfied with their working environment. Across nearly the entire spectrum, they are more satisfied than in 2011. On the individual level there are significant statistical differences between faculties when it comes to the access to information, the budget for research, training, traveling and conferences and the library. However, these items are not the strongest predictors for general satisfaction of the PhD programme. The results about the student counsellor shows that about 50% of the doctoral candidates knows about this support service. Of this group, 16% of has consulted the student counsellor. The grades given for this support service differ strongly. This can be explained by the limited number of users (49). The items on teaching expose the differences that exist across the faculties when it comes to the intensity of the teaching requirement.

It is noticeable that about 90% of the doctoral candidates is satisfied with the facilities in general (8.2) and with the content of their work (8.3). Especially the library facilities and activities score extremely well. More than 95% doctoral candidates are satisfied with the this aspect.( 8.11 and 8.12) Subgroup analysis shows that if there is a significant statistical difference between Dutch and international PhD candidates; Dutch candidates are more satisfied than international candidates. Questions -1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5 1,1

8.1

0,9

8.2

0,9

8.3

0,8

8.4

0,8

8.5

0,7

8.6

0,7

8.7

0,7

8.8 0,8

8.9

0,8

8.10 1,0

8.11/8.12

0,8

8.13

0,8

8.14 8.18

0,6 1,0

8.22

1,0

8.23

These are the TU Delft wide results for the Likert scale questions over 2014 8.1

I am satisfied with the access to information (e.g. journals, books) that is relevant to my research topic

25% 6% 10%

14% 5%

50%

34%

27%

40% 29%

100%

64% 68% 55% 73% 68% 75%

32% 21% 24% 26% 20% 18%

75%

38% 57% 66%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

0,9 0,8

1,0

0,4

Arch

0,9 1,0

1,2

0,8

1,1

0,9

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS

1,2

0,7

0,6 0,6

3mE

1,1

IDE 0,8

TPM

0,9

TU Delft

1,1

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 663) = 46.48, p < .01

: F(7, 1543) = 9.84, p < .01

F(1, 1543) = 49.75, p < .01

8.2

I am satisfied with the available facilities (e.g. laboratories, equipment, software, location)

25%

8% 12% 6% 8% 29% 9% -1,0

22% 27% 34% 39% 44% 33% -0,5

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

65% 56% 61% 51% 54% 46% 71% 55%

26% 15%

75% 49%

40%

9% 7%

-1,5

50%

0,0

0,5

1,0 0,7 0,8

0,3

0,5

0,6

slightly agree strongly agree

3mE AE

1,0

Arch 1,0

0,8 0,8

1,0

2011

CEG

2014

IDE 1,2

0,9

AS EEMCS

0,8

0,5

slightly disagree

1,5

0,9

0,8 0,7 0,6

strongly disagree

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 646) = 24.52, p > .05

F(7, 1513) = 3.51, p < .01

F(1, 1513) = 43.42, p < .01

8.3

I am satisfied with the content of my work

25%

50%

75%

51% 44% 43% 38% 36% 41% 33% 41%

7% 6% 8% 17% 6% -1,5

-1,0

-0,5

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

49% 38% 55% 46% 53% 51% 56% 50% 50%

44%

6% 7%

100%

0,0

0,5

1,0 0,7 0,6

0,6 0,7 0,7 0,6 0,7

slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE

0,9

0,7 0,7 0,7

strongly disagree

1,0 0,8 0,9

Arch AS

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS

0,8 1,0 0,8 0,9

IDE TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 654) = 19.08, p > .05

F(7, 1537) = 2.07, p < .05

F(1, 1537) = 40.69, p < .01

8.4

I am satisfied with my social relationships at work

25%

50%

75% 51%

35%

11% 15% 8% 14% 14% 16% 17% 13%

36% 44% 53% 47% 52% 53%

38%

16%

41% 34% 35% 31% 26% 17% 34%

67% 49%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

0,5 0,4

0,5

1,5 3mE

0,8

AE 0,6

0,8 0,7

0,6 0,6

Arch 0,9

0,7

0,5

0,8

2014

IDE TPM

1,0

0,6

2011

CEG EEMCS

0,8

0,6

TU Delft

0,8

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 652) = 16.6, p > .05

F(7, 1521) = 3, p < .01

F(1, 1521) = 28.55, p < .01

8.5

I am satisfied with my contact with other PhD candidates

25%

75%

17% 17% 11% 14% 14% 13% 14% 14% -1,0

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

34% 33%

38% 44%

55%

32%

43% 50% 48% 57% 47%

39% 34% 35% 29% 36% -0,5

100%

53%

33%

12%

-1,5

50%

0,0

0,5

1,0 0,6

0,9

0,5 0,5 0,5 0,6

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE AE Arch

0,8

0,6

0,7 0,7

0,4

0,9

0,6

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS

0,8

IDE

0,8

0,5

0,9 0,8

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 654) = 22.61, p > .05

F(7, 1528) = 4.25, p < .01

F(1, 1528) = 17.18, p < .01

8.6

I am satisfied with my contact with other staff members of the research group

25%

50% 40%

15% 12% 13% 20% 13% 11% 14% 15%

39% 40% 40% 42% 45% 57% 41%

-1,0

-0,5

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

41% 36% 45% 46% 35% 42% 40% 29% 41%

44%

14%

-1,5

75%

0,0

0,5

1,0

0,4 0,4 0,3

0,7 0,5 0,6 0,5

0,7 0,8

strongly agree

1,5

Arch AS

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS

0,7

IDE

0,7 0,5

slightly agree

0,5

0,4

slightly disagree

3mE

0,7

0,2

strongly disagree

TPM

0,6

TU Delft

0,7

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 647) = 14.21, p > .05

F(7, 1507) = 2.83, p < .01

F(1, 1507) = 27.01, p < .01

8.7

I am satisfied with my budget for my research

25% 12%

9% 17% 13% 11% 25% 12%

50%

75% 41%

40% 32% 12% 29%

57% 36%

29%

55% 40% 56% 46%

34% 24% 29% 31%

100%

75% 47%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0 0,5

0,3 -0,2

1,5 3mE

0,7

0,9

Arch

0,3 0,5 0,5 0,6 0,3 0,5

0,7 0,8

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS

0,8

IDE

0,6

TPM

1,3

0,5

TU Delft

0,7

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 587) = 33.15, p < .05

F(7, 1388) = 8.66, p < .01

F(1, 1388) = 12.12, p < .01

8.8

I am satisfied with my training, travel and conference budget

25%

50%

21% 30% 27% 6% 24% 18% 23% 9% 19% 8% 43% 25% 14% -1,0

-0,5

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

64% 44%

15%

57% 53% 63% 57% 29%

29%

0,0

53% 0,5 0,4

-0,2

100%

40%

14% 10%

-1,5

75%

1,0 0,6 0,6

slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE

1,0

AE Arch

0,4

0,7 0,5

0,5 0,4 0,4

strongly disagree

0,8

0,7 0,7

0,9

0,7

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS IDE TPM

0,5

0,7

TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 600) = 53.02, p < .01

F(7, 1413) = 8.13, p < .01

F(1, 1413) = 22.47, p < .01

8.9

I am satisfied with my office

25%

50%

75%

-1,0

-0,5

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

46% 58% 52% 64% 44% 55% 60% 67% 53%

42% 22% 7% 19% 13% 28% 5% 35% 12% 34% 6% 24% 8% 33% 31% 8% 7%

-1,5

100%

0,0

0,5

0,6

0,1

0,6 0,6

0,8

1,0

1,5

0,6 0,6

slightly agree strongly agree

3mE

Arch AS

1,0

CEG

EEMCS

0,9

0,6

slightly disagree

0,7

0,6 0,6 0,6

strongly disagree

0,9 0,8

1,2

IDE

2011 2014

TPM

TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 644) = 38.33, p < .05

F(7, 1501) = 3.56, p < .01

F(1, 1501) = 34.64, p < .01

8.10

I am satisfied with the IT facilities

25% 14% 11% 11% 10% 15% 9% 8% 29% 11%

50%

75% 40% 47% 48% 57% 40% 51% 45%

43% 38% 31% 33% 41% 37% 45% 38%

71% 47%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0 0,6

1,5 3mE

0,7

0,5

0,8

0,5

Arch

0,7

0,4

1,0

0,5

0,7 0,7

TPM

1,2

0,5

2014

IDE

0,8

0,5

2011

CEG EEMCS

0,9

0,5

TU Delft

0,8

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 641) = 24.39, p > .05

F(7, 1513) = 1.52, p > .05

F(1, 1513) = 52.35, p < .01

8.11 and 8.12

I am satisfied with the online and offline library facilities/activities 12

0% 7% 6%

-1,5

25%

50%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

58%

40% 20% 31% 30% 32% 33% 40% 29% 33% -1,0

75% 73% 66% 64% 64% 63% 55% 71% 63%

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0 0,8 0,7

0,6 0,7 0,7 0,4

0,7

Test 2014

slightly agree strongly agree

3mE

1,0

Arch

1,0

2011

1,0

CEG

2014

1,0

EEMCS IDE

0,8

0,4

slightly disagree

1,5

1,1

0,5

strongly disagree

1,2 1,0

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

TPM TU Delft

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

In 2011 there was one category (library facilities/activities), in 2014 there were two categories (online and offline libary facilities/activities). To be able to compare 2011 and 2014, the two different categories of 2014 have been computed to one category (online/offline library facilities/activities).

(faculties and TUD) : χ (21, 623) = 66.39, p < .05

F(7, 1511) = 4.48, p < .01

8.13

F(1, 1511) = 105.34, p < .01

I am satisfied with my lab facilities

25%

50%

75% 66%

29% 14% 31%

41%

27% 56%

8% 46% 14% 33% 6% 42% 8% 33% 36% 9% -1,5

-1,0

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

48%

39%

11% 6%

100%

-0,5

36% 58% 39% 67% 50% 0,0

0,5

1,0 0,6 0,7

0,1

0,5 0,5

slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE

0,8 1,1

AE Arch

0,4 0,4

strongly disagree

0,7

0,9

0,6 0,7

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS

1,0

IDE

0,6 0,6

1,2 0,8

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 464) = 32.7, p > .05

F(7, 1107) = 5.9, p < .01

F(1, 1107) = 23.69, p < .01

8.14

I am satisfied with the field research facilities

25% 10% 9% 19% 7% 12% 13% 10%

50% 51%

36% 32% 36% 48% 40% 37%

40% 42%

75% 35% 52% 43% 55% 36% 51% 43% 60% 45%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0 0,5 0,5

0,2

3mE

0,7

0,9

Arch

0,6 0,6

0,9

0,5

0,7 0,6

0,3

1,5

0,5

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS

0,9

IDE

0,7

0,4

1,1

TPM TU Delft

0,8

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 436) = 20.87, p > .05

F(7, 1056) = 3.05, p < .01

F(1, 1056) = 30.12, p < .01

8.15

Are you aware that there is a Psychologist exclusively available for PhD candidates?

25%

50%

75% 52% 62% 51% 60% 56% 47% 45% 43% 54%

48% 38% 49% 40% 44% 53% 55% 57% 47%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

yes no

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (7, 666) = 7.79, p > .05

No data from 2011

8.16

Have you ever consulted the PhD Psychologist?

25% 16%

6% 9%

18% 22% 14% 18% 16%

50%

75% 84%

94% 91% 82% 78% 86% 82% 100% 84%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

yes no

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

: χ (7, 308) = 5.71, p > .05

No data from 2011

8.15

How would you grade the support you received (1-10)? 0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

3mE

10,0

6,9

6,0

Arch

8,7

7,1

CEG

6,3

EEMCS

8,0

IDE

7,8

TU Delft

7,1

Standard deviation is 2.38. Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

F(6, 49) = .79, p > .05

No data from 2011

8.18

I feel that the support I received had a positive influence on the progress in my PhD project

25%

50%

14%

75%

100%

33% 25% 33%

67% 75% 33% 56% 50%

44% 50%

36%

49% -1,5

-1,0

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TU Delft

29%

57%

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE

0,6

-1,5

Arch

0,8

CEG

0,2 1,1 1,0

IDE TPM

0,0 0,6

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

EEMCS

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

TU Delft

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD) 83

χ2(18, 47) = 25.21, p > .05 No data from 2011 8.19 Do you teach courses to bachelor and/or master students? 0%

25%

50%

No data from 2011

75%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

54%

46% 70%

30%

52%

48%

35%

65%

56% 60% 48% 57% 52%

44% 40% 53% 43% 48%

yes no

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (7, 665) = 26, p < .01

No data from 2011

8.20

What percentage of your time do you spend on teaching?

25%

50%

75%

100%

14% 47% 7% 7% 43% 24% 12% 12% 12% 8% 16% 39% 5% 29% 13% 6% 31% 10% 19% 38% 33% 12% 6% 34%

39% 43% 41% 37% 59% 48% 33% 67% 44%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

0 to 10 percent 10 to 20 percent 20 to 30 percent 30 to 40 percent more than 40 percent

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (28, 318) = 71.79, p < .01

No data from 2011

8.21

What do you think of the percentage of your time that you spend on teaching?

25% 18%

7% 18% 21% 9% 17% 24% 16% Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

50%

75%

71% 71% 59% 75% 64% 73% 57% 100% 69%

100% 10% 21% 21% 5% 6% 8% 14% 5% 13%

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

spend less time just the right amount spend more time rather not teach

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ2(21, 318) = 27.55, p > .05 8.22 I enjoy teaching 0%

25%

12% 7%

No data from 2011 50%

36%

29% 15% 26%

75%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

59% 71% 71% 48% 67% 56% 74%

29% 21% 27%

11%

No data from 2011

27% 100%

-1,5

60%

29%

8% -1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE

1,0

1,1

Arch

1,2

0,8

CEG

1,1

EEMCS

0,9

IDE

1,2

TPM TU Delft

1,0

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ2(21, 316) = 23.93, p > .05

No data from 2011

8.23

Teaching is a great way to practice my transferable skills

25% 39% 10% 7% 14% 12% 9% 45% 6% 34% 23% 15% 29% 8%

32%

50%

75% 51% 79% 74% 46% 61% 63% 67%

100% 59%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5 3mE

0,9 1,1 1,0

AE Arch AS

0,8 1,1

CEG EEMCS

1,0 1,1

IDE TPM

1,0

TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 316) = 35, p < .05

No data from 2011

3.7 Career Planning Introduction Like Doctoral Education, Career planning is another new service of the Graduate School that is offered since the kick-off in 2012. In 2011, the doctorate climate survey signalled there was a need for career advice. In the 2014 survey the activities of the Career Centre of the past 3 years have been evaluated. The first four items gather background information (e.g. are you aware that there is a career centre?) and the items 9.7 through 9.13 are on a Likert scale to measure satisfaction. Only item 9.13 was added to the existing questions from 2011. Items 9.2 and 9.4 are not displayed here (see appendix 1). Item

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Subgroup**

Influence on general satisfaction

*9.1 X No data No data *9.3 No data No data *9.5 No data No data *9.6 No data No data  9.7 2, 4  9.8 4  9.9 2, 4 X  9.10 X X 2, 4  9.11 4 9.12 *9.13 No data No data 2 * This item was only present in the 2014 questionnaire. ** Separate statistical tests have been executed for two subgroups: national/international and preGS/GS. Summary Only 50% of the doctoral candidates know about the Career Centre and of those 335 respondents who know the Career Centre, only 60 (17.6%) actually made use of the services. This is not surprising, as the Graduate School only started developing this service for the doctoral candidates as of 2012. Fortunately, there has been a significant positive change between 2011 and 2014 across the different items. At item 9.6, it can be seen that as many as 54 (out of 58) respondents would recommend the Career Centre to other doctoral candidates. The career centre received an average score of 7.1 for its services. Some other results: •

• • •

Only 80 % hopes to defend their thesis before accepting a job (9.7) . This is worrisome because once in a another job, a lot of doctoral candidates never finish. Fortunately, 90% is determined to submit their draft thesis before leaving TU Delft (9.8). On average about 55% sees job opportunities at TU Delft (9.11). Just under 60% feel that they are encouraged by their supervisors to start thinking about their career after their defence (9.12) Just under 60% think that they will continue to work in academia.

With regard to subgroup differences, the following can be said:

•

International doctoral candidates are always less satisfied about the services of the Career Centre than the Dutch doctoral candidates. • The same holds true for doctoral candidates that belong to the Graduate School; they are always more positive than their pre-Graduate School colleagues. Questions -1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5 9.6

1,0

9.7

0,8 1,1

9.8 9.9

0,7

9.10

0,8

9.11

-0,1

9.12

0,0

9.13

0,2

These are the TU Delft wide results for the Likert scale questions over 2014 9.1

Are you aware that TU Delft has a Career Centre (CC)?

25%

50%

75%

100%

47% 46% 39% 54% 51% 62% 33% 29% 50%

53% 54% 61% 46% 49% 38% 67% 71% 50%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

yes no

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (7, 662) = 17.15, p < .05

No data from 2011

9.3

Have you made use of the services of the Career Centre (CC)?

25% 18% 15% 14% 22% 21% 17% 11% 18%

50% 83% 85% 86% 78% 80% 83% 89% 100% 82%

75%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

yes no

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (7, 335) = 3.7, p > .05 No data from 2011 How would you grade the support you received (1-10)?

No data from 2011

9.5

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

3mE

10,0

7,5

7,0

Arch

7,0

7,7

CEG

6,7

EEMCS

6,4

IDE

8,0

TU Delft

7,1

Standard deviation is 1.7. Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

F(6, 58) = .85, p > .05

No data from 2011

9.6

I would recommend other PhD candidates to make use of the services of the Career Centre (CC)

25%

50%

75%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TU Delft

50%

40%

10%

100% 25%

75% 83%

17%

62%

39%

27%

67%

71%

29% 100%

-1,5

53%

41%

5% -1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE

0,9

0,8 1,2

Arch AS

1,1

CEG

0,7 1,2

EEMCS IDE

1,0

TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (12, 58) = 16.33, p > .05 No data from 2011 9.7 I hope to defend my thesis before accepting a full time job

No data from 2011

25% 32%

22%

-1,0

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

100% 54%

28%

12%

100%

43% 54% 50% 52% 63%

43% 23% 26% 28%

6% 15% 19% 15% 6%

75% 56% 66%

30%

8% 2%

-1,5

50%

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

0,4

0,4 0,6 0,6 0,6

1,1

0,7

AE AS

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS

0,8

0,6

strongly agree

Arch

0,7

0,6

slightly agree

3mE

0,7

0,6

slightly disagree

1,5

0,9

0,7

strongly disagree

0,9

IDE TPM

0,8

TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 575) = 30.24, p > .05

F(7, 1354) = .97, p > .05

F(1, 1354) = 21.12, p < .01

9.8 0%

Before my contract or (external) funding ends, I am determined to at least have submitted my draft thesis 25% 20% 14% 9% 9% 18% 20% 19% 8% 17% 17%

50%

75% 74% 81% 78% 76% 70% 75% 84% 83% 75%

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

0,9

3mE

1,2

0,9

1,2

0,7

Arch

1,1

0,8

1,2

0,8

1,1

0,8

1,0 0,9

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS

1,2

1,1

1,2

IDE

1,2

TPM TU Delft

1,1

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 617) = 20.62, p > .05

F(7, 1425) = .85, p > .05

F(1, 1425) = 52.2, p < .01

9.9

Obtaining my doctorate degree will help me find a job

25% 16% 15% 11% 15% 12% 11% 14% 14%

-1,5

-1,0

50%

75%

0,0

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

42% 46% 47% 48% 52% 50% 50% 40% 48%

33% 33% 38% 37% 30% 32% 28% 20% 20% 33% -0,5

100%

0,5

0,4

1,0

0,6

0,8 0,7

0,8

0,6

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,8

0,7

1,5

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

3mE AE

Arch AS

CEG

EEMCS IDE

2011 2014

TPM

TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 608) = 17.65, p > .05

F(7, 1396) = 1.77, p > .05

F(1, 1396) = 12.52, p < .01

9.10

The content of my PhD project is useful for my future career

25%

50%

75% 36%

40%

67%

29% 14% 11% 11% 5% 14% 11% -1,5

40% 58% 48% 62%

41% 30% 37% 31%

86% 51%

35%

-1,0

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

49%

35%

14% 21%

100%

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0 0,6 0,6

0,7

slightly agree strongly agree

3mE

0,8

0,6 0,7 0,7

Arch

1,1

0,9 0,8 0,9

0,7 0,7

slightly disagree

1,5

0,8

0,7

strongly disagree

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS IDE

1,0 1,4

TPM TU Delft

0,8

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 655) = 33.6, p < .05

F(7, 1455) = 3.3, p < .01

F(1, 1455) = 14.18, p < .01

9.11 0%

I see enough job opportunities at TU Delft after completing my PhD project 25%

50%

75% 30% 46% 25% 26% 25% 28% 33%

33% 24% 20% 27% 33% 28% 24% 28%

50% 29%

100% 14% 12% 19% 19% 17% 18% 18% 17% 17%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

-0,3

0,5

1,0

1,5 3mE

-0,2

-0,6

0,0

-0,7

Arch

-0,2

-0,5

-0,2

-0,3

-0,2 -0,3 -0,1 -0,1

2011

CEG

2014

EEMCS

-0,6 -0,4

0,0

IDE

0,0

TPM TU Delft

-0,1

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 561) = 17.52, p > .05

F(7, 1209) = 1.79, p > .05

F(1, 1209) = 23, p < .01

9.12

My supervisors encourage me to start thinking about my career after my promotion

25%

50%

75%

24% 22%

35% 28% 28% 28% 30%

25% 27% 25% 32%

29%

33% 29%

33% 26% -1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5 0,1

-0,2 -0,2 -0,1

14% 33% 17% 22% 22% 29% 17% 23% 1,0

0,3

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE AE

0,1

-0,2 0,0 -0,2

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

31%

29%

28%

100%

0,0 0,0 0,0

0,3

Arch AS

0,2

2011

CEG

0,2

EEMCS

2014

0,3

0,1 0,0

IDE TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 529) = 19.86, p > .05

F(7, 1296) = 1.9, p > .05

F(1, 1296) = .53, p > .05

9.13

I believe my future career will continue within academia (at TU Delft or somewhere else)

25%

50%

23% -1,5

-1,0

-0,5

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

21% 26%

34%

45% 19% 33% 31% 33% 29% 29%

22%

27% 32% 32% 46% 29% 31%

27% 22% 10%

100%

26%

34% 17% 39%

13%

75%

0,0

0,5

1,0

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE

0,0

0,1 0,8

Arch AS

-0,2

CEG

0,4

EEMCS

0,3 0,5

IDE TPM

-0,1 0,2

TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 632) = 76.93, p < .01

No data from 2011

3.8 Graduate School (organization and process) Introduction A whole new category in this survey is about the Graduate School itself. Items 10.1 through 10.4 are background information items, items 10.5 through 10.10 are on a Likert scale to measure satisfaction. The questionnaire was designed in such a way that items 10.1 and 10.5 are linked, 10.2 and 10.6, 10.3 and 10.7 and lastly 10.4 and 10.8. This means that if a respondent answered ‘no’, ‘never’ or ‘didn’t know’ at items 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 or 10.4, she or he would not have to answer item 10.5, 10.6, 10.7 or 10.8. Items 10.11 and 10.12 are not displayed here (see appendix 1). *Item

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

10.1 No data 10.2 No data 10.3 X No data 10.4 No data 10.5 No data 10.6 X No data 10.7 No data 10.8 No data 10.9 No data 10.10 No data * The items in this cluster were only present in the 2014 questionnaire.

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD) No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data

Summary With regard to the first 8 items, respondents who know about the websites and the Quick Reference Cards and read the ‘PhD and DE News’, are very enthusiastic about this. Well over half of all doctoral candidates slightly or strongly agree with the questions in items 10.5 through 10.8. The suggestion would be to communicate more actively (or effectively) about the websites of the (University) Graduate School and the Faculty Graduate Schools and the Quick Reference Cards. Furthermore, it would also be advisable to communicate ‘PhD and DE News’ in multiple ways. In item 10.9, it can be seen that 75% of doctoral candidates clearly state that the intake interview provided them with all the information they needed to get started in the Doctoral Monitoring Application (DMA). On the other hand, DMA is still a concern because less than half of doctoral candidates state that DMA helps them to monitor their progress in their PhD project.

10.1

Do you use the website graduateschool.tudelft.nl?

25%

50%

75%

100%

41% 45% 31% 39% 38% 34% 25%

55% 49% 62% 53% 49% 58% 68% 86%

37%

55%

5% 6% 7% 8% 13% 8% 8% 14% 8%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

yes no didn't know website

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (14, 664) = 15.49, p > .05

No data from 2011

10.2

Do you use the website of your Faculty Graduate School?

25%

50%

75% 56% 62%

29% 30% 66% 25% 24%

57% 56% 48%

38% 55% 71% 35%

51%

100%

15% 9% 4% 30% 18% 20% 14% 5% 40% 29% 14%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

yes no didn't know website

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (14, 666) = 18.39, p > .05

No data from 2011

10.3 0%

How often do you read the monthly newsletter (PhD and DE News)? 25%

50%

75%

100%

8% 20% 39% 24% 10% 9% 23% 43% 15% 11% 11% 24% 50% 13% 14% 40% 29% 14% 5% 18% 34% 31% 12% 8% 13% 31% 35% 13% 13% 35% 33% 18% 14% 29% 29% 29% 7% 19% 37% 26% 10%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (28, 663) = 50.36, p < .01

No data from 2011

10.4

Are you aware that there are Quick Reference Cards about your PhD process?

25%

50%

75%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

83% 89% 85% 93% 93% 85% 90% 86% 89%

17% 11% 16% 7% 7% 15% 10% 14% 12% Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

χ (7, 335) = 3.7, p > .05

No data from 2011

10.5

yes no

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD) No data from 2011

graduateschool.tudelft.nl provides all the information I need

25%

50%

27% 22% 10% 23% -1,0

-0,5

75%

100%

34% 45% 22%

27% 32% 32% 46% 29% 31% 0,0

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

21% 26%

26%

34% 17% 39%

13%

-1,5

100%

0,5

19% 33% 31% 33% 29% 29% 1,0

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE

0,5

0,3 0,6

Arch

0,6

0,5

CEG

0,4

EEMCS

0,4

IDE 0,8

0,5

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 356) = 22.08, p < .05

No data from 2011

10.6

The Faculty Graduate School website provides all the information about the requirements that I need to meet

25%

50%

75% 14%

50%

30% 29% 31% 26% 29% 40% 28%

56% 58% 50% 50% 48% 40% 53%

12% 13% 16% 24% 10% 13% -1,0

-0,5

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

28%

59%

-1,5

100%

0,0

0,5

1,0

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE

0,6

-0,1 0,6

Arch

0,7

AS CEG

0,6

EEMCS

0,5

IDE

0,4

TPM

0,5

TU Delft

0,5

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 221) = 41.47, p < .01

No data from 2011

10.7

I find the information in the monthly newsletter useful

25%

50% 57% 58% 63% 48% 57% 42% 54%

33% 20% 20% 38% 27% 36% 23% 14% 30%

75%

43% 53%

100% 9% 13% 15% 9% 10% 15% 17%

43% 12%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5 3mE

0,6

-0,1 0,6

Arch

0,7

AS CEG

0,6

EEMCS

0,5

IDE

0,4

TPM

0,5

TU Delft

0,5

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 523) = 29.06, p > .05

No data from 2011

10.8

I find the Quick Reference Cards helpful

25%

50% 80% 50% 33% 50%

10% 10%

50% 100% 50%

15% -1,0

-0,5

0,0

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

20% 22% 20% 33% 25%

53%

13% 25%

100% 29%

43%

29% 20%

-1,5

75%

24% 0,5

1,0

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE

0,6

-0,1 0,6

Arch

0,7

0,6 0,5

CEG EEMCS IDE

0,4 0,5 0,5

TPM TU Delft

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

χ (21, 68) = 22.28, p > .05

No data from 2011

10.9

The Intake interview provided me with all the information I need to get started in DMA

25%

50%

14% 14% 18% 22% 19% 17% 17% -1,0

40% 33% 42% 36% 41% 25% 19% 17% 38% -0,5

100% 3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

36% 29% 36% 32% 31% 32% 31%

41%

11%

-1,5

75%

50% 33%

0,0

0,5

1,0

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

1,5 3mE

0,5

0,3

Arch

0,4

0,5

CEG

0,4

EEMCS

0,5

IDE

0,1

TPM

0,5

TU Delft

0,4

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 432) = 14.62, p > .05

No data from 2011

10.10 0%

DMA helps me to monitor the progress of my PhD project 25%

50%

35% 38%

29% 18% 18% 24% 36% 33% 33% 28%

75%

32% 30%

26%

26% 36% 29% 50% 32%

100% 13% 15% 27% 21% 16% 8% 10% 15%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

100

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

-0,1

3mE

-0,1

AE Arch

0,1

0,0

CEG

-0,2

EEMCS

-0,2

IDE

-0,4 0,7

TPM TU Delft

-0,1

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (21, 413) = 25.42, p > .05

No data from 2011

101

3.9 Online Education Introduction At the request of the Extension School, this category was added. Open and online education is a top priority at TU Delft and the Extension School would therefore like to know how many doctoral candidates are already following or are aware of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC). Additionally, they feel it is important to research how many doctoral candidates would be interested in taking online courses for their Doctoral Education programme. The Graduate School is already thinking about the influence that open and online education can have on Doctoral Education 13. Items 11.2 and 11.4 are not displayed here (see appendix 1).

Item*

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

11.1 No data 11.3 No data * The items in this cluster were only present in the 2014 questionnaire.

No data No data

Summary The results are quite straightforward. Only 12 percent of doctoral candidates have followed a MOOC so far or was following one at the time of the survey. The other 88 percent hadnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t tried a MOOC or was even aware of what a MOOC is. Have you followed, or are you currently following, a Massive Online Open Course (MOOC)?

11.1 0%

13%

12%

18%

15%

14%

12%

58%

55%

59%

50%

75%

60%

63%

57%

32%

27%

36%

57%

51%

34%

100%

31%

23%

86%

31%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

yes no

don't know what MOOC is

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (14, 664) = 16.98, p > .05

No data from 2011

25%

http://delta.tudelft.nl/article/online-also-counts/28489 102

11.3 0%

Would you be interested in taking online courses for your Doctoral Education Programme? 25%

47%

50%

57%

49%

61%

21%

54%

48%

59%

54%

20%

71%

18%

17%

75%

11%

16%

19%

17%

33%

26%

28%

30%

35%

22%

29%

100%

3mE AE Arch AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

yes no

don't know

Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021; (14, 665) = 11.49, p > .05

No data from 2011

103

3.10 Final grade of PhD programme Introduction Last but most certainly not least, respondents were asked to grade the entire PhD programme. This includes everything from intake to doctoral defence ceremony and everything in between and surrounding this. What grade would you give the PhD programme at TU Delft, ranging from 1-10? (In hindsight it would have been better to ask for a grade between 1 and 10 for the separate categories. However it was decided best to repeat the same question used in 2011. Results The results of 2014 are an improvement to the results of 2011 on three different levels. Firstly, five of the eight faculties have seen an increase over the years and the other three faculties still score higher than a 7. Secondly, no faculties score lower than a 7. In 2011 Architecture scored a 6.6 but this year a 7.3. Lastly, the decrease in standard deviation between 2011 and 2014 means that there is greater consensus among doctoral candidates from different faculties on the grade of the PhD programme at TU Delft in 2014. In 2014, at TU level, the grade for the PhD programme increased from 7.2 to 7.34. Additionally, there are no significant differences amongst faculties. This means that the faculty is not a determinant in the general satisfaction about the whole PhD programme. In chapter 4 and 5 the final grade is extensively examined. In chapter 4, to see where significant statistical differences exist between subgroups. The differences defined are: • Dutch versus international • VSNU-categories • Pre-Graduate School versus Graduate School doctoral candidates • Peer group learning • Low or high number of meetings with supervisors (especially the daily supervisor) • Low or high satisfaction about supervision In chapter 5, regression analysis has been used to determine which cluster of items has the strongest effect on the final grade. Originally there was also an item 12.2. This item gave room to comments that were not addressed in any of the 105 items preceding it. The Graduate School will look at the answers to this open question and use it as another source of input to improve the PhD programme.

104

Overall, what grade would you give the PhD programme at TU Delft (1-10)? Differences between faculties and the whole TU Delft in 2014 0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

3mE

10,0

7,3

7,6

Arch

7,3

7,4

CEG

7,1

EEMCS

7,5

IDE

7,2

TPM

7,4

TU Delft

7,3

Standard deviation for the whole TU Delft is 1.47. Test 2014 (faculties and TUD)

F(7, 657) = 1.05, p > .05

Differences between faculties and the whole TU Delft in 2011 0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

3mE

10,0

7,2

7,1

Arch

6,6

7,5

CEG

7,2

EEMCS

7,3

IDE

7,5

TPM

7,0

TU Delft

7,2

Standard deviation at TU Delft level is 1.54. Test 2011 (faculties and TUD)

F(7, 888) = 2.61, p < .05

105

Differences between faculties and the whole TU Delft in 2011 and 2014 0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

3mE AE 6,6

Arch

10,0

7,2 7,3 7,1 7,6

7,3 7,5 7,4 7,2 7,1 7,3 7,5 7,5 7,2 7,0 7,4 7,2 7,3

AS CEG EEMCS IDE TPM TU Delft

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (faculty)

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

F(7, 1546) = 2.36, p < .05

F(1, 1546) = 2.55, p > .05

2011 2014

106

3.11 Faculty-related questions When the questionnaire was designed, the directors of the Faculty Graduate School were asked if they wanted to submit questions that were specific to their faculty and not yet covered in the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;basicâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; questionnaire. Four of the directors provided the questions on the following pages. There was a set maximum of five questions. The answers more or less speak for themselves and the further interpretation will be left up to the Faculty Graduate School involved. Aerospace Engineering No.

Question 1 2 3 4 5

Number of valid cases

Is a research plan part of your PhD agreement? Is a publication plan part of your PhD agreement? Is an internship abroad part of your PhD project? I believe the Go/No Go review meeting helps me to stay on schedule with my PhD project The influence of the industry on my PhD project is too big

25%

50%

47 47 47 41 38

75%

74%

100% 13%

13%

Question 1 yes

55%

15%

30%

62%

25%

20%

Question 2

15%

75%

39%

don't know

Question 3

23%

50%

100%

Question 4

37%

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree

40%

11%

Question 5

strongly agree

107

Civil Engineering and Geosciences No.

Question 1 2 3 4 5 6

Number of valid cases

Have you had contact with your mentor after the introduction meeting? Did you have an external committee member at your Go/No Go meeting? Was she/he from outside your section or research group? The mentor system is an asset of the Graduate School I received constructive feedback during the Go/No Go meeting Working in DMA has made me realise that I seriously have to plan my PhD

25%

11%

50%

75%

60%

145 145 137 64 65 71

100%

Question 1

29%

yes no don't know

28%

37%

25%

Question 2

36%

50%

75%

100%

yes no

26%

32%

Question 3

37%

don't know no external member

25%

50%

25%

75% 47%

100% 16%

Question 4

strongly disagree slightly disagree

23%

46%

22%

Question 5

slightly agree strongly agree

24%

31%

18%

Question 6

108

Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Sciences No.

Question 1 2 3 4 5

Number of valid cases

I would ask my mentor for help in case of problems within the PhD project The 6-month-meeting is a good opportunity to start preparing for the Go/No Go meeting The Go/No Go meeting helped me in planning my research The DE programme has made me a better and broader researcher Working in DMA has made me realise that I seriously have to plan my PhD

25%

50%

75%

43%

24% 19%

39%

Question 1 strongly disagree slightly disagree

Question 3

slightly agree

19%

Question 4

strongly agree

19%

Question 5

30%

40%

20%

84 75

Question 2

34%

51%

100% 31%

37%

25%

109

Technology, Policy and Management It was mentioned before but unfortunately there were only 7 respondents for the faculty of TPM. A combination of a wrong mailing list and technical issues with the delivery of the questionnaire resulted in this small response group. No.

Question 1 2 3 4 5

Number of valid cases

Have you taken courses at a Research School (even if not a member)? My mentor assists me in my (personal) learning experience I would ask my mentor for help in case of problems (e.g. expecting a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;No goâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; or a conflict with your promotor or daily supervisor) The DMA system helps me to (better) plan my PhD project How often are you in touch with your mentor?

25%

50%

43%

0% 20%

50%

5 7 5 7

75%

100%

43%

25%

Question 1

14%

75%

40%

yes no don't know

100% Question 2

40%

strongly disagree slightly disagree

29%

Question 3

57%

slightly agree strongly agree

20%

40%

25%

Question 4

40%

50%

75%

100%

monthly quarterly

14%

43%

29%

Question 5

half yearly once per year

110

4. Subgroup Differences

111

4.1 Introduction This chapter provides more in-depth detail of the different subgroups of the entire 2014 response group. An almost infinite number of combinations between subgroups and items are possible but not every test is significant and perhaps more importantly: not every conclusion can be influenced by a change in policy. Therefore, it was decided to carry out statistical tests on a select number of subgroups and with a selection of items. These are the same statistical tests that have been used in chapter 3. Subgroup Scale questions Woman/Man

Items Final grade Scale questions: Project&Planning, Supervision and DE Items 4.5, 4.8 and 4.9 Final grade Dutch/international Scale questions: Project&Planning, Supervision, DE, Working environment and Career planning VSNU-category (also separate Dutch/Chinese) Items 4.5, 4.8 and 4.9 Items 8.19 and 8.22 on Teaching Final grade Scale questions: Project&Planning, Supervision and DE VSNU-category Items 4.5, 4.8 and 4.9 (4.8 and 4.9 both 2011 and 2014) Final grade Pre-GS (before 2012)/GS (2012 and later) Scale questions DE and Career planning Final grade Before or after Go/No Go Item 4.1 Member/not member of Research School Scale question: DE Item 6.21 Teach/not teach in bachelor or master Items 4.8 and 4.9 Peer group learning Items 6.2, 6.5 and 6.7 Final grade Frequency appointments with supervisors Item 6.7 (separately for promotor and daily supervisor) Final grade Supervision satisfaction Items 4.5, 4.8 and 4.9 Final grade In the previous chapter the results of separate univariate analyses for the underlined subgroups are visible in the tables at the beginning of every category. Item number 4.1 4.5 4.8 4.9 6.2 6.5 6.7 6.21 8.19 8.22

Question I have a clear overview of the different phases of my PhD project (from intake to the doctoral defence ceremony and everything in between) I believe I can finish my PhD within the time set Please indicate your progress/status Which of these reasons has contributed the most to your delay? How often do you have an appointment with your promotor? (indication) How often do you have an appointment with your supervisor? (indication) I am satisfied with the way my supervision is organized I receive sufficient methodological support Do you teach courses to bachelor and/or master students? I enjoy teaching

112

4.2 Scale questions A new subgroup is introduced which is also an item, namely the scale question. Scale questions are composed of individual Likert scale questions. Although a bit rough as a measuring instrument, it enables you to look at a whole range of Likert scale questions within a category and draw some tentative conclusions. It is particularly useful to see how much impact a whole category can have on the general satisfaction. General satisfaction has been measured using regression analysis and is discussed in chapter 5. The tables at the start of every cluster in chapter 3 show the result of separate univariate analyses on every item for the subgroups woman/man, Dutch/international, VSNU-category and Pre-GS/GS. For these subgroups, it is possible to draw rather distinct conclusions about their mutual differences. In this chapter, the scale questions are presented in two manners. Firstly, they are presented as a subgroup (low and high satisfaction on e.g. supervision) and have been lined against the final grade. The result is that it is possible to see what final grade a respondent gives who has low satisfaction on a category as opposed to someone who has high satisfaction. Secondly, other subgroups have been lined against the scale questions and this results in a satisfaction number on a range of 1 to 4 for both subgroups. Four scale questions were created out of the Likert scale items in the following categories: • • • •

Supervision Doctoral Education Working Environment Career Planning

To use them as subgroups, the scale questions have been dichotomised. Each scale question has a different cut off point for the 50% percentile. • • • •

Supervision = 3.35 (lower means a low satisfaction on supervision and vice versa) DE = 2.9 (ibidem) Working Environment = 3.36 (ibidem) Career Planning = 3.13 (ibidem)

All individual Likert scale questions that are part of the scale questions were formulated in a positive way. Statistically this means that a value of 1 is always more negative than 2, 3 or 4, a value of 2 always more negative than 3 and 4, etcetera. Linguistically it means that positive words are used: • • • • • •

Clear Motivate In line with Available Support Have agreed on

Overall, what grade would you give the PhD programme at TU Delft (1-10)? Analysis makes clear that the results on all scale questions are significant. Not very surprising but if a doctoral candidate has low satisfaction on any of the scale questions, they will not only give the PhD programme at TU Delft a lower grade but it will also be significantly lower than the final grade given by a doctoral candidate that has high satisfaction on any of the scale questions.

113

Differences between low and high satisfaction on supervision (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

low

8,0

10,0

6,8

high

7,9

Standard deviation is 1.47. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 657) = 121.4, p < .01

Differences between low and high satisfaction on doctoral education () in 2014

0,0

2,0

low

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

6,7

high

8,0

Standard deviation is 1.47. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 657) = 135.55, p < .01

114

Differences between low and high satisfaction on working environment (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

low

8,0

10,0

6,8

high

7,8

Standard deviation is 1.47. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 657) = 87.62, p < .01

Differences between low and high satisfaction on career planning (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,0

2,0

low

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

6,9

high

7,8

Standard deviation is 1.47. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 657) = 60.23, p < .01

115

4.3 Gender Between women and men there are significant differences in response to: â&#x20AC;˘ Scale questions: o Project and Planning o Supervision â&#x20AC;˘ Reasons for delay Scale question: Project and Planning Differences between women and men (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,00

1,00

2,00

women

3,00

4,00

2,93

men

3,10

Standard deviation is .65. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 662) = 9.96, p < .01

Scale question: Supervision Differences between women and men (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,00

1,00

women

2,00

3,00

4,00

3,12

men

3,27

Standard deviation is .63. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 661) = 8.24, p < .01

116

Scale question: Doctoral Education Differences between women and men (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

women

2,88

men

2,92

3,50

4,00

Standard deviation is .57. Test 2014 (TUD)

4.5

F(1, 660) = .74, p > .05

I believe I can finish my PhD within the time set

Individual answers per gender (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25%

50%

19%

75%

32%

100% women

36%

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree

13%

37%

strongly agree

Ď&#x2021;2(3, 651) = 5.29, p > .05

Test 2014 (TUD)

4.8

men

39%

Please indicate your progress/status

Individual answers per gender (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25%

50%

75% 44%

100% women

on schedule behind schedule time out or discontinue

53%

Test 2014 (TUD)

42%

men

finished

Ď&#x2021;2(3, 662) = 3.08, p > .05

117

4.9

Which of these reasons has contributed the most to your delay?

Individual answers per gender () in 2014

25%

50%

75%

100%

research is difficult issues supervision

53%

16%

17%

women

too busy (research) too busy (private) personal

35%

18%

24%

men

6% 6%

other no specific

Ď&#x2021;2(6, 284) = 13, p < .05

Test 2014 (TUD)

Overall, what grade would you give the PhD programme at TU Delft (1-10)? Differences between women and men (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,0

2,0

women

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

7,2

men

7,4

Standard deviation is 1.47. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 654) = 2.22, p > .05

118

4.4 Nationality14 Between Dutch and international doctoral candidates there are significant differences in response to: • Scale questions: o Project and Planning o Working environment o Career planning • VSNU-category in 2014 (and also between Dutch and Chinese doctoral candidates in 2011 and 2014 because Chinese candidates are our largest group of internationals). • Reasons for delay • Involved in teaching bachelor/master • Enjoyment of teaching • Final grade The most remarkable findings: • Looking at ‘the connection to TU Delft’, only 10% of the Dutch doctoral candidates are in VSNU category 3 whereas this is 60% amongst Chinese doctoral candidates. • Concerning reasons for delay (4.9) 9% of the Dutch doctoral candidates answered that this was because they were busy due to private reasons. Amongst the international doctoral candidates, 2% gave the same reason. • 8.19 shows that 66% of the Dutch doctoral candidates teach courses, as opposed to40 % of the international doctoral candidates Scale question: Project and Planning Differences between Dutch and international doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,00

1,00

national

2,00

3,00

4,00

2,95

international

3,10

Standard deviation is .63. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 659) = 7, p < .01

There are 195 Dutch and 465 international respondents; there are 7 system missing. 119

Scale question: Supervision Differences between Dutch and international doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

national

3,24

international

3,22

Standard deviation is .63. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 661) = .17, p > .05

Scale question: Doctoral Education Differences between Dutch and international doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,00

1,00

national

2,00

3,00

4,00

2,85

international

2,94

Standard deviation is .57. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 657) = 3.19, p > .05

120

Scale question: Working environment Differences between Dutch and international doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

national

3,37

international

3,27

Standard deviation is .55. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 658) = 4.77, p < .05

Scale question: Career planning Differences between Dutch and international doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,00

1,00

national

2,00

3,00

4,00

2,91

international

3,13

Standard deviation is .57. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 655) = 19.78, p < .01

121

How are you connected to TU Delft? Individual answers for Dutch and international doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25%

50%

75%

60%

100%

30%

national

VSNU 1 VSNU 2 VSNU 3

51%

5% international

43%

VSNU 4

χ2(3, 650) = 10.94, p < .05

Test 2014 (TUD)

Individual answers for Dutch and Chinese doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2011

25%

50%

75%

72%

100%

10%

Dutch

16%

VSNU 1 VSNU 2 VSNU 3

38%

Chinese

60%

VSNU 4

χ2(3, 415) = 117.51, p < .01

Test 2011 (TUD)

Individual answers for Dutch and Chinese doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25%

50%

75%

60%

30%

100% 8%

Dutch

VSNU 1 VSNU 2 VSNU 3

20%

78%

Test 2014 (TUD)

Chinese

VSNU 4

χ2(3, 301) = 66.04, p < .01

122

4.5

I believe I can finish my PhD within the time set

Individual answers for Dutch and international doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25% 16%

50%

75%

39%

100% strongly disagree

national

30%

slightly disagree slightly agree

14%

34%

international

41%

χ2(3, 648) = 6.39, p > .05

Test 2014 (TUD)

4.8

strongly agree

Please indicate your progress/status

Individual answers for Dutch and international doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25%

50%

75%

100% on schedule

52%

45%

national

behind schedule time out or discontinue

52%

42%

international

χ2(3, 659) = 4.61, p > .05

Test 2014 (TUD)

4.9

finished

Which of these reasons has contributed the most to your delay?

Individual answers for Dutch and international doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25%

50%

75%

100%

research is difficult issues supervision

38%

14%

18%

10% 9% 11%

national

too busy (research) too busy (private) personal

42%

19%

23%

6% 6%

international

other no specific

Test 2014 (TUD)

χ2(6, 283) = 13.55, p < .05

123

8.19

Do you teach courses to bachelor and/or master students?

Individual answers for Dutch and international doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2014 0%

25%

50%

75%

66%

national

34%

40%

international

60%

yes no

Ď&#x2021;2(1, 658) = 35.8, p < .01

Test 2014 (TUD)

8.22

100%

I enjoy teaching

Individual answers for Dutch and international doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25%

50%

30%

75%

100% national

66%

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree

12%

29%

international

57%

strongly agree

Ď&#x2021;2(3, 313) = 9.54, p < .05

Test 2014 (TUD)

Differences between Dutch and international doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2014

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

1,1

0,9

national

international

124

Overall, what grade would you give the PhD programme at TU Delft (1-10)? Differences between Dutch and international doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,0

2,0

national

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

7,1

international

7,5

Standard deviation is 1.48. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 650) = 8.36, p < .01

125

4.5 VSNU category Between doctoral candidates of the different VSNU categories there are significant differences in response to: • Scale questions: o Project and Planning o Supervision o Doctoral Education • Believe in finishing the PhD within • The time set • The progress/status between Doctoral candidates in 2011 and 2014 • Reasons for delay in 2011 and in 2014 (but not between 2011 and 2014) • Final grade The most remarkable findings: • Only 9% of the internal Doctoral candidates believe they can finish within the time set, against about an average of 75% in the other 3 categories. The reasons that internal Doctoral candidates are delayed are: o too busy with research (70%) o or private affairs (30%) • VSNU category 3 – contract PhD’s – is most satisfied about the PhD programme with an overall grade of 7,5 • VSNU category 2 – internal PhD’s – are the least satisfied (6,6) Scale question: Project and Planning Differences between VSNU categories (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

VSNU 1

3,50

4,00

3,02

VSNU 2

2,64

VSNU 3

3,13

VSNU 4

3,01

Standard deviation is .64. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 656) = 3.15, p < .05

126

Scale question: Supervision Differences between VSNU categories (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

VSNU 1

3,50

4,00

3,16

VSNU 2

3,35

VSNU 3

3,31

VSNU 4

3,23

Standard deviation is .63. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(3, 655) = 3.58, p < .05

Scale question: Doctoral Education Differences between VSNU categories (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,00

1,00

VSNU 1

2,00

3,00

4,00

2,81

VSNU 2

3,00

VSNU 3

3,03

VSNU 4

2,98

Standard deviation is .57. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(3, 654) = 8.38, p < .01

127

4.5

I believe I can finish my PhD within the time set

Individual answers per VSNU category (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25%

50%

75%

38%

12%

100% VSNU 1

39% 9%

64% 16%

35%

24%

26%

38%

VSNU 3

37%

VSNU 4

slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree

χ2(9, 647) = 31.8, p < .01

Test 2014 (TUD) 4.8

VSNU 2

strongly disagree

Please indicate your progress/status

Individual answers per VSNU-category (TU Delft wide) in 2011

25%

50%

75%

100% VSNU 1

33%

57%

VSNU 2

33%

58%

VSNU 3

26%

66%

behind schedule time out or discontinue finished

VSNU 4

45%

on schedule

χ2(9, 863) = 13.51, p > .05

Test 2011 (TUD) Individual answers per VSNU-category (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25%

50%

75% 42%

54%

53% 45%

Test 2014 (TUD)

VSNU 1 VSNU 2

83%

17%

100%

40% 48%

VSNU 3

on schedule behind schedule time out or discontinue finished

VSNU 4

χ2(9, 656) = 14.48, p > .05

128

TU Delft wide in 2011 and 2014

25%

50%

75%

58%

100% 2011

32%

on schedule behind schedule time out or discontinue

52%

2014

43%

χ2(3, 1555) = 24.6, p < .01

Test 2014 (TUD) 4.9

finished

Which of these reasons has contributed the most to your delay?

Individual answers per VSNU-category (TU Delft wide) in 2011

25%

50%

48%

11%

75%

100% VSNU 1

6% 13%

19%

VSNU 2

100% 57% 27%

10%

15% 21%

15%

VSNU 3

12%

VSNU 4

21%

research is difficult issues supervision too busy (research) too busy (private) personal other no specific

χ2(18, 277) = 37, p < .01

Test 2011 (TUD) Individual answers per VSNU-category (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25%

50%

46%

19%

75% 18%

26%

6% 10%

19% 37%

Test 2014 (TUD)

20% 11%

8% 7% 16%

VSNU 1 VSNU 2

30%

70% 40%

100%

VSNU 3 VSNU 4

research is difficult issues supervision too busy (research) too busy (private) personal other no specific

χ2(18, 277) = 50.47, p < .01

129

TU Delft wide in 2011 and 2014

25%

50%

75%

100%

research is difficult issues supervision

46%

13%

18%

2011

7% 12%

too busy (research) too busy (private) personal

41%

17%

21%

7% 8%

2014

other no specific

Ď&#x2021;2(6, 554) = 71.32, p < .01

Test 2011 vs. 2014 (TUD)

Overall, what grade would you give the PhD programme at TU Delft (1-10)? Differences between VSNU categories (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

VSNU 1

10,0

7,2

VSNU 2

6,6

VSNU 3

7,5

VSNU 4

7,3

Standard deviation is 1.47. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(3, 649) = 2.99, p < .01

130

4.6 Pre-GS/GS The cut-off point to determine pre-GS vs. GS is not completely true to the actual situation. In the below analysis the pre-GS group consists of all the doctoral candidates that started before January 1st 2012 and the GS group consists of all the doctoral candidates after January 1st 2012. This is not completely correct because three Faculty Graduate Schools started on September 1st 2011. Significant differences can be seen between the two groups in all the scale questions and the final grade. Scale question: Project and Planning Differences between pre-GS and GS doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,00

1,00

2,00

pre-GS

3,00

4,00

2,83

post-GS

3,20

Standard deviation is .65. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 654) = 55.56, p < .01

Scale question: Supervision Differences between pre-GS and GS doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,00

1,00

pre-GS

2,00

3,00

4,00

3,06

post-GS

3,33

Standard deviation is .63. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 654) = 30.19, p < .01

131

Scale question: Doctoral Education Differences between pre-GS and GS doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,00

1,00

2,00

pre-GS

3,00

4,00

2,80

post-GS

2,98

Standard deviation is .57. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 652) = 16.48, p < .01

Scale question: Career planning Differences between pre-GS and GS doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,00

1,00

pre-GS

2,00

3,00

4,00

2,93

post-GS

3,16

Standard deviation is .57. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 650) = 26, p < .01

132

Overall, what grade would you give the PhD programme at TU Delft (1-10)? Differences between pre- and GS doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,0

2,0

pre-GS

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

7,1

post-GS

7,5

Standard deviation is 1.46. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 646) = 14.73, p < .01

133

4.7 Go/No Go One of the reasons for doing this whole research and in particular this subgroup analyses, is to test assumptions or expected effects of newly implemented procedures. With the implementation of the Go/No Go regulations, it was expected that this would be an important moment where doctoral candidates not only hear whether they can continue their project but also help structure the next years of their PhD project. 4.1

I have a clear overview of the different phases of my PhD project (from intake to the doctoral defence ceremony and everything in between) 15

Individual answers pre- and post-Go/No Go meeting (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25% 12%

50% 48%

75% 35%

100% pre-Go/No Go

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree

14%

49%

Test 2014 (TUD)

34%

post-Go/No Go

strongly agree

χ2(3, 663) = .62, p > .05

Unfortunately, as the analysis shows, the Go/No Go meeting does not seem to help doctoral candidates to get a clear overview of the different phases of their PhD project after the Go/No Go meeting.

For this analysis, the variable ‘Go/No Go Meeting’ has been recoded into the values ‘yes’ and ‘no’ – the value ‘not yet’ is part of the new value ‘no’.

134

4.8 Research School

The most important conclusion is that it pays off to be a member of a research school when it comes to satisfaction of Doctoral Education and methodological feedback. Scale question: Doctoral Education Differences between doctoral candidates that are a member of a research school or not (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,00

0,50

1,00

member

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

3,01

not a member

2,82

Standard deviation is .57. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 497) = 14.05, p < .01

170 doctoral candidates did not know whether they were members of a research school or not; they were not counted in these analyses.

135

6.21

I receive sufficient methodological feedback

Differences between doctoral candidates that are a member of a research school or not (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

member

4,00

3,12

not a member

2,84

Standard deviation is .93. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 490) = 11.04, p < .01

136

4.9 Teaching Between doctoral candidates who teach and those who don’t, there are only significant differences in the final grade. It was thought this might due to the fact that doctoral candidates that teach are more behind schedule or have different reasons for delay. However, this was tested and turned out to be false. 4.8

Please indicate your progress/status

Individual answers of doctoral candidates who teach and who don’t teach (TU Delft population) in 2014 0%

25%

50%

48%

55%

Test 2014 (TUD)

75% 46%

40%

100% teach don't teach

on schedule

behind schedule

time out or discontinue finished

χ2(3, 664) = 5.3, p > .05

137

4.9

Which of these reasons has contributed the most to your delay?

Individual answers of doctoral candidates who teach and who don’t teach (TU Delft wide) in 2014 0%

25%

50%

41%

75%

15%

39%

100%

25%

20%

17%

teach

5% 8%

5% 9%

don't teach

research is difficult issues supervision

too busy (research) too busy (private) personal other

no specific

χ2(6, 284) = 5.57, p > .05

Test 2014 (TUD)

Overall, what grade would you give the PhD programme at TU Delft (1-10)? Differences between doctoral candidates who teach and who don’t teach (TU Delft wide) in 2014 0,0

2,0

teach

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

7,2

don't teach

7,5

Standard deviation is 1.46. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 656) = 7.11, p < .01.

138

4.10 Peer group learning The decision to examine this subgroup was based on several assumptions: -

Doctoral candidates learn from each other, so the more embedded they are in their working environment, the better they perform;

Doctoral candidates that are well-embedded in the organisation are more satisfied about the different levels of the PhD programme and on the programme as a whole.

This subgroup has been dubbed ‘peer group learning’ and it has been constructed using the category ‘Professional Embedding’. Factor analysis shows that the Likert scale items in the category ‘Professional Embedding’ can be divided into two scale questions. The following items have been computed into the new scale question ‘Professional Embedding Rest’: 5.1 5.2 5.6 5.7 5.8

I have regular (formal or informal) contact with fellow doctoral candidates about my PhD project My research group meets at least once every two weeks I know several other doctoral candidates who use the same research methods as I do A sufficient number of experts are available in my working environment to help me deal with typical issues in my project I receive good support during the collection of my data

The remaining items have been computed into the scale question ‘Professional Embedding Awareness’: 5.3 5.4 5.5

I am aware of who else at TU Delft is working on a topic closely related to mine I am aware of who else in the Netherlands is working on a topic closely related to mine I am aware of who else in the world is working on a topic closely related to mine

A score on ‘Professional Embedding ’ of 2.75 and lower is considered low peer group learning, a score higher than 2.75 is considered high peer group learning. The two resulting groups are almost equal in size. As the awareness questions are not relevant for the following analyses they were not included. 6.2

How often do you have an appointment with your promotor? (indication)

Individual answers for low and high peer group learning (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25%

50%

75%

100% daily

100% 76%

24%

68% 56% 47%

32% 44%

64%

once per two weeks

high

monthly

low

every half year

53%

52%

once per week

48% 36%

yearly never

139

χ2(6, 652) = 24.52, p < .01

Test 2014 (TUD)

6.5

How often do you have an appointment with your daily supervisor? (indication)

Individual answers for low and high peer group learning (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25%

15%

39%

50%

80% 68% 58% 85% 100%

50%

75%

61%

daily once per week once per two weeks monthly every half year yearly never

20% 32% 42%

50%

high low

χ2(6, 594) = 44.05, p < .01

Test 2014 (TUD) 6.7

100%

I am satisfied with the way my supervision is organized

Individual answers for low and high peer group learning (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25%

50%

21%

75%

36%

100% low

30%

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree

34%

high

55%

strongly agree

χ2(3, 662) = 69.24, p < .01

Test 2014 (TUD)

Overall, what grade would you give the PhD programme at TU Delft (1-10)? Differences between low and high peer group learning (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,0

2,0

low

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

6,7

high

7,8

Standard deviation is 1.47. Test 2014 (TUD)

F(1, 657) = 100.17, p < .01 140

4.11 Meetings with supervisors Supervision is one of the key factors for the success of doctoral candidates in their PhD project as well as their satisfaction on their process/experience. This assumption has been used to devise a crude measuring tool: the number of meetings a doctoral candidate has with his or her supervisors. For this analysis, the seven categories of questions 6.2 and 6.5 were recoded into two categories: • •

Daily, once per week and once per two weeks = 1 Monthly, every half year and once per year, I have never had an appointment = 2

Category 1 is considered a high number of meetings, category 2 is considered a low number of meetings. It can be seen that supervision is important. Even more specifically, doctoral candidates consider the frequency of the meetings with their daily supervisor as very important. 6.7

I am satisfied with the way my supervision is organized

Individual answers for low and high number of meetings with promotor (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25% 7%

50%

75%

33%

100% high

55%

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree

16%

35%

low

41%

strongly agree

χ2(3, 662) = 15.56, p < .01

Test 2014 (TUD)

Individual answers for low and high number of meetings with daily supervisor (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25% 10%

50%

75%

32%

100% high

53%

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree

24%

Test 2014 (TUD)

42%

20%

low

strongly agree

χ2(3, 662) = 68.47, p < .01

141

Overall, what grade would you give the PhD programme at TU Delft (1-10)? Differences for low and high number of meetings with promotor (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

high

10,0

7,4

low

7,3

Standard deviation is 1.47. Ď&#x2021;2(1, 657) = .77, p > .01

Test 2014 (TUD)

Differences for low and high number of meetings with daily supervisor (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

high

10,0

7,5

low

6,9

Standard deviation is 1.47. Test 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021;2(1, 657) = .77, p > .01

142

4.12 Supervision satisfaction The assumption here is that high satisfaction on supervision means that a doctoral candidate is more optimistic about finishing their PhD project on time and is more on schedule and mentions less frequently that supervision is a reason for delay. In general, these doctoral candidates are also more satisfied about the entire PhD programme. For this analysis, the four categories of question 6.7 were recoded into two categories: • •

Strongly disagree, slightly disagree = 1 Slightly agree, strongly agree = 2

Category 1 is considered a low satisfaction on supervision, category 2 high satisfaction on supervision. All the aforementioned assumptions are supported by the statistical tests. 4.5

I believe I can finish my PhD within the time set

Individual answers for low and high satisfaction with supervision (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25%

50% 22%

75% 29%

100% low

22%

strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree

13%

37%

strongly agree

χ2(3, 655) = 46.35, p < .01

Test 2014 (TUD) 4.8

high

42%

Please indicate your progress/status

Individual answers for low and high satisfaction with supervision (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25%

50%

25%

75% 65%

100% 8%

low

on schedule behind schedule time out or discontinue

59%

Test 2014 (TUD)

37%

high

finished

χ2(3, 666) = 77.34, p < .01

143

4.9

Which of these reasons has contributed the most to your delay?

Individual answers for low and high satisfaction with supervision (TU Delft wide) in 2014

25%

50%

75%

100%

research is difficult issues supervision

32%

41%

low

17%

too busy (research) too busy (private) personal

44%

23%

5% 9% 10%

high

other no specific

Ď&#x2021;2(6, 286) = 54.43, p < .01

Test 2014 (TUD)

Overall, what grade would you give the PhD programme at TU Delft (1-10)? Differences for low and high satisfaction with supervision (TU Delft wide) in 2014

0,0

2,0

low

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

6,3

high

7,6

Standard deviation is 1.47. Test 2014 (TUD)

Ď&#x2021;2(1, 657) = 97.8, p < .01

144

5. Cause and Effect

145

5.1 Introduction This chapter will cover how the different categories correlate with each other and secondly what category has the strongest effect on general satisfaction about the whole PhD programme. The overall PhD-programme satisfaction has been measured using one question, answered on a 10-point scale: 1 (strongly dissatisfied) to 10 (strongly satisfied). The following describes what TU Delft and the Graduate School need to do to, in order to improve the results of 2014.

5.2 Correlations The first correlation was made using bivariate Pearson-correlation analysis. All Likert scale items in each category are summarized into one item (e.g. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Working Environmentâ&#x20AC;? is the mean of all subitem Likert scale scores like access to workspace, facilities, software, etcetera). In this correlation table, it is clear that some items correlate more strongly with each other than others do, the strongest being: Supervision with Project and Planning (r = .65 p < .01) and Supervision with Professional Embedding (r = .54 p < .01). This suggests that Supervision needs most attention to raise the satisfaction score on the other two categories as well. Correlations on six categories from the questionnaire (TU Delft wide) in 2014 Project& Planning

Category Project& Planning Prof. Embedding Supervision Doctoral Education Working Env. Career Planning

N N N N N N

X .45 667 .65 666 .39 665 .44 666 .48 663

Prof. Embedding* .45 667 X .54 666 .33 665 .46 666 .25 663

Supervision .65 666 .54 666 X .48 664 .54 665 .44 662

Doctoral Education .39 665 .33 665 .48 664 X .45 664 .44 661

Working Env. .44 666 .46 666 .54 665 .45 664 X .31 663

Career Planning .48 663 .25 663 .44 662 .44 661 .31 663 X

* Questions 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 were not included in the category.

All correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). All values of .4 or higher are bold.

146

This same analysis was carried out again, but this time the response group was divided into two groups: Dutch and international doctoral candidates. Correlations on six categories for Dutch doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) Project& Planning

Category Project& Planning Prof. Embedding

Prof. Embedding* .45 195

Supervision .67 195 .49 195

.45 X 195 .67 .49 X Supervision N 195 195 .45 Doctoral .32 .3 Education N 194 194 194 .42 .46 .48 Working Env. N 194 194 194 .43 Career .17 .38 Planning N 192 192 192 * Questions 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 were not included in the category. N

Doctoral Education .32 194 .3 194 .45 194 X .4 193 .34 191

Working Env. .42 194 .46 194 .48 194 .4 193 X .27 192

Career Planning .43 192 .17 192 .38 192 .34 191 .27 192 X

All correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). All values of .4 or higher are bold. Correlations on six categories for international doctoral candidates (TU Delft wide) Project& Planning

Category Project& Planning Prof. Embedding Supervision Doctoral Education Working Env. Career Planning

N N N N N N

X .45 465 .64 464 .42 464 .46 465 .48 464

Prof. Embedding* .45 465 X .57 464 .34 464 .48 465 .29 464

Supervision .64 464 .57 464 X .5 463 .58 465 .48 463

Doctoral Education .42 464 .34 464 .5 463 X .48 465 .48 463

Working Env. .46 465 .48 465 .58 465 .48 465 X .36 464

Career Planning .48 464 .29 464 .48 463 .48 463 .36 464 X

* Questions 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 were not included in the category.

All correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). All values of .4 or higher are bold. All the correlations in the three tables are positive which means that if a doctoral candidate is more positive about one category (e.g. Supervision), she or he is also more positive on another category (e.g. Project and Planning). The higher the correlation number, the stronger the relationship (it runs from 0.00 to 1.00, from no relationship to a 100% correlation). In the previous example, the same can be said the other way around: a doctoral candidate who is positive about Project and Planning will be more positive about Supervision. However, correlations do not give clues about causality. It is therefore also necessary to carry out a regression analysis.

147

5.3 Regression As this type of analysis implies a cause-effect relation between the items, it is assumed that the six categories are the causes of general satisfaction on the PhD programme. Regression analysis will reveal the relative impact of the categories on satisfaction (as the Beta-value) and the exact amount of influence (B-value). If the cause’s score (measured on a 4-point scale) would be raised by 1, the general satisfaction score would be raised by the B-value (measured on a 10-point scale). This way, it is possible to reveal exactly which categories need most attention to make doctoral candidates more satisfied about their programme. Analysis This model fits the data well (F(7, 1513) = 169.14, p < .001) and loosely translated the causal items explain about 44% of the variance in the satisfaction score: R2 = .44. This shows that 56% of the variance in the satisfaction score is explained by other factors than those measured and/or put into this analysis. Category

Beta

Project Planning

.53

.21

7.80

.001

Supervision

.51

.19

6.57

.001

Working Environment, Facilities and Teaching

.45

.15

5.97

.001

Professional Embedding

.33

.13

5.14

.001

Doctoral Education

.31

.11

4.68

.001

Career Planning

.17

.06

2.68

.01

(Constant)

.31

1.34

Project planning turns out to be the most influential factor when it comes to scoring the PhD programme: Beta = .21. The B-value predicts that if this score is raised by one point on its 4point scale, the score of the general satisfaction of the PhD programme would be raised by 0.53 point on its 10-point scale. The same is true the other way around: if that score would drop by one point, so would the score of the general satisfaction of the PhD programme by 0.53 point. Practical improvements If TU Delft wants to work on these first five most influential factors, it needs to be determined which particular factors need work. By testing the influence of the individual items on the general satisfaction about the PhD programme, an estimate on which items are most influential is obtained. This method is somewhat ‘quick and dirty’. It would be more preferable to use the satisfaction per factor instead of the whole PhD programme. However, since these questions haven’t been asked, this is an alternative to have at least an impression of what topics to work on. The items named per category are the items that have the strongest influence on the B-value of their category. Project and Planning 4.1 clear overview of project 4.2 promotor motivates me 4.3 daily supervisor motivates me 4.6 progress in line with expectations Supervision 6.11 own input is taken seriously 6.18 get help to expand professional network 6.19 what to expect from supervision 148

6.21 support/help with methodology Working Environment, Facilities and Teaching 8.2 available facilities 83 content of own work 8.4 social relationships at work 8.6 contact with research groupâ&#x20AC;¨ Professional embedding 5.7 sufficient number of experts availableâ&#x20AC;¨ 5.8 receiving good support during data collection Doctoral Education 7.3 enough room for personal development 7.6 supervisors motivates me to participate in courses not directly related to my PhD-project 7.11 the GS offers the right courses to develop my transferable competences and skills 7.12 the PSU contributed to a good start of my project Career planning 9.9 obtaining my doctorate degree will help me find a job

149