Selection of candidates

Overview and research

There are two, somewhat different issues related to the selection of students for a research degree. One issue relates to the idea that "if we can just refine and improve our selection criteria" we will have more timely completion, lower attrition rates and better quality candidature and dissertations. The other issue suggests that it is not so much the selection of students that is important, but what happens to them after they have enrolled that influences candidature and completion. The research of Lovitts (1996) in the USA suggests attrition is much more to do with the latter, i.e. the candidate experience, than the selection criteria used by a university.

However, there are a number of issues that can be addressed related to the potential candidate that might make for a more appropriate candidature. For example, what is the applicant's motivation for undertaking a research degree and what do they expect? Have they demonstrated the capacity and skills for research? For example, recent research suggests that an Australian Honours degree is not always the reliable predictor that we might have thought in the past, partly because in some disciplines and in some universities Honours programs have moved away from being the comprehensive training experience in research that they used to be. Keeping this in mind, what sort of Honours an applicant has undertaken i.e. how much research training and development was involved, is critical in deciding on their level of research training.

While one might be tempted to look for the 'ideal' student and recruit from that cohort, the research does not offer such a clear path. For example, there is some research to suggest that female candidates complete more quickly than males, however, this is not substantiated in all disciplines. There is often a view held that part-time candidates are more problematic than full-time, but in this case the research suggests that while part-time candidates are likely to drop out at a higher rate than full-time candidates, those that "stay the distance" are likely to complete in a similar or shorter length of time than their full-time peers. The US research speaks strongly of the importance of candidate funding and hence seeking applicants who are on good scholarships is often a serious consideration. However, given the Research Training Scheme in Australia, candidate funding does not figure as strongly in the research on completions as it does in the US. Therefore, seeking out the ideal student is not as easy as it sounds, hence Stan Taylor and Nigel Beasley in their Handbook for Doctoral Supervisors suggest the following:

Check that the application is complete (not as silly as it sounds, particularly looking for a well developed written proposal)
Check that the applicant has the necessary academic requirements (becoming more challenging with more non-traditional applicants)
Check that the applicant meets the necessary research criteria (again becoming increasingly important with non-traditional entry pathways into a research degree)
Contacting referees
Following an initial decision, interview the applicant (this is becoming increasingly common, particularly through the use of phone or Skype).

However, these issues address the applicant only, and we also need to consider whether the School/Centre can supervise and financially support the candidate and their research project. This issue become more fraught when an applicant wants to undertake a multi-disciplinary project involving several Schools/Centres/Colleges.

Furthermore, as part of the selection process it is critical to determine not only whether the institution can offer supervision, but also that there is a 'fit' between the potential candidate and the supervisory team. Some of the considerations include the potential supervisor's:

motivation and expectations of the candidate and their project
understanding of the research project
time and availability
experience
conception of research and of supervision.

The above text was based on the following research:

Beasley, C. (1998). 'To market, to market': Responding to the keynote address and the West Review. In M. Kiley & G. Mullins (Eds.), Quality in postgraduate research: Managing the new agenda (pp. 27-31). Adelaide: ACUE, The University of Adelaide.

Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2005). PhD research degrees: Entry and completion: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

Latona, K., & Browne, M. (2001). Factors associated with completion of research higher degrees (Higher Education Series). Canberra: DETYA, Higher Education Division.

Lovitts, B., & Nelson, C. (2000). The hidden crisis in graduate education: Attrition from Ph.D. programs. Academe, 86(6), 44-51.

Lovitts, B. E. (1996). Who is responsible for graduate student attrition-the individual or the institution? Toward an explanation of the high and persistent rate of attrition.

Tennant, M., & Roberts, S. (2007). Agreeing to supervise. In C. Denholm & T. Evans (Eds.), Supervising Doctorates Downunder (pp. 20-27). Melbourne: ACER.

Wright, T., & Cochrane, R. (2000). Factors influencing successful submission of PhD theses. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 181-195.

Ideas and tools

The following has been adapted from Taylor and Beasley (2005) p. 52 Check with your graduate convener on the following:

As a prospective supervisor, what input do you have on the selection of potential candidates?
Does the Discipline Group/School/Centre have an outline or template for the proposal that applicants submit with their application?
Does the Discipline Group/School/Centre have minimum academic requirements?
How flexible are these?
Does the Discipline Group/School/Centre have a policy on contacting referees? If so, who contacts? What do they ask?
Does the Discipline Group/School/Centre have a policy on interviewing potential candidates? If so, who is responsible for arranging? Who is involved? What sorts of questions are asked? What is expected of the applicant during the interview e.g. a presentation?
Who makes the final decision on the selection of a potential candidate?
What is the Discipline Group/School/Centre policy on resourcing? If the resources are not available, is the applicant rejected?

[Taylor, S., & Beasley, N. (2005). A handbook for doctoral supervisors. London: Routledge.]

Practitioner Tip (From Beth Beckmann on behalf of the participants in EDUC8004, 2009)

Asking potential PhD candidates the right questions is clearly a crucial aspect in the selection decision-making process. But what these 'right' questions are seems to vary across disciplines and supervisors. For some, the most important aspect to investigate is the exact fit between the PhD research topic and the supervisor's own research interests and expertise. For others, it is more important to feel there will be a match between personalities of supervisor and student. Likely completion within the timeframe, which is the measure of success at the institutional level, may be the most difficult aspect to assess through simple questioning, and may be less relevant as a screening tool for supervisors than the student's enthusiasm or track record.

Overall, it is essential to recognise that there are both objective and subjective elements to selecting potential PhD candidates. Supervisors who think carefully about both of these areas in considering a potential student are more likely to have a good supervisory experience themselves and create a positive learning opportunity for their students.

ANU information

ANU information for potential research students

Scholarship information

Application procedures for a Higher Degree by Research

For College-specific information contact:

College of Engineering & Computer Science

College of Law

College of Arts and Social Sciences

College of Asia & the Pacific

College of Business & Economics

College of Medicine and Health Sciences

Alternatively, contact the College Associate Dean (HDR) for more general college information.