High Educ (2015) 69:719733

DOI 10.1007/s10734-014-9802-5

International students motivation to pursue

and complete a Ph.D. in the U.S.
Ji Zhou

Published online: 24 August 2014

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract This study explores what motivates 19 international students to pursue a Ph.D.
at a public research university in the U.S. and, more importantly, what motivates them to
persist despite unsatisfying socialization. Based on value-expectancy achievement motivation theory, four motivations emerged: intrinsic interest in research, intrinsic interest in
teaching, high utility of a U.S.-earned Ph.D., and high emotional and social cost of quitting. As students educational experiences unfolded, the influence of these motivations
changed over time. Findings and implications are discussed in connection with the
achievement motivation theory and the literature on international student mobility.
Implication for future research is also provided.
Keywords

Value-expectancy
Achievement motivation
International doctoral students

Introduction
International mobility of doctoral students has increased over the past 15 years (OECD
2012). International students now constitute a significant portion in doctoral education
programs in many OECD countries, reaching an average of 21 % in 2010 (OECD 2012). In
the U.S., the number of doctorate recipients of international origins has steadily increased
over the past three decades, from 13 % in 1981, to 24 % in 2001, and to 29 % in 2011
(Survey of Earned Doctorates [SED] 2012a). There has been, however, only a paucity of
research on international doctoral students in American or other higher education systems.
Two gaps exist in the literature. First, the literature on international mobility of students
suggests several major motivations stimulated in the push and pull forces between the
home and host country. These motivations include the pursuit of academic and professional
growth, intellectual stimulation, economic benefits, enhanced social status, and greater

J. Zhou (&)
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
e-mail: jizhou@usc.edu

123

720

High Educ (2015) 69:719733

political freedom or stability (Altbach 2004; Finn 2007; Khadria 2011; Kim et al. 2011; Li
and Bray 2007). The focal point of time emphasizes the period of making mobility
decisions prior to the study or of making return/stay decisions upon degree completion.
Student experiences and motivations of persisting from entry to completion have been
much less examined. Second, the concept of socialization has been the prevailing
framework for examining doctoral student experience (Gardner 2007; Golde 2005;
Gonzalez 2006; Le and Gardner 2010; Weidman et al. 2001). Researchers are encouraged
to bring additional theoretical viewpoints (Bieber and Worley 2006; Gumport 1991;
Lovitts 2001).
I address these two gaps in this qualitative study of 19 international doctoral students at
a U.S. public research university, who perceive their socialization as inadequate and
unsatisfying. The research question is: What motivates them to persist despite unsatisfying
experiences that could threaten persistence? I delve into the intersection between socialization and motivation in relation to persistence. The focus is on the meanings that students
attach to their motivations, rather than the overt behavior of persistence. By focusing on
students with unsatisfying experiences, I do not suggest a negative tone for international
doctoral students experiences in the U.S. The persistence stories herein are unique, as with
those revealed in other qualitative studies on domestic and international doctoral students
in the U.S. (Golde 2005; Gonzalez 2006; Lovitts 2001, 2008).

Theoretical and empirical literature

The following review integrates three streams of literature: doctoral student experience and
persistence, international student mobility, and value-expectancy achievement motivation.
The literature on doctoral student experience indicates the importance of motivation for
persistence and success (Lovitts 2008; Weidman et al. 2001), although motivation is rarely
used as the theoretical framework. The literature on international student mobility suggests
that unfavorable conditions at the home country (the push factors) and inviting conditions
at the host country (the pull factors) interact to stimulate motivations to study abroad as
well as to stay/return upon degree completion (Altbach 2004; Finn 2007; Khadria 2011;
Kim et al. 2011; Li and Bray 2007). Value-expectancy achievement motivation serves as
the primary theoretical framework for this study, which also provides a useful structure to
synthesize the other two streams of literature.
Motivation refers to the process of stimulating and sustaining goal-oriented behaviors
(Weiner 1992). Achievement motivation attempts to explain an individuals choice, persistence, efforts, and performance on a particular achievement task (Eccles and Wigfield
2002; Wigfield and Eccles 2000). The strength of an individuals achievement motivation
is shaped by the value and expectancy that he or she places on a task (Eccles and Wigfield
2002; Wigfield and Eccles 2000). Value refers to the perceived significance of a task or
beliefs about why one should engage in the task. The overall value of a task depends on
four components: intrinsic value, utility or extrinsic value, attainment value, and cost
belief.
Intrinsic value stimulates the desire to engage in an activity for no obvious reward,
except for the task engagement itself (Deci and Ryan 1985). Intrinsically motivated
individuals have an inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenge, to extend and
exercise [their] capacities, and to learn (Ryan and Deci 2000, p. 70). Intrinsically motivated behaviors may be viewed as irrational based on cost-effectiveness (Eccles and
Wigfield 2002; Wigfield and Eccles 2000). Intrinsic interest in research is a major

123

High Educ (2015) 69:719733

721

motivation to pursue a Ph.D. (Lindholm 2004). Faculty advisors consider students

intrinsic interest in research as essential to help students transition from dependent to
independent scholars and achieve success (Gardner 2009a; Lovitts 2008). For international
doctoral students, intrinsic interest in research is likely an important motivation. Research
has shown that advanced research development and intellectual stimulation in the host
country and the lack thereof in the home country pull and push them to study abroad
(Dodani and LaPorte 2005; Khadria 2011; Meyer and Brown 1999).
Utility or extrinsic value refers to how well a task relates to current and future goals
(Eccles and Wigfield 2002; Wigfield and Eccles 2000). An individual may perceive a task
as having a positive value because the task facilitates their future goals, even if the
individual is not interested in the task for its own sake (Deci and Ryan 1985). Utility or
extrinsic value has rarely been discussed in studies on doctoral students. For international
doctoral students, utility or extrinsic value in terms of immigration purposes and economic
benefits upon graduation can be important motivations. Immigration research suggests that
obtaining a Ph.D. in the U.S. is a major pathway to American permanent residency or
citizenship for highly intelligent and self-driven individuals in developing countries (Portes
and Rumbaut 2006). For example, more than 80 % of international doctorate recipients
born in mainland China and India stayed in the U.S. upon graduation over the past ten
years (SED 2012c). Further, research on international student mobility suggests that the
stay/return rates among international doctorates are highly associated with the economic
conditions of their home countries at the time of degree completion (Kim et al. 2011; Finn
2007), suggesting pursuing economic benefits as an important motivation (Dodani and
LaPorte 2005; Khadria 2011; Portes and Rumbaut 2006).
Attainment value is the importance of doing well on a task that conveys the information
about an individuals ability in meeting his or her professional, personal, and social needs
(Eccles and Wigfield 2002; Wigfield and Eccles 2000). To maintain a positive sense of
self-ability, individuals must feel able and demonstrate that ability to themselves and
others. Individuals may seek out challenging activities and strive to excel (e.g., completing
a Ph.D.) because they have a basic need for attainment (Deci and Ryan 1985). The sense of
attainment shapes career pathways such as deciding to pursue a Ph.D. or an academic
career (Astin 1984; Le and Gardner 2010; Lindholm 2004). For international doctoral
students, attainment value is likely an important motivation. For example, perceived higher
elite status professionally and socially is an important consideration for pursuing advanced
degrees overseas, particularly from a more renowned higher educational system or institution (Altbach 2004; Dodani and LaPorte 2005; Khadria 2011).
Cost is the negative aspect of engaging in a task, such as stress, fear of failure, and the
lost opportunities that result from making one choice over another (Eccles and Wigfield
2002; Wigfield and Eccles 2000). There can be substantial emotional and social cost of
either leaving or staying in the Ph.D. program. On one hand, stress exists at all stages, from
transitioning to graduate schools, to passing qualifying exams, to transitioning to independent researchers, to finding employment upon graduation, all of which can threaten
persistence (Gardner 2009b; Golde 2005; Gonzalez 2006; Lovitts 2008). Quitting, on the
other hand, creates feelings of incompetence that can ruin students lives (Golde 2000).
Furthermore, while doctoral degree holders have higher earnings (60 % higher than
bachelors degree holders and 30 % higher than masters degree holders) (College Board
2010), opportunity costs are also high given the long term to degree particularly for
humanities and social science majors (Council for Graduate School [CGS] 2008). For
international students, adding to these negative aspects is high stress of maintaining legal
status as students and later on as employees if they want to stay upon graduation (Gardner

123

722

High Educ (2015) 69:719733

2009b; Golde 2005; Lovitts 2008). Further, the fear of failure can be immense for international doctoral students who leave their homeland to pursue their personal dreams and, in
some cases, their family dreams (Le and Gardner 2010; Yan and Berliner 2013).
Expectancy refers to an individuals perception about the likelihood of future success on a
task (Eccles and Wigfield 2002; Wigfield and Eccles 2000). Individuals with higher expectancy on the task are more likely to stay motivated and invest efforts to achieve (Morrone and
Pintrich 2006). Expectancy is influenced by such factors as dispositions, ability beliefs, the
perceived task difficulty, and goals (Eccles and Wigfield 2002; Wigfield and Eccles 2000).
Research suggests that inadequate socialization, particularly through interaction with faculty
advisors, can discourage doctoral students sense of self-abilities and their intent to persist
(Golde 2000, 2005; Lovitts 2008). At the same time, students with an optimistic outlook and a
strong sense of self-abilities may be able to sustain motivation despite inadequate socialization. For international doctoral students, they likely possess high expectancy for future
success, at least prior to commencing the overseas study, since they must be academically
prepared in order to pass language tests, gain admissions or scholarships, and obtain visa. For
example, research indicates that international graduate students from Korea tend to graduate
from highly selective undergraduate institutions and tend to be more academically prepared
than those pursuing advanced education in Korea (Korea Research Institute for Vocational
Education and Training as cited in Kim et al. 2011).
These value and expectancy components are dynamically interrelated and should not be
understood as separate or exclusive from one another as the above categorization may
suggest (Eccles and Wigfield 2002; Wigfield and Eccles 2000). Further, these different
components interact with the immediate learning environment, creating changing influence
on individuals over time (Deci and Ryan 1985; Eccles and Wigfield 2002). For international doctoral students, research has identified several motivations prior to the overseas
study and at the time of degree completion, as discussed previously. However, whether and
how their motivations change over time between degree entry and completion is an
important yet underexplored avenue of inquiry.

Methods
This is an interview study following the interpretive paradigm. Given that doctoral education experience and persistence decision are highly individualized, interpretive paradigm
is appropriate for this study. Interpretive paradigm views that actions and understandings
are achieved through interpretive processes (Guba and Lincoln 1994). In this study, I
viewed that individual international doctoral students were socially and subjectively
constructing their own persistence realities. My intention was to understand what their
persistence aspirations and experiences meant to them and to their ongoing actions. Further, this study was also an interpretive act shaped by my subjectivity. As an international
scholar, I felt the desire and responsibility to understand and improve international doctoral
students experiences. My international background might have provided me easier access
to international doctoral students and might also have made it easier for me to build rapport
with participants.
Participants and setting
This study is part of a larger project on the education experiences of 41 international
doctoral students at American Northeastern University (ANU, a pseudonym). ANU is a

123

High Educ (2015) 69:719733

723

Table 1 Participants demographic information

Name

Age

Sex

Nationality

Major

Year in program

Abah

29

Nigeria

Chemistry

Third

Bing

30

China

Chemistry

Fourth

Eun

30

South Korea

Comparative Literature

Fourth

Fan

29

China

Electrical Engineering

Fourth

Farid

27

Thailand

Finance

Third

Gyasi

35

Ghana

Philosophy

Fourth

Isha

28

India

Material Engineering

Fourth

Lin

29

China

Computer Science

Fifth

Lu

28

China

Mathematics

Fourth

Ming

34

China

Material Engineering

Sixth

Mosa

30

Kenya

Comparative Literature

Third

Nalan

29

Turkey

Sociology

Sixth

Pravir

28

India

Computer Science

Fourth

Rabia

32

Pakistan

Comparative Literature

Fifth

Raj

28

India

Electrical Engineering

Fourth

Saadet

31

Turkey

Anthropology

Eighth

Shin

44

South Korea

Political Science

Fourth

Wan

27

China

Computer Science

Fourth

Yan

31

China

Sociology

Fifth

mid-size public research university. During the time of data collection, ANU enrolled
about 11,000 full-time undergraduate students and 3,000 full-time graduate students.
About one-third of graduate students were international, of whom students from Asia and
Africa comprised the majority. I targeted international students who had persisted to
candidacy (i.e., all but dissertation or ABD). As ABDs, they survived the transition to U.S.
graduate school, passed qualifying exam, and defended their dissertation proposals, providing rich information of persistence experiences. After gaining IRB approval, I contacted
doctoral program directors for potential participants and sent out invitation emails to those
students who were identified. The office of international students also sent out an invitation
to all international ABDs on my behalf. Forty-one students participated in the larger
interview study. When I began interviewing these students, my initial intent was to extend
the widely used socialization theory on American doctoral students to international doctoral students whose experiences had been rarely studied. As the project unfolded, students unsatisfying socialization and information pertaining to motivation drew my
attention. I then revised the interview protocol based on motivation theory for the
remaining participants. For students who had already been interviewed, I conducted follow-up interviews and probed their experiences related to motivation. Nineteen of the 41
students perceived their socialization unsatisfying. This study focuses on the 19 students.
The 19 students came from various academic programs. Ten were male and nine were
female, aged between 27 and 44. They came from the top 40 sending countries of doctoral
students in the U.S. (SED 2012b), including seven from mainland China, three from India,
two from South Korea, two from Turkey, and one from Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, Pakistan,
and Thailand, respectively. Table 1 presents their demographic information, some of
which is slightly modified to protect anonymity. All first names are pseudonyms.

123

724

High Educ (2015) 69:719733

Data collection
I collected data through semi-structured, open-ended interviews between November 2009
and April 2010. Semi-structured, open-ended interviews provided the flexibility to probe
responses, adapt questions to students unique experiences, and detect themes which had
not seen, as yet, extensive or systematic empirical evidence (Spradley 1979). The interview
protocol was developed based on the literature on doctoral students experiences, with a
focus on motivation theory. All but one interview were digitally recorded and lasted from
30 min to more than 2 h. The one interview that was not taped at the participants request
lasted for 2 h with me taking extensive notes. All interviews were conducted in private
venues such as my office, participants office, or study carrel in the library. As I spoke
fluent Mandarin, interviews with the seven Chinese students were conducted in Mandarin
and translated into English during transcription. The rest of the interviews were conducted
in English and transcribed verbatim.
Data analyses
I used thematic analyses (Boyatzis 1998) which involved deductive and inductive coding.
Deductive coding focuses on categories and themes in light of the existing literature,
whereas inductive coding focuses on themes and variations that emerge from the data. A
dual focus on deductive and inductive coding is essential to qualitative data analysis which
emphasizes the dynamic dialogue between theory and data. Data analyses in this study
benefited from such interactive dialogue. As previously mentioned, the shifting focus from
socialization to motivation theory resulted from inductive coding as the study unfolded.
After reorienting the analytical focus to motivation, I identified categories and themes
pertaining to values and expectancies related to achievement motivation. I paid less
attention to a themes frequency than to the meaning and context that shaped participants
persistence aspirations. The results reported and discussed in the following represent
general trends, consistent and corroborated across several participants.
Limitations
Two limitations should be noted. First, although my international student background
provided advantages for conducting this study, I might have neglected certain interview
questions that a domestic education researcher would find critical. Second, the decision to
shift from socialization to motivation perspective for this subgroup of 19 students from the
larger research project was based on my interpretation of the data. This interpretive
decision certainly rendered some aspects of persistence experience more apparent and
other aspects invisible. Readers are invited to judge whether the findings accurately capture
what actually occurred and whether they are worthy of attention (Lincoln and Guba 1985).

Findings
Before presenting and discussing what motivated participants to persist despite unsatisfying socialization, it is useful to briefly summarize these unsatisfying experiences. A
major cause of dissatisfaction was the unmatched interests and expectations between
students and advisors, which is a well-established cause of dissatisfaction and even nonpersistence for doctoral students in general (Gardner 2009b; Golde 2000, 2005; Lovitts

123

High Educ (2015) 69:719733

725

2008). Some participants had different research interests from their advisors but felt
compelled to accept the research assistantship offer for financial considerations. Some
students shared similar research interests with their advisors but were dissatisfied with the
limited support from their advisors. Other students felt overwhelmed by the high research
expectation and realized that a future career in academia was not the right choice for them.
Another cause of dissatisfaction was the challenge of writing proficient academic English,
which is common among international doctoral students (Le and Gardner 2010; Sato and
Hodge 2009).
Despite these challenges, participants found strength to persist from four motivations:
(a) intrinsic interest in research, (b) intrinsic interest in teaching, (c) high utility value of a
U.S.-trained Ph.D., and (d) high emotional and social cost of quitting. As students education experiences unfolded, the relative influence of these four motivations changed over
time.
Intrinsic interest in research
An important motivation was students intrinsic interest in research. Saadet was from
Turkey and was in her eighth year studying anthropology. Saadet had to switch advisors
due to unmatched research interests and working styles with her first advisor. Although she
had a better relationship with her new advisor, she was struggling to make up for the
wasted years. The strenuous path, however, had not dispirited her interest in research:
Ive always loved reading and pondering those intellectual puzzles. I love doing field
work, being able to triangulate, [to] see through the murky evidence, [and to]
understand the meanings at a deeper level. I mean, youve got to love this [to do a
Ph.D.]. Youve got to be smart, intelligent, perceptive, tough, [and] critical, which I
am.
Saadets quote conveyed strong curiosity about learning, thirst for knowledge, and
pleasure associated with tackling intellectual challenges. Intrinsic interest in research is a
well-established essential factor for scholarly development and success at all stages
(Gardner 2009a; Lindholm 2004; Lovitts 2008). Motivation theory suggests that intrinsic
motivation is maintained only when individuals feel competent and is reduced by negative
competence feedbacks (Deci and Ryan 1985). Saadet felt frustrated with the lack of
progress in her research due to the switch of advisors. However, she seemed receptive to
the difficulties and viewed the hardships as necessary tests of qualifications. Hardships
make people tough...thats how we grow, said Saadet.
Another student Lin was from mainland China and was in her fifth year studying
computer science. Lin described that her advisor was seldom available to provide feedbacks on research ideas or to offer career advice in academia. Lin was unsatisfied with her
research progress, which she described as slow and unproductive. Lin, however, saw
value in these hardships:
I love my major and my research, but its hard and frustrating. Ive hit a lot of dead
endsBut I tell myself its supposed to be difficult. Otherwise, everybody can get a
Ph.D. in computer science. Whats the value of that? Not much at all.
In the face of hardships, students like Saadet and Lin demonstrated will and perseverance,
the kind of personality essential to moving through the steps in doctoral education and
subsequent academic careers (Gardner 2009a; Lovitts 2008). They also demonstrated a strong
sense of self-abilities and unyielding dedication to research, which likely counteracted the

123

726

High Educ (2015) 69:719733

threats to sustaining motivation from the lack of progress. At the same time, they seemed to
be motivated by a strong desire for competence and success and made continuing efforts to
fulfill such desire in the face of hardships. Individuals seek out challenging activities and find
these activities intrinsically motivating, because they have a basic need for competence (Deci
and Ryan 1985).
Intrinsic interest in teaching
Intrinsic interest in teaching was another major motivation. For some, interest in teaching
was shaped by past working experiences as teachers. For others, growing up in a family of
teachers, pursuing a Ph.D. and teaching in college felt so natural that they never thought
about doing anything else. Existing research also indicates the influence of past training
experiences and family background on individuals decisions to pursue careers in academia
(Le and Gardner 2010; Lindholm 2004). Participants motivated by intrinsic interest in
teaching felt enjoyment and satisfaction when interacting with students which, in turn,
sustained their interest in teaching and helped them persist. Pravir who was from India and
was in his fourth year studying computer science shared:
I like spending time with my students and help[ing] them. There are some very smart
and hard working kids in my class. I can tell from the kinds of questions they ask. Its
like they are really getting it. I can see the sparks, the burning fire in their eyes. Its
like Im awakening their hidden curiosity. Its like a painkiller. Its like [getting my
Ph.D.] means something bigger, like it has a purpose, [and is] worthwhile.
Another student Abah who was from Nigeria and was in his third year studying
chemistry shared the moment when he felt the most accomplished in his doctoral
education:
I just taught my first class last week. I mean my first big class with more than 100
students. Before that I only taught labs. The class went well. It was an intro class.
Students dont know much but are super interested. I was nervous before the class
and the first few minutes. But after that, the class went like that [he snapped his
fingers]. They knew it was my first time. They clapped at the end and were telling me
I did great. I think I did well. My students did well too. I got two thank you notes.
Research has found that intrinsic interest in teaching is a key element that fuels individuals desire to pursue an academic career (Lindholm 2004). What was unique about
students like Pravir and Abah was that their passion for teaching served as painkillers
for their unsatisfying socialization and helped them find reason to persist. The degree of
reward and pleasure that they derived from teaching was substantial enough to help them
persist. Further, the recognition gained from teaching helped them achieve the sense of
self-worth and self-attainment which, in turn, reinforced their passion for teaching (Covington 1992).
Although the passion for teaching helped Pravir and Abah persist, they struggled to
balance teaching and research and had to adopt a long-term perspectivethe prospect of
becoming university faculty and continuing working with students. Hard disciplines such
as those Pravir and Abah enrolled in are known for their emphasis on research over
teaching. Pravir and Abah were discouraged by their advisors from following their passion
for teaching and were advised to invest more in research. They had to carefully negotiate
teaching opportunities in order to persist and, eventually, to realize their career dream.
Pravir shared:

123

High Educ (2015) 69:719733

727

[My advisor] wants me to do research. He has high hopes on meI dont want to
disappoint him and definitely cant piss him offI cant use my research time with him
on TA stuffIm doing both. Its exhaustingIts been four years. Im not gonna give
it up. I need it to teach at this [college] level. At the end of the day, its my degree.
Pravirs struggle bespeaks a common challenge of balancing teaching and research
faced by many academics and likely doctoral students who aspire to become faculty
(Austin 2002). Expectations to conduct research and publish have intensified at
research universities across the globe, where research productivity is closely associated
with institutional ranking and prestige (Marginson and van der Wende 2007). Other
research has also found doctoral students are discouraged to engage in teaching and
instead focus their efforts on producing tangible research output (Austin 2002).

High utility of a U.S.-trained Ph.D

Another motivation was the utility value of a U.S.-trained Ph.D.as a pathway to American
permanent residency or to rising opportunities in the home country. This motivation was
dominant among students who expressed, at best, tepid interest in research and a career in
academia. Interestingly, these students had some initial interest in research; they thought that
they could do research or research shouldnt be that hard when they decided to pursue a
Ph.D. They also initially perceived that being a professor at an American university was
stable, full of autonomy, of high social status, with decent pay. Apparently, these
students lacked an accurate understanding of the nature of graduate school and the nature of
faculty life in the U.S. They later found the expectations for research overwhelming and the
tenure process unacceptable and insane. At the same time, they were allured by the
readily available high-paying jobs in the industry. Yet, they decided to stay and strived to
complete the degree for the perceived high utility value of a U.S.-trained Ph.D.
For some students, the utility value was associated with gaining permanent residency.
Wan, who was from mainland China and was in his fourth year studying computer science,
was determined to complete his Ph.D. in order to get the green card as soon as possible:
I thought about just getting the masters degree. Some of my friends here and in other
universities are doing thisWhenever we talk and they tell me their life now or
show that on Facebook, like house or apartment hunting and starting a family, I feel
like, what am I doing here! I try to calm myself downIf I leave with a masters
degree and work on H1B visa, it would take me at least five or six years or even
longer to get the green card. With my Ph.D., I can get it in less than one year if I can
beef up my publications.
Another example was Shin who came from South Korea and was in his fourth year
studying political science:
Yes, I have [thought about quitting], to be honest. I know I wont. My family needs
me, my wife, kids. She likes [the] United States. She doesnt want to go back. We
want the kids to grow up here, [so] they can get into Ivy Leagues schools. I mean,
they will have a better chance. We want them to have a better life.
Research has shown that over the years attaining a graduate or professional degree in
the U.S. has been a major conduit to American workforce and society for highly skilled
internationals (Portes and Rumbaut 2006). The immigration purpose is not only for

123

728

High Educ (2015) 69:719733

individuals as shown in the case for Wan, but also for their families as shown in the case
for Shin.
For other students, the utility value of a U.S.-trained Ph.D. was associated with seizing
business opportunities in the home country. Bing, who was from mainland China and was
in his fourth year studying chemistry, shared: There are many favorable policies and
business opportunities for overseas Ph.D.s, especially like us from here, the U.S. I have lots
of good connections. My family has connections too. I will start my own company.
Another student Raj who was from India and was in his fourth year studying electrical
engineering echoed: There are many good business opportunities. If I decide to go back, a
Ph.D. will get me more opportunities. Much of the research on international student
mobility has indicated that the perceived better employment opportunity both in the host
and home country is a major motivation for pursuing an international education degree
(Altbach 2004; Khadria 2011).
Apparently, the choice to persist and complete the Ph.D. was conscious and rational.
Students believed that the long-term rewards would outweigh the short-term personal and
financial sacrifice. What was striking was that the high utility value did not become
dominant until students perceived their experiences unsatisfying and the desire to quit the
Ph.D. loomed large. Individuals by nature need to set goals and need to sustain their
actions to achieve these goals (Weiner 1992). Students initial motivations to pursue a
Ph.D. could be multi-faceted and could include intrinsic interest in research or teaching as
well as immigration purposes. As their doctoral education unfolded and intrinsic interests
and expectations were unmet, the utility value became dominant.
High emotional and social cost of quitting
While the foregoing motivations affected different groups of students, the high emotional
and social cost associated with quitting affected all students to a greater or lesser extent.
For some, the fear of being a failure without completing the degree stemmed from their
perceived responsibility to serve their family. This was the case for Shin who, as shown in
a previous quote, decided to pursue a Ph.D. and stay in the U.S. so that his children would
have a greater future. Shin also shared that he could not let his wife down: she has faith
in me. She quit her job to come [to the United States] with me. Another example was Lu
who came from mainland China and was in her fourth year studying mathematics. Lu felt
guilty of disappointing her parents with a masters degree:
Im afraid if I just get a masters degree and start to work, you know, at a firm, my
parents would feel embarrassed. They always tell me so and so colleagues daughter
got full scholarship from Cornell or Northwestern, or so and so friends daughter is
now getting her medical degree at UCSF or whatever school. They even suggest I get
a post-doc from like Princeton or MIT. I dont think they would accept me only
getting a masters degree. Im their only daughter. I dont want to disappoint them.
For other students, the high emotional and social cost was associated with the pressure
to prove their competence to themselves and to others, as well as to make their decision of
giving up opportunities in order to pursue the Ph.D. worthwhile. This was the case for
Bing:
It took me lots of courage to quit my old job in Shanghai. Its a good job. My parents
and my girlfriend didnt want me to come here. Ive given up so muchI dont know

123

High Educ (2015) 69:719733

729

[if I have ever regretted my decision]. Maybe sometimes when I dont see any
progress[But] there is no turning back. Im here already. I have to make this work.
Im not a quitter.
Another example was Rabia who was a female student from Pakistan and was in her
fifth year studying comparative literature. Prior to the Ph.D. program, Rabia had been a
lecturer at a public university in Pakistan where she got the chance to come to the U.S. as
an exchange scholar. Rabia then applied to Ph.D. programs in the U.S. and was accepted to
ANU. To her, quitting is not an option because otherwise she would have given up her
decent job for nothing.
International doctoral students are among the best in their respective fields in order to
pass difficult entrance exams and stringent Ph.D. screening process. With a high sense of
self-pride and self-worth, these students decide to leave their families and job opportunities
back home to pursue their career dreams and, in some cases, their family dreams in the
U.S. (Le and Gardner 2010; Yan and Berliner 2013). The shame of returning home without
the degree created immense pressures. The literature indicates that shame of failure is
common to all doctoral students (Golde 2005; Lovitts 2008). Such fear can be particularly
palpable among Asian students who usually carry with them a heavy burden of bringing
glory and pride to their families (Le and Gardner 2010; Yan and Berliner 2013). Although
the fear of failure gave students strength to fight against the odds of quitting, persistence
under such condition seemed devastating.

Discussion and implication

Independent of gender, age, nationality, year in the program, or disciplinary field, the
recollections of students struggles to complete their Ph.D. highlight the importance of
motivation in their continued efforts. Before discussing the findings, one caution should be
underscored. The 19 participants had three common background characteristics: studied in
doctoral programs at a public research university, received funding from their programs or
their home country, and came from developing countries in Asia and Africa. Consequently,
the particular sources that motivated them to pursue and persist may not correspond
directly with the sources that motivate other types of international doctoral students.
The findings highlight the interaction between individuals educational experiences and
the environment, and the importance of such interaction in shaping motivation over time.
The important environmental factors that emerged in this study included family background and expectations, interactions with the advisor, immigration context in the U.S.,
and the economic and employment conditions for overseas returning Ph.D.s back home.
Echoing other studies on international student mobility (Altbach 2004; Khadria 2011; Kim
et al. 2011; Li and Bray 2007), these factors suggest that international students motivations are closely associated with the broader policy environments at both the host and home
country. Echoing other studies on achievement motivation (Griffin 2006; Urdan 1999;
Wentzel and Wigfield 1998), the findings suggest that a better understanding be achieved
when both academic and sociocultural motivations are taken into account, wherein
researchers attend to how students integrate their academic and sociocultural motivations
for regulating and sustaining their academic activities.
The findings indicate the dynamics between intrinsic and utility or extrinsic values as
well as their influence on sustaining persistence actions. Intrinsic interest in research,

123

730

High Educ (2015) 69:719733

intrinsic interest in teaching, and high utility value of a U.S.-trained Ph.D. motivated
different groups of participants, whereas the high emotional and social cost of quitting
were influential among all participants. For some, intrinsic interest in research or teaching
sustained their continuous dedication to completing the degree. For others, the high utility
or extrinsic value was the major source of motivation. Therefore, the positive influence of
intrinsic value and the limited positive influence of extrinsic value were not as clear cut in
this study as suggested in the literature (Eccles and Wigfield 2002; Deci and Ryan 1985).
Intuitively, given the enormous financial and time investment required to obtain a Ph.D., it
appears that persistence would require more than utility or extrinsically oriented motivation. The findings, however, suggest that high utility value of a U.S.-trained Ph.D. was
sufficient to motivate some participants, particularly when coupled with high emotional
and social cost of quitting.
Intrinsic interest in research or teaching contributes to the international doctoral student
literature in two ways. First, research shows that intrinsic interest in research and teaching
are two major factors for individuals to pursue a Ph.D. and an academic career (Lindholm
2004). Somewhat surprisingly, no participant indicated their interest in both research and
teaching, although none indicated their interest for one to the aversion of the other. Second,
interest in teaching and the positive teaching experiences for some participants confound
the literature on international doctoral students who work as teaching assistants. The
literature suggests that international doctoral students experience stress and anxiety when
teaching American students; thus teaching assistantships seem to increase dissatisfaction
and burden students timely degree completion (Kim and Otts 2010; Kim 2009; Zhou
2014). This study suggests that teaching can be fulfilling and motivating for some students,
although it should be noted that these participants spoke fluent English and some had prior
teaching experiences.
The high utility value of a U.S.-trained Ph.D. adds nuance to the literature on international mobility of doctorate recipients. The stay/return rate for international doctorate
recipients and, accordingly, the relative balance between brain gain and brain drain have
been a focal concern to the host and home country alike (Khadria 2011; Kim et al. 2011;
Meyer and Brown 1999). The stay rate in the U.S. has been high for students from Africa
and Asia, the two source continents for participants in this study (SED 2012c). Many
developing countries such as China and India have actively sought to attract their overseas
talents to return in order to reverse the historical trend of brain drain (Brown et al. 2012).
The findings in this study provide concrete evidence of persistence motivations fuelled by
stay or return considerations. On one hand, most of the participants indicated their plan to
stay upon degree completion. On the other hand, the utility value in terms of better
employment opportunities back home emerged among a few Chinese and Indian students.
No participant in either the stay or return group indicated the high utility value as a strong
initial motivation for pursuing a Ph.D. in the U.S. Utility value, however, emerged to be the
dominant motivation for persistence later on, when possibilities for quitting loomed large
among students without much interest in research or teaching.

Conclusion and further research

International doctoral students bring economic, academic, and ethnic/cultural diversity
benefits to the host country (Slaughter and Rhoades 2004). While about 67 percent of these
students manage to persist and graduate (CGS 2008), persistence does not imply professional or personal satisfaction, as shown in this study. Institutions and doctoral programs

123

High Educ (2015) 69:719733

731

shoulder the responsibility of attending to and supporting students persistence aspirations

and developmental needs. More empirical research on international doctoral students
experiences is warranted to provide institutions and programs with informed
understanding.
Two directions are worth exploring for further research. First, longitudinal studies are
needed. Students in this study were able to find strengths from various motivations to
persist. However, it is unknown whether such continued effort can be sustained, under
what conditions it can be sustained, and in the long term whether the perceived delayed
gratitude and benefit can outweigh their current struggles. Second, findings from this and
future studies can be used to refine the current conceptual model of doctoral student
development based on socialization theory for international doctoral students. Studies can
attend to the juxtaposition and interplay between motivation and socialization in shaping
student development. In this study, motivation provided insightful explanations for persistence among international doctoral students who had unsatisfying socialization. Motivation, however, may carry different weights for other types of students, such as students
who have satisfying socialization or students who decide to leave their programs.

References
Altbach, P. G. (2004). Higher education crosses borders: Can the United States remain the top destination
for foreign students? Change, 36, 1825.
Astin, H. S. (1984). The meaning of work in womens lives: A sociopsychological model of career choice
and work behavior. Counseling Psychologist, 12, 117126.
Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the
academic career. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 94122.
Bieber, J. P., & Worley, L. K. (2006). Conceptualizing the academic life: Graduate students perspectives.
Journal of Higher Education, 77, 10091035.
Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brown, P., Lauder, H., & Ashton, D. (2012). The global auction: The broken promises of education, jobs,
and incomes. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
College Board. (2010). Education pays 2010: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society.
Retrieved from http://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/education-pays-2010-full-report.pdf.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2008). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline program data
from the Ph.D. completion project. Washington, DC: Author.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New
York, NY: Plenum.
Dodani, S., & Laporte, R. E. (2005). Brain drain from developing countries: How can brain drain be
converted into wisdom gain? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 98, 487491.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology,
53, 109132.
Finn, M. (2007). Stay rates of foreign doctorate recipients from US universities, 2005. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak
Ridge Institute for Science and Education.
Gardner, S. K. (2007). I heard it through the grapevine: Doctoral student socialization in chemistry and
history. Higher Education, 54, 723740.
Gardner, S. K. (2009a). Conceptualizing success in doctoral education: Perspectives of faculty in seven
disciplines. Review of Higher Education, 32, 383406.
Gardner, S. K. (2009b). The development of doctoral students: Phases of challenge and support. ASHE
Higher Education Report. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Golde, C. M. (2000). Should I stay or should I go? Student descriptions of the doctoral attrition process.
Review of Higher Education, 23, 199227.

123

732

High Educ (2015) 69:719733

Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition: Lessons from
four departments. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 670700.
Gonzalez, J. C. (2006). Academic socialization experiences of Latina doctoral students: A qualitative
understanding of support systems that aid and challenges that hinder the process. Journal of Hispanic
Higher Education, 5, 347365.
Griffin, K. (2006). Striving for success: A qualitative exploration of competing theories of high-achieving
black college students academic motivation. Journal of Higher Education, 47, 384400.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y.
S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gumport, P. J. (1991). The federal role in graduate education. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education:
Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 7, pp. 102134). New York, NY: Agathon Press.
Khadria, B. (2011). India amidst a global competition for its talent: A critical perspective on policy for
higher and university education. In S. Marginson et al. (eds.), Higher education in the Asia-Pacific.
doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1500-4_21.
Kim, E. (2009). Beyond language barriers: Teaching self-efficacy among East Asian international teaching
assistants. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21, 171180.
Kim, D., Bankart, C. A. S., & Isdell, L. (2011). International doctorates: Trends analysis on their decision to
stay in US. Higher Education, 62, 141161.
Kim, D., & Otts, C. (2010). The effect of loans on time to doctorate degree: Differences by race/ethnicity,
field of study, and institutional characteristics. Journal of Higher Education, 21, 132.
Le, T., & Gardner, S. K. (2010). Understanding the doctoral experience of Asian international students in
STEM fields: An exploration of one institutional context. Journal of College Student Development, 51,
252264.
Li, M., & Bray, M. (2007). Cross-border flows of students for higher education: Pushpull factors and
motivations of mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong and Macau. Higher Education, 53, 791818.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lindholm, J. A. (2004). Pathways to the professoriate: The role of self, others, and environment in shaping
academic career aspirations. Journal of Higher Education, 75, 603635.
Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral
study. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Lovitts, B. E. (2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesnt, and why. Journal
of Higher Education, 79, 296325.
Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rankings in
higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 306329.
Meyer, J. B., & Brown, M. (1999). Scientific diasporas: A new approach to the brain drain. Paris, France:
UNESCO.
Morrone, A. S., & Pintrich, P. R. (2006). Achievement motivation. In G. G. Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.),
Childrens needs: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 431442). Bethesda, MD: National
Association of School Psychologists.
OECD. (2012). Education at a glance 2012: OECD indicators. doi:10.1787/eag-2012-en.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2006). Immigrant America: A portrait (3rd ed.). Berkley, CA: University of
California Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 6878.
Sato, T., & Hodge, S. R. (2009). Asian international doctoral students experiences at two American
universities: Assimilation, accommodation, and resistance. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education,
2, 136148.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Survey of Earned Doctorates. (2012a). Doctorate recipients, by citizenship and broad field of study: Selected
years, 19812011. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/sed/2011/pdf/tab18.pdf.
Survey of Earned Doctorates. (2012b). Top 40 countries/economies of origin of temporary visa holders
earning doctorates at U.S. colleges and universities: 2011. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/
statistics/sed/2011/pdf/tab25.pdf.
Survey of Earned Doctorates. (2012c). Doctorate recipients with temporary visas intending to stay in the
United States after doctorate receipt, by country of citizenship: 200511. Retrieved from http://www.
nsf.gov/statistics/sed/2011/pdf/tab53.pdf.
Urdan, T. (1999). The role of context: Advances in motivation and achievement. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

123

High Educ (2015) 69:719733

733

Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional students in
higher education: A perilous passage?. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wentzel, K. R., & Wigfield, A. (1998). Academic and social motivational influences on students academic
performance. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 155175.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of motivation. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25, 6881.
Yan, K., & Berliner, D. C. (2013). Chinese international students personal and sociocultural stressors in the
United States. Journal of College Student Development, 54, 6284.
Zhou, J. (2014). Managing anxiety: A case study of an international teaching assistants interaction with
American students. Journal of International Students, 4, 177190.

123

Copyright of Higher Education is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.