A study of the applicants’ viewpoints regarding the doctoral admission interviews

Authors
Nematollah Azizi 1
Mohammad Fayagh Mohammadi 2
1 Department of Education, Kurdistan University
2 Doctoral Student, Educational Management, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan
Abstract
Abstract

Academic interview as an important part of doctoral admission can help universities and higher education institutions to do more accurate assessment of the doctoral applicants and select top talented students. This research therefore, aimed to study the doctoral applicants’ viewpoints about the nature, quality and appropriateness of doctoral admission interviews. Statistical population included doctoral applicants who were invited for interviews by University of Tehran, Shahid Beheshti University, Kharazmi University and Allameh Tabataba'i University of whom 80 candidates were selected purposefully. Since a mixed approach (quantitative and qualitative) was applied, data were collected via a series of exploratory interviews and a questionnaire included 24 closed item questions that were derived from the results of interviews. In order to analyze data, in addition to descriptive analysis, exploratory factor analysis was applied to identify main factors. The findings revealed that not only the universities’ approaches to hold interviews sessions were different but also different parameters were considered by universities for assessing the applicants' academic performance and backgrounds. Furthermore, although the interviews were focusing on minor issues; the special abilities of applicants were not considered vital.

Keywords


1. Atafar, A., Ansari, M.E., & Nilipour Tabatabaei, SA. (2007, December). The role of PhD students in achieving the goals of Iran’s 1404; National strategic vision. The 1st National Conference of Industry, Student and Sustainable Development, Tehran: 4-6 December (in Persian).
2. Azizi, N. (2007). An introduction to the development of higher education in Iran: Focusing on the humanities. Tehran: Institute for Cultural and Social Studies (in Persian).
3. Azizi, N. (2013). A study of ways to improve research performance of humanities faculty members. Journal of Strategy for Culture, 6 (1), 7-33(in Persian).
4. Connor, H., & Brown, R. (2009). The value of graduates and postgraduates. London: Council for Industry and Higher Education.
5. Cullen, D., Pearson, M., Saha, L. J., & Spear, R. H. (1994). Establishing effective PhD supervision. Canberra: AGPS.
6. Farasatkhah, M. (2009). The future view of Iranian higher education quality. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 14 (4), 67-95(in Persian).
7. Hadjinicola, G. C., & Soteriou, A. C. (2006). Factors affecting research productivity of production and operations management groups: An empirical study. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Decision Sciences, 10, 1-16.
8. Hamidzadeh, M. R. (2008). A study of the status and role of postgraduate theses, knowledge production. In M. Namdar (Ed.). The proceedings of national congress of humanities: The pathology of humanities in Iran. Tehran: The Research Centre of Humanities and Cultural Studies (in Persian).
9. Hemlin, S., & Gustafsson, M. (1996). Research production in the arts and humanities a questionnaire study of factors influencing research performance. Scientometrics, 37 (3), 417-432.
10. Ismail, A., Abiddin, N. Z., & Hassan, A. (2011). Improving the development of postgraduates\' research and supervision. International Education Studies, 4 (1), 78-89.
11. Kearney, M. L. (2008). The role of postgraduate education in research systems. In P. Harvey (Ed.). Trends and issues in postgraduate, pp. 19-23, Paris: Unesco.
12. Luisa, A., & Pires, O. (2009). Higher education and adult motivation towards lifelong learning: An empirical analysis of university post-graduates perspectives. European Journal of Vocational Training, 46, 129-150.
13. Meamarzadeh, G.h., & Aghadavood, R. (2010). A sociological review of Islamic Azad University’s graduates and its outcomes in management’s PhD studies. Quarterly Professional Journal of Social Sciences, 3 (7), 21-64(in Persian).
14. Nowrozezadeh, R. (2012). National report of higher education, research and technology in 2012. Tehran: Institute for Research and Planning in Higher Education (in Persian).
15. Park, C. (2005). New variant PhD: The changing nature of the doctorate in the UK. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27 (2), 189-207.
16. Pazargadi, & Sattari, S. (2008). Examining the quality of education: A participatory approach for solving challenges of the management system of non-governmental higher education in the third millennium. Scientific Journal of Education Research, 5 (17), 1-23(in Persian).
17. Sarmad, Z., Hejazi & Bazargan (2004). Research methods in behavioral sciences. Tehran: Agha Publication (in Persian).
18. Segaren, A., Creswell, J., & Wheeler, D. W. (1993). The department chair: New roles, responsibilities & challenges. Washington D.C.: The George Washington University Press.
19. Smith, A., Bradshaw, T., Burnett, K., Docherty, D., Purcel, W., & Worthington, S. (2010). One step beyond: Making the most of postgraduate education. London: BIS.
20. Teichler, U. (2008). Introductory remarks: Summary of the latest trends in postgraduate education. In P. Harvey(Ed.). Trends and issues in postgraduate. pp. 3-4. Paris: UNESCO.
21. Toufughi Dariani, J. (2009). The necessity of quality improvement in Iran’s higher education. The Bulletin of Industry and University, 2 (5), 1-5(in Persian).
22. UNESCO (2008). Trends and issues in postgraduate education: Challenges for research. Paris: UNESCO.

  • Receive Date 06 March 2023
  • Publish Date 06 March 2023