2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

This full paper research study investigates the factors contributing to doctoral students’ persistence during their academic programs. Previous research has demonstrated doctoral persistence in engineering to be between 40% and 60% dependent on factors such as discipline, funding, advisor relationships, and peer relationships. While many factors contribute individually to doctoral persistence, this analysis seeks to identify the specific combinations of factors that contribute to persistence based on progress in the doctoral program. To this end, this study addresses the research questions: How do doctoral engineering students describe their advisor relationships? How do doctoral engineering students describe their degree progress? How are advisor relationships and degree progress related? Additionally, we examine how configurations of persistence factors differ across the stages of doctoral study (early, mid, and late).
The data analyzed in this study consist of interviews with 23 doctoral engineering students from 13 engineering programs across 15 universities in the United States. Seven participants identified as international students, and 16 identified as U.S. citizens. Twelve participants identified as men, seven as women, and four as a third gender. Participants were grouped by stage in their program: early-stage, mid-stage, and late-stage, to capture how persistence factors may evolve over time. Each participant took part in a semi-structured interview lasting approximately 50-60 minutes. To analyze these narratives, we employed a two-stage process. First, deductive thematic analysis was used to map attrition-related decisions against the Graduate Attrition Decisions (GrAD) model. Second, an inductive approach was employed to identify emergent themes. Using NVivo, the authors conducted open coding on all interviews and collaborated to refine codes and themes. This iterative process allowed for the identification of specific factors related to student persistence, directly answering the research questions.
Advisor relationship quality strongly shaped doctoral engineering students’ emotional experiences and their ability to assess degree progress. Participants described positive, strained, and absent advising relationships, with caring, engaged advisors supporting clearer progress assessment, while dismissive or disengaged advisors contributed to anxiety and uncertainty. Early-stage students emphasized coursework and relied heavily on advisor feedback to interpret progress. Mid-stage students focused on milestones and increasingly linked progress to both academic and professional development. Late-stage students emphasized research completion and personal growth, often distinguishing their own progress assessments from their advisors’. Across stages, uncertainty about advisor expectations and feedback hindered students’ ability to evaluate progress and was associated with increased consideration of doctoral attrition.