Introduction

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degrees are considered to be a high priority in many continents, including Africa because they contribute to research output, innovation, economic and scientific growth (Alabi & Mohammed, 2018; Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022; Molla & Cuthbert, 2016; ASSF, 2010). Furthermore, doctoral education is viewed as a driver for the strengthening of economic knowledge, and the development of capital driven by academia has been described as pivotal for the continent of Africa (ASSF, 2010; Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017; Lindtjørn et al., 2019; Molla & Cuthbert, 2016; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022). Academic capital is the knowledge gained at a higher level of education with ideas and creativity that informs societal, economic, and scientific growth (Asongu & Nwachukwu, 2018; Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017; Gurib-Fakim & Signe, 2022). However, study delays, longer completion times, high attrition rates, low research training capacity and productivity pose challenges that impair the contribution of academic knowledge (Molla & Cuthbert, 2016; Alabi & Mohammed, 2018; Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018).

In Africa, there has been an increase in the recognition of the need for investment in research and innovation, driven by African-led researchers to provide relevant solutions that address challenges within Africa (HIRSA, 2019). Reports by the British Council in partnership with the German Academic Exchange Service study included reports from six African countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, and South Africa (Alabi & Mohammed, 2018; Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018; Barasa & Omulando, 2018; Nega & Kassaye, 2018; Herman & Sehoole, 2018; Dimé, 2018). The report commissioned a study that surveyed research and doctoral training capacity in sub-Saharan Africa. Several challenges were common across these countries. One of these was the limited source of funding to sustain quality PhD training, which was reflected in the experiences of the PhD candidates. Reports have indicated that candidates are generally satisfied with their programmes, but improvements are required in terms of funding, research infrastructure, and supervision (Alabi & Mohammed, 2018; Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018; Nega & Kassaye, 2018; Herman & Sehoole, 2018; Dimé, 2018, Barasa & Omulando, 2018). Supervision was reported to lack quality, especially due to supervisor shortages, and at times, candidates worked with supervisors who were not necessarily interested in their area of focus (Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018; Molla & Cuthbert, 2016; Nega & Kassaye, 2018). As such, this has an impact on the quality of education, research output, and the challenges experienced in PhD training within universities.

A PhD is challenging regardless of the setting. Within the context of Africa, it appears that most PhD candidates are a cohort who work within the industry even though collaboration between academia and industry in Africa is lacking, especially in PhD training, which tends to follow a traditional, discipline-focused approach (Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018; Nyemba et al., 2021; Osiru et al., 2022; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014). However, candidates may have to maintain full-time employment due to a lack of funding to support their PhD. Collaborations with international institutions are an important factor that has driven positive research output in some African countries (Herman & Sehoole, 2018), for example, South Africa has reported an increase in its research output due to strong international collaboration as well as national policies with strategic plans and visons (Gurib-Fakim & Signe, 2022; Herman & Sehoole, 2018). The number of PhD programmes available in some universities appears to have increased over the past decade, but several of these universities have noted low completion and high attrition rates (Barasa & Omulando, 2018; Dimé, 2018; Herman & Sehoole, 2018; Nega & Kassaye, 2018), for example, in Ethiopia, the completion rate has not consistently grown even though the number of programmes available has increased (Nega & Kassaye, 2018). Like Ethiopia, Kenya has a 5 to 50% attrition rate in its various institutions (Barasa & Omulando, 2018). At six Ghanaian universities, a total of 42,246 candidates were enrolled from 2012–2013, and only 65 of those candidates graduated (Alabi & Mohammed, 2018). These statistics show that intentional efforts are needed to address the challenges that doctoral candidates encounter.

Research output on a global level, from Africa currently occurs at a low rate of approximately 2%, indicating that Africa’s research capacity is lacking compared to that of other Western countries (Asongu & Nwachukwu, 2018; Gurib-Fakim & Signe, 2022). In addition, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) strategy for research in Africa has shown that improving global health and economic development is based on high-quality research and the best scientific evidence (WHO, 2012). While efficiency in research capacity and output in Africa has been identified as a priority, there are still gaps in education, health care, food insecurity, and skills. Thus, knowledge-driven by research outputs has been indicated to stimulate growth in various organisations and sectors (Whitworth et al., 2008; WHO, 2012). For growth to occur, the training of PhD candidates has been identified as a strategy to alleviate some of the poor outcomes in Africa’s health and economic development (Gurib-Fakim & Signe, 2022; Lindtjørn et al., 2019).

Efforts to boost Africa’s research abilities are being made by various organisations and government bodies. Studies have examined ways to strengthen Africa’s research capacity and its integration into policies (Bates et al., 2014; Dean et al., 2015; Mugabo et al., 2015). One of these studies suggests setting goals early, collaborative planning with diverse teams, assessing current capacity, making action plans, and evaluating progress until capacity is strengthened (Bates et al., 2014). Research collaboration with international organisations as an initiative to improve research capacity has been shown to benefit both sides (Dean et al., 2015). The Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA) model is a key player in boosting research capacity. It focuses on restructuring and strengthening African Universities to produce skilled local scholars (Ezeh et al., 2010, Balogun et al., 2021). Evaluations of the CARTA model show its significant impact on doctoral training, networking, equitable resource provision, research quality, and supervisory satisfaction (Christoplos et al., 2015; Balogun et al., 2021; Adedokun et al., 2014). Moreover, investments in informatics, bioinformatics, and data science training in Mali are enhancing research capacity in sub-Saharan Africa, fostering scientific innovation and knowledge dissemination (Shaffer et al., 2019).

The training of PhD candidates was largely identified as one of the major focus areas to strengthen research capacity (Balogun et al., 2021; Bates et al., 2014. Mugabo et al., 2015; Fonn et al., 2016; Adedokun et al., 2014). In the training of PhD candidates, personalised development plans, quality assurance in PhD training, institutional polices, research facilities, and student well-being were often identified as gaps for needing improvement. Some of the common suggestions identified to address these gaps include improving internet access, providing dedicated office spaces for PhD candidates, training supervisors, and increasing the number of supervisors. Similarly, CARTA’s model of training PhD candidates emphasises collaboration to strengthen African universities’ research capacity and infrastructure.

Research examining the perspectives of doctoral students reveals that despite finding aspects of their programmes challenging, they also perceive them as valuable opportunities for personal growth and development (Nyarigoti, 2021; Sibomana, 2021). These challenges often serve as catalysts for growth and advancement. Successful doctoral students attribute their achievements to their confidence in tackling difficult tasks with determination. However, female doctoral students express encountering obstacles related to gender biases in both social and professional domains, hindering the fulfilment of their PhD aspirations. Additionally, African students relocating to other African countries for their PhDs report a unique experience of feeling like outsiders despite being in an African country (Herman & Meki Kombe, 2019). There is a need to understand more about the challenges faced by PhD and doctoral candidates in the African context. It is important to determine whether improvements have been made to further inform the research capacity and training of PhD candidates in Africa. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to map out the available literature on the challenges faced by PhD candidates in Africa to identify gaps and inform future research, policy, and practice.

Methods

Design

A scoping review was undertaken to map out the current available literature on the experiences of PhD candidates in Africa. A scoping review protocol that guided the process is available as an open-access publication (Omoya et al., 2023). The proposed scoping review was conducted in accordance with Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) six-step framework in conjunction with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020). The six-step framework includes the following steps: (1) developing the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting the study; (4) charting the data; (5) collating, summarising, and reporting results; and (6) consultations (not required in this review). The JBI approach to conducting and reporting scoping reviews and the meta-analyses extension checklist (Fig. S1) for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) are attached for consistency in reporting (Tricco et al., 2018).

Research question

The scoping review question was developed using the JBI population, concept, and context (PCC) mnemonic as well as the Arksey and O’Malley (2005) framework for identifying a research question. The research question was developed from the need to produce knowledge that informs the challenges facing doctoral training in African Universities. From this research question, the title of the review was structured to reflect the PCC mnemonics. For example, in the PCC mnemonic, P stands for the population, and in this review, these are the “PhD candidates”. C is a concept, that is the “challenges facing doctoral training”, and the C-context is “Africa”. The scoping review question was titled “Exploring perspectives: A scoping review of the challenges facing doctoral training in Africa.”.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

In the second step, the identification of the relevant studies was assessed against the eligibility criteria as well as the objectives and aims of the scoping review detailed in the previously published protocol (Omoya et al., 2023). The inclusion criteria were research studies examining participants who had undertaken their PhD in Africa, studies that focused on the barriers and facilitators that have impacted doctoral training in Africa, and research studies written in English Language with a 20-year limit range. Studies that focused on the experiences of PhD candidates and supervisors were included, and studies that compared the experiences of people who undertook their PhD in Africa and outside of Africa were included if they contained information relating to the experiences of doing a PhD in Africa. Studies were excluded if they were based on the perspectives of postgraduate students who were not doing a PhD, if they focused only on PhD candidates outside of Africa, if they were research studies not written in the English Language, or if they were reviews or expert reports. Studies that focused on the evaluation of training programmes provided to PhD candidates during their candidature were excluded.

Search strategy

Within the second step of the framework, an in-depth process of the search process was performed, and the search terms were identified. The first search was initiated on August 08, 2023, across multiple databases: EBSCO Host, Scopus, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline (Ovid), and Google Scholar. These databases were selected for a comprehensive overview across various disciplines. The initial search of the literature was performed with no inclusion or exclusion criteria applied.

Search terms

The search methods used the following keywords and phrases in combination: (“Experiences of doing a PhD”, OR “Attitudes”, OR “Lived Experience” OR “Perception”) AND (“PhD Candidate in West Africa” OR “Doctoral Candidate in Africa” OR “PhD Students in Sahara” OR “Doctoral Students in Nigeria”) AND (“West Africa” OR “South Africa” OR “Sahara” OR “Dark Continent” OR “East Africa” OR “North Africa”). As recommended by the JBI review methods, a three-step search strategy was employed. The first step utilised the use of EBSCO Host, Scopus, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline (Ovid), and Google Scholar. From this search, a list of keywords and phrases was generated by analysing the title and abstract of the identified studies. The second step of the database search was undertaken using the newly generated keywords across all the databases. Truncations were used in the second search to capture variations in terminologies and plural wordings in articles from different settings. Finally, a manual search of the reference lists and bibliographies of the articles was performed to identify other relevant studies. The full search strategy for one database, MEDLINE (OVID), is attached (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Data base search. Data base search diagram showing the full search strategy of one database: MEDLINE (OVID)

Full size image

Article selection

In accordance with the third step of the framework, relevant articles were selected and imported into Covidence. Duplicates were removed, and an initial title screen was performed (OO1). The results obtained were then screened by examining their titles and abstracts (OO1, USJ, OO3). The full texts of the studies were retrieved and further reviewed against the inclusion criteria (OO1, OO2, USJ). At this stage, three members of the research team (OO1, OO2, USJ) independently screened the articles, and any disagreements were resolved by unanimous decision (OO1, USJ, OO2) and independently by another member of the research team (OO3). The quality of the review was ensured by using Covidence to search for and remove duplicate articles. Evaluation of each article was based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. One reviewer extracted all the data (OO1). A flowchart of the review using PRISMA showed the detailed process of the initial search to data extraction (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

PRISMA flowchart. The PRISMA flow chart is the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses that shows the detailed process of the initial search to data extraction

Full size image

Data extraction

An adapted quality assessment tool by Hawker et al. (2002) was used to screen the 12 included studies (Table I). All the included articles were rated as high-quality ranging between a score of 33–36. The data were extracted (OO1) and reviewed by the research team (USJ, OO2, OO3) for consistency and to ensure that the extracted data matched the aim of the scoping review. The data were incorporated into a template data extraction instrument using the JBI methodology guidance for scoping reviews (Tables 1 and 2). The draft data extracted in the scoping protocol were used, and no modifications were made throughout the process (Omoya et al., 2023)Footnote 1. The descriptions of the data extracted into Table I included the author, date and location, title of the article, aims/purpose, sample size and setting, journal type, methodology, and key findings. This step allowed for a visual representation of the major findings of each article and how they address the aims of the scoping review.

Table 1 Data extraction instrument
Full size table
Table 2 Findings, gaps, and recommendations table showing a map of available evidence
Full size table

Results

A total of 51 articles were retrieved and imported into Covidence. After duplicates were removed and a brief tile screen was performed, 20 studies were subjected to the title and abstract screening stage. A total of 16 studies underwent full-text review, and 12 studies were included, as shown in the PRISMA flow chart (Fig. 2). Of the 12 studies included 33% (N = 4) used mixed methods, 58% (N = 7) were qualitative studies, and 8% (N = 1) were descriptive quantitative studies. The studies were from different parts of Africa. There were two studies with participants from various African countries; others were evenly distributed, with two studies each from Ethiopia, Uganda, and South Africa. One study each was from Kenya and Nigeria. Two other studies, one from Ethiopia and one from Tanzania, collaborated with authors from South Africa. More articles were published in journals that focus on higher education, such as Higher Education Policy, Higher Education Research & Development, and the Journal of Education and Practice, Transformation in Higher Education, Higher Education, Innovations in Education and Teaching International. All the authors in the study worked in academia and higher education.

Sociodemographic profile of PhD candidates

Of the included articles, 75% (N = 9) focused on the impact of gender and age on the experiences of PhD candidates. The number of male candidates was significantly greater in most of the studies than was the number of female candidates (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022; Bireda, 2015; Mbogo et al., 2020;Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022); however, studies that focused on women indicated that the challenges faced by doctoral students vary according to gender (Bireda, 2015; Mkhize, 2022a, 2022b; Mkhize, 2023; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022). Most of the candidates were within the age bracket of 30–45 years (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022; Bireda, 2015; Mkhize, 2022a, 2022b; Mkhize, 2023; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022). Most of the participants were identified as African but from different ethnic groups within the same African country. This was prominent in studies from South Africa that included participants who identified as Afrikaans, Coloured, or White (Mkhize, 2022a, 2022b; Mkhize, 2023). One of the studies reported the marital status of the candidates in their study, and most of the candidates identified themselves as married with children (Bireda, 2015). According to a study of African and European candidates, African candidates were more likely to be married with children than their European counterparts (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014).

Funding

Many of the articles reported on funding and financial challenges experienced by PhD candidates (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022; Bireda, 2015; Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Mbogo et al., 2020; Muriisa, 2015; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022). The availability of scholarships for African doctoral students studying in Africa was commonly reported to be low. The lack of funding was a barrier to the depth, scope, and quality of the research produced (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022). Four studies reported on initiatives such as fee waivers, partial funding, travel, and thesis (proof reading, printing, and editing) grants that were more available but insufficient to reduce financial pressure and the need to work full-time while studying (Bireda, 2015; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022). The need for training on how to access funding opportunities and grant writing was reported in three studies (Bireda, 2015;Muriisa, 2015 ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022). Three studies (Bireda, 2015; Mkhize, 2022a, 2022b: Mkhize, 2023) reported the emotional, psychological, and social factors that stemmed from financial uncertainties for women due to the unique set of challenges involved in balancing personal and professional roles.

Resources and training

Similar to insufficient funding, 67% (N = 8) of the included studies described how the unavailability of institutional resources impacted the experiences of PhD candidates (Bireda, 2015; Muriisa, 2015; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022). The most reported resources that were lacking included information and communication technology services, library and electronic search resources, lack of provision for learners with disabilities, unequipped laboratory and clinical facilities, lack of personal and study workspaces, noise pollution, insufficient physical library space, and other general services (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Muriisa, 2015; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014). However, a university based in South Africa reported that their institution had good support and resources (Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022), for example, access to internet services, library resources, and office spaces. Additionally, workshop training was available on key topics, such as methodologies, literature reviews, and proposal writing, and was found to be beneficial. Five articles reported on the specific resources and training needs of PhD candidates (Bireda, 2015; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Muriisa, 2015; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022). In the study by Muriisa (2015) and Tamrat and Fetene (2022), participants reported specific training needs on the literature review process and writing, proposal writing, in-depth information on methodologies, software used for data analysis, the publication process, and securing dissertation grants. However, resources to facilitate these requests were unavailable, and when additional training was provided, it was often unplanned, rarely organised, and not institutionally initiated. In the study by (Muriisa 2015), participants requested training on how to access funds and write grants. One of the studies (Bireda, 2015) examined the experiences of PhD candidates enrolled in distance learning; candidates in their study requested access to resources and training on academic and writing skills, digital literacy, and research software because they were not readily available. Two studies reported on the pre-training and unpreparedness of PhD candidates who enrolled in PhD programmes and struggled to meet the demands of writing a thesis (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Muriisa, 2015).

Supervision experiences

Supervision experiences during the PhD programme were identified in 75% (N = 9) of the studies (Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017; Craig et al., 2023; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Mbogo et al., 2020; Mkhize, 2023; Muriisa, 2015; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022). These studies provided various descriptors to characterise the experiences of participants. Two studies from Kenya and Ethiopia reported on supervisors’ lack of expertise and experience in the areas they were allocated to provide supervision (Mbogo et al., 2020; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022). Two other studies from Uganda and Ethiopia reported that the qualifications required to be able to undertake supervision were not met at some universities (Muriisa, 2015; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022). Supervisors also had excessive workloads, teaching, and administrative responsibilities with significant time constraints, which were reported as reasons for supervisory challenges in three studies (Craig et al., 2023; Mbogo et al., 2020; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022).

One study compared African and European candidates’ supervisory experiences and reported that African respondents rated their supervisors highly more than European students did even though supervisory meetings were less frequent (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014). In another study from Uganda, although most participants seemed satisfied with their supervision experiences, they still raised issues such as those of other studies including lack of communication and disengagement from student research (Bireda, 2015; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Muriisa, 2015; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022), low levels of support, delays in providing feedback, unhelpful feedback, inappropriate guidance (Bireda, 2015; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Mbogo et al., 2020; Mkhize, 2022a, 2022b), and difficulty finding a suitable supervisor (Craig et al., 2023; Mbogo et al., 2020; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022). Four articles reported more specifically on the common style of supervision experienced in the African context (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Mbogo et al., 2020; Muriisa, 2015; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022). Two studies (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Muriisa, 2015) described the context and setting of the research environment as unconducive due to power imbalances between supervisors and students. Two studies from South Africa (Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022) provided a different view of supervision. The supervisory relationship was based on effective communication, trust, and mutual respect, which contributed to successful completion. Eight of those studies (Bireda, 2015; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Mbogo et al., 2020; Mkhize, 2022a, 2022b; Muriisa, 2015; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022) explored the causes of delays and completion times. A supportive relationship was reported as a major precursor for timely completion (Mbogo et al., 2020; Muriisa, 2015; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022). Other common causes of delays were related to students juggling work with family commitments (Bireda, 2015; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Mbogo et al., 2020; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022). However, the supervisory challenges and factors impacting the completion times experienced by female doctoral candidates were distinct (Mkhize, 2022a, 2022b; Mkhize, 2023; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022). In South Africa, female doctoral candidates’ experiences were more challenging due to reports of racism, classism, xenophobia, and patriarchy (Mkhize, 2022a, 2022b; Mkhize, 2023).

Five studies explored the role of supervisors (Bireda, 2015; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Mbogo et al., 2020; Muriisa, 2015; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022) and the role of PhD candidates (Mbogo et al., 2020; Muriisa, 2015). These roles were described from the perspective of the supervisors and PhD candidates. PhD candidates expected supportive supervisors who provided encouragement in tough times (Bireda, 2015; Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021;Stackhouse & Harle, 2014 ; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022) and supervisors who shared beneficial information, e.g., access to funding, professional development, and conference attendance (Bireda, 2015; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Mbogo et al., 2020; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022). Supervisors expect PhD students to be accountable, take initiative (Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017; Mbogo et al., 2020; Muriisa, 2015), have good writing skills (Mbogo et al., 2020), and be able to work independently (Mbogo et al., 2020; Muriisa, 2015).

Coping mechanism

Four studies have reported on various strategies used by PhD candidates to address challenges concerning funding, resources, training, and supervisor support (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022). In the study by Fetene and Tamrat (2021), students who had had similar experiences with these challenges in the past were supportive of how to access funding; they also gave tips on supervisor rapport building and shared library resources. In the study by Tsephe and Potgieter (2022), which examined contributors to African women’s doctoral graduate success, factors including family/spousal support and a belief in God were important for coping when they encountered difficulties. As a coping mechanism, self-efficacy and education resilience are personal attributes that candidates believe are important for survival and contribute to research productivity (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022). Even though research productivity was low, research self-efficacy scores were high (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022). Most respondents believe that they have the individual capacity and resilience to adhere to behaviours that are important for them to succeed in their research undertaking. Two studies examined mental and emotional health (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022). Emotional difficulties were present at times, but participants rarely felt depressed. One study by Fetene and Tamrat (2021) discussed the coping strategies used by doctoral candidates in more detail, for instance, students adopted various coping mechanisms, such as diligently fostering positive relationships with their supervisors. Additionally, some resorted to utilising libraries beyond their institution, particularly those with dependable internet access, to obtain articles and research materials. Some also reached out to colleagues abroad, requesting assistance in downloading articles relevant to their field of study (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021). Other strategies include the use of YouTube videos to self-teach and gain knowledge in certain areas of research (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021). Some students stay with their families in the same household rather than paying rent in different locations or saving enough capital before commencing their programmes (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021).

Discussion

The impact of sociodemographic factors: age

In this review, sociodemographic factors such as age, gender, marital status, and ethnic group were commonly reported. However, in some articles (Bireda, 2015; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Mkhize, 2022a, 2022b; Mkhize, 2023; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022), the challenges faced by doctoral students varied according to these demographic factors. African students were often reported to be within the higher age bracket due to personal life challenges and barriers that prevented enrolment in a PhD at an earlier age (Fetene & Yeshak, 2022;Sooryamoorthy & Scherer, 2022a, 2022b ; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022). This review revealed that doctoral students from Africa were studying later in life and reported a longer time between qualifications. Access to training and the ability to receive funding are also impacted by age, and funders have restrictions on the age limit for which students are eligible (Balogun et al., 2021; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014).

Most African candidates are mature-age students, with an average age of 45 years reported (Scherer & Sooryamoorthy, 2022; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022). Most PhD students, at the time of enrolment, will have the responsibilities of family and work, which can impact their ability to devote the time needed for their PhD studies (Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022). Furthermore, most candidates are left with no choice due to the economic climate but to seek additional work to supplement their income and support their family (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022). However, in South Africa, the percentage of graduates under the age of 30 was greater for white graduates than for their black counterparts (ASSF, 2010; Cloete et al., 2016). There is an inherent need for resources and interventions for PhD candidates in Africa with the knowledge that a high percentage of candidates are within the higher age brackets and need to juggle family and work commitments. Although the impacts of age on the experiences of African PhD candidates have been adequately reported, further research should focus on exploring the specific reasons why African candidates are studying at a later age so that interventions can be tailored to meet the needs of potential candidates.

The impact of sociodemographic factors: gender

Current evidence has shown that women may face a unique set of challenges during their PhD (Bireda, 2015; Mkhize, 2022a, 2022b; Mkhize, 2023; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022). Although the number of women enrolling is increasing in some African Universities, many others still report low enrolments. Moreover, African candidates were more likely to be married and have had children (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014). The traditional role of caretaking combined with the role of a PhD candidate tends to increase stress and cause delays in study (Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022). Although progress has been made in strengthening research capacity, as evidenced by The Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA), that focused on addressing the practical needs of African women by providing support for gender roles that can inhibit their participation in training (Khisa et al., 2019). However, there is a greater need for support that is gender-responsive. According to a report by the British Council and DAAD (2018) examining several selected African countries (Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, and South Africa), the number of females enrolling in PhD training is increasing, but the attrition rate is still significantly high (Ayee, 2022; Sooryamoorthy & Scherer, 2022a, 2022b). The reasons for this difference were attributed to the cultural responsibilities and expectations that women give priority to family rather than professional accomplishments (El Allame et al., 2022).

Similarly, in an Ethiopian study, the underrepresentation of female doctoral students was found to be significant at all postgraduate levels, including doctoral studies (Tamrat & Fetene, 2022). In other countries, such as Mozambique, Ghana, and Uganda, female students enrolled in a doctoral study was still lower than that of men (Ayee, 2022; Etomaru et al., 2023; Mariano et al., 2022). The disproportionate representation of women in PhD training in Africa signifies the need for additional investigations to address the inadequate participation of women in research and innovation. Balancing personal and professional roles is challenging, and support that meets African women’s needs during their PhD candidature is warranted. Moreover, in countries where apartheid and colonisation policies still permeate into present times, the experiences of women during their PhD were challenging, and women candidates rarely completed on time (Mkhize, 2022a, 2022b; Mkhize, 2023). Black women felt that they were looked down on, undermined, and underestimated in a structural system that worked to exclude them (Mkhize, 2022a, 2022b; Mkhize, 2023). Beyond the need to further understand the expectations placed on women academics, an opportunity exists to explore the environmental and cultural barriers that are oppressive to the needs of women during their PhD journeys.

The role of supervisors

The significant impact that supervisors have on the successful completion of a PhD has been reported in several studies. With respect to the supervisory experiences of students, studies have shown an increased chance of completion (Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022); longer duration (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022; Mkhize, 2023; Muriisa, 2015; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022); or an increase in attrition rate (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Muriisa, 2015; Stackhouse & Harle, 2014) based on the supervisor–student relationship. For PhD candidates, having a relationship with their supervisor based on mutual respect was one of the highest reported accounts of successful completion (Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022). Although, evidence has shown that some African Universities have increased the amount of PhD enrolment and the availability of potential supervisors, but completion rate has remained low (Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018; Jowi, 2021; Muriisa, 2015). This difference was attributed to the style of supervision used in most African institutions, which is often characterised by power imbalances between the supervisor and the supervisee (Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Mkhize, 2023; Muriisa, 2015).

In addition to the supervisor–student relationship, expectations are placed on each other’s roles. Like PhD candidates, supervisors also had expectations of their students. Nonetheless, when expectations are clearly communicated immediately from the onset, successful completion, and a smooth relationship are achieved (Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Muriisa, 2015; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022). Furthermore, supervisors’ expectations are based on the approach that a PhD is an independent study and largely driven by the student; students should be accountable, motivated, and take initiative (Muriisa, 2015). Based on these insights into supervisory experiences, the importance of defined expectations and joint understanding of roles is a facilitator in the completion of doctoral studies. In a report exploring the research and PhD capacities in sub-Saharan Africa that surveyed alumni to determine their satisfaction with their PhD programmes, the top aspects that indicated how satisfied they were with their training were based on competence, capacity, and quality of supervision, as well as the professional relationships they had with their supervisors (Alabi & Mohammed, 2018). Overall, the high workload of supervisors also impacts the quality of supervision (Dime, 2018; Barasa & Omulando, 2018).

Therefore, reforms and policies to enhance the quality of supervision are warranted. Recommendations have been made for establishing ethical guidelines for supervisors to alleviate issues around hierarchical organisational culture and poor supervisory practices (Barasa & Omulando, 2018; British Council & DAAD, 2018). Additionally, potential PhD candidates need to be aware of expectations regarding workload, research capacity, and the knowledge of the research itself. To boost research capacity, the professional development of supervisors by providing training and courses has been reported in some South African Universities (Molla & Cuthbert, 2016). Even though there is recognition of the need for training potential supervisors, the impacts of the training that has been provided in some contexts have not often been reported (Lindtjørn et al., 2019; Maluwa et al., 2019). More research exploring the evaluation and benefits of these professional trainings are needed. A recent study by Alio et al. (2021) investigated the enhancement of research capabilities for innovation in sub-Saharan Africa. The report highlighted certain African nations including Nigeria, South Africa, Senegal, Kenya, Angola, and Ethiopia have addressed their limited research capacity by investing in training initiatives to enhance research skills. These efforts aim to improve the standard of research activities and productivity. Training such as this is crucial because it is important that both supervisors and students have the resources needed to support them in order to fulfil their roles.

The relationship between coping strategies and research productivity

In this review, various survival strategies that are used as coping mechanisms are commonly linked to research productivity (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022; Fetene & Tamrat, 2021; Tamrat & Fetene, 2022; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022). Generally, PhD productivity and success tend to be linked to institutional and governmental practices, whereas most African institutions have inefficient systemic practices and relatively low government budgetary allocations to facilitate completion and productivity (Akudolu & Adeyemo, 2018; Molla & Cuthbert, 2016). Therefore, to enhance research productivity, African candidates must develop their own coping mechanisms and strategies outside of institutions. In one study, one of the coping mechanisms that accounted for success for African women who completed their PhD was their belief in God (Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022). The women in the study stated that their belief in God played a significant role in their success and completion. As a coping mechanism, the women believed that God had orchestrated their undertaking of a PhD and that God would see them through, and even when they encountered any difficulties, their belief in God was a source of strength not to give up but rather to keep going (Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022). Despite the strong association between the belief in God and the completion of a PhD, the available literature in this area is scarce. A qualitative exploration of this phenomenon will inform supervisors, stake holders, international collaborators, and government bodies of some specific aspects that contribute to success for African PhD candidates.

In two other studies, a strong sense of self-efficacy was used as a coping strategy that contributed to research productivity (Adekunle & Madukoma, 2022; Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022). The PhD candidates’ self-efficacy was demonstrated through their belief and confidence in their own abilities. Candidates who rated their research self-efficacy believed they could conceptualise research that was feasible, collect data, analyse data, and disseminate findings, with the individual capacity to adhere to behaviours that are important for them to succeed in their research undertaking. However, most of the issues surrounding research productivity were external factors and were out of their own control, for example, issues such as publications, grants, and funding for projects were not always supported by their home institution. Despite these issues, resilience has been demonstrated, and other ways to achieve success have been sought by individual candidates (Tsephe & Potgieter, 2022), for example, other coping mechanisms and survival strategies candidates used involved seeking international collaborations and networks that provide access to funding and resources (Stackhouse & Harle, 2014). Some African Universities have partnered with international collaborators to develop PhD programmes and research profiles (Jowi, 2021). Collaborations with international agencies and institutions can support partial or fully funded scholarships, access to equipment, subject expertise, and training to enhance the quality of PhD programmes (Alabi & Mohammed, 2018; British Council & DAAD, 2018; Dimé, 2018). Currently, there is a lack of evidence on the coping mechanisms and strategies of African PhD candidates. Further research examining the capabilities that enable research productivity may assist in informing the development of specific interventions for PhD candidates in Africa. A qualitative approach to exploring the coping strategies of African PhD candidates may inform the practice of higher institutions and supervisors of the support needed to ensure success.

Limitations

A limitation of the review lies in the overrepresentation of research articles from some African countries as opposed to others. The second limitation is the exclusion of articles that were not in English since the reviewers cannot use resources to interpret articles published in languages other than English. The review was limited to peer-reviewed literature, and gray literature was not included. The review acknowledges that Africa is vast in numerous sociocultural values and norms that impact people’s experiences, and this review does not attempt to minimise these experiences. Thus, this review should be interpreted in light of the fact that some of these distinctive values and norms from various African settings might not have been captured here.

Conclusion

The literature examining the experiences of pursuing a PhD in Africa reflects a combination of challenges and achievements that significantly influence the journey toward completion and the attainment of a doctoral degree. These factors encompass the sociodemographic characteristics of PhD candidates, financial obstacles, insufficient resources and training, supervisory encounters, and the coping strategies employed by those undertaking PhD programmes. The distinct sociodemographic, cultural, and institutional contexts present opportunities for comprehending the specific issues within the African higher education landscape. Resources and interventions are essential for African PhD candidates, particularly as many are older and must balance family and work commitments, necessitating further research into the specific reasons behind their delayed study to tailor interventions accordingly. While there has been notable progress in the number of women obtaining PhDs, environmental and cultural barriers that hinder women’s academics during their PhD journeys still exist. Systematic and institutional barriers need to be acknowledged and addressed to foster women’s contribution to knowledge-based economic growth. For supervisors and student relations, training with the necessary resources for fulfilling their roles is crucial. Subsequent research should delve into understanding some of the specific environmental and cultural barriers impacting potential candidates from diverse backgrounds, genders, and ethnicities. Addressing the identified needs of doctoral students, such as inadequate investment in research funding, substandard infrastructures, and systemic challenges, requires collaborative initiatives involving academic institutions, government bodies, and international partners to enhance the quality of PhD training in Africa. By doing so, a supportive system can be fostered that effectively caters to the diverse needs of doctoral students.