Slides from the presentation of our paper (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42682-7_24) at the EC-TEL 2023 conference in Aveiro. ---- Designing Technology for Doctoral Persistence and Well-Being: Findings from a Two-Country Value-Sensitive Inquiry into Student Progress Abstract: Doctoral education suffers from widespread dropout and well-being problems, for which we have not yet found scalable and generalizable interventions. This paper characterizes these problems as amenable to technology-enhanced learning (TEL) intervention and derives design knowledge for such solutions. We conducted two iterations of design-based research using a value-sensitive design approach to understand how technology could support doctoral progress, well-being, and persistence, with 19 doctoral students from multiple disciplines in Estonia and Spain. Our quantitative and qualitative analysis of questionnaires, interviews, and diary data confirms prior research about the importance of perceiving progress in the dissertation materials. They also highlight the uniqueness and self-direction of the doctoral journey, and particular (but well-defined) external factors that could be targeted by TEL support. Our design-oriented findings can inform the development of multiple TEL solutions to address these problems. Further, the particular methods used to elicit these findings both illustrate the added value of value-sensitive design for the field of TEL and provide examples of techniques that can be used to be mindful of stakeholder values when designing learning technologies.

1. Designing Technology for Doctoral
Persistenceand Well-being
Findings From a Two-country Value-sensitive Inquiry into Student Progress
Luis P. Prieto, María Jesús Rodríguez-Triana, Yannis Dimitriadis, Gerti
Pishtari and Paula Odriozola-González
EC-TEL '23 – Aveiro (Portugal)
7th Sept 2023
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

2. Widespread problems in doctoral education
• Doctoral students as a key resource in our facing of global challenges
• Global doctoral population: ~3M1
• Yet, two widespread problems documented across countries
• High dropout rates (low persistence)
• 40-60%, depending on the study2
• Low emotional well-being
• Problems like anxiety, depression, stress, suicidal ideation...
• Prevalence 2-40%, depending on problem/study (17/24% for anxiety/depression)3
• Big problem (100,000s+affected!) with no scalable, generalized
interventions
• But there's research on the importance of steady progress as key to both problems4
• Could TEL help reduce these problems?
2

3. What do we mean by "value-sensitive"?
• Call for more human-centered TEL (e.g., human-centered learning
analytics)
• One possibility: Value-sensitive design (VSD)
• "A theoretically grounded approach to the design of technology that accounts for
human values in a principled and comprehensive manner"5
• What is a "value"? Anything that is important for a person or group of
people
• Examples: privacy, the welfare of one's family, power, learning new things...
• Why are values important in the design of technologies/interventions
(including TEL)?
• In design: to understand our stakeholders, make proposals more relevant/acceptable
• In transfer to new context: to understand if/why our TEL innovation may (not) work
3

4. Goal and research question(s)
• Goal: to obtain (and share with TEL community) design knowledge about
potential TEL solutions to doctoral dropout/well-being problems
• Not just develop our own solution, but also enable others
• Taking a VSD perspective and considering the doctorate's uniquenessand
prior research on the importance of steady progress,our main research
questions:
RQ1: What values should a technology to support doctoral progress
embody?
• RQ1.1: What do doctoral students value at the basic (i.e., across-situations),
doctorate and technology use levels?
• RQ1.2: How do doctoral students experience progress, at the group-level and
individually?
4

5. Methodology in context
5

6. Data analysis methods
• Analysis (concurrent triangulation mixed methods)
• For RQ1.1 (values): Inductive reflexive thematic analysis (interviews) +
descriptive stats of PVQ
• For RQ1.2 (progress): quantitative ethnography of inductive thematic analysis
(journal/self-track) -- stepwise linear models + epistemic network analysis
• For RQ1 (design insights): discussion of findings among research team, value
dams and flows5
6

7. Results: Doctoral studentvalues
(RQ1.1)
Basic (across-situations) values
• Values as per Schwartz's
theory of basic values6, via
PVQ
• Self-Direction(independent
thought and action-
choosing, creating,
exploring) as the top value
• … followed by Universalism
and Benevolence
7

8. Results: Doctoral studentvalues
(RQ1.1)
Technology use values
• Values applicable in
technology use situations,
(elicited in Iteration 1),
ranked in Iteration 2
• Lower is more important!
• That the technology lets
students perceive their
progress as mostimportant
value
8

9. Results: Doctoral studentvalues
(RQ1.1)
Learning/Doctoratevalues
• Values related to the
doctorate (elicited in
Iteration 1), ranked in
Iteration 2
• Lower is more important!
• Again, perceiving one is
progressing in the doctorate
as highly valued
• Followed by feeling
motivated/energized while
engaging in the doctorate
9

10. Results:
Experience of
progress (RQ1.2)
• Stepwise linearmodels predicting feeling of daily progresson the basis
of quantitative/qualitative variables in the culturalprobe
• As a group, specific contextualfactors seem associated with progress (e.g.,
Interruptions/interference by others, or Other work associated with lower
progress)
• High variance of certain factors across individual-based models (e.g.,
Meetings being positive for some, negativefor others
10

11. Results: Experience
of progress (RQ1.2)
• Epistemic network analysis (ENA)
contrasting good/bad progress days'
qualitative codes (from the narrative
part of the cultural probe)
• At the group level,
Postpone/Procrastinate as a key
"frontier code" (associated to Learning
on positive days, Free time/Rest on
bad progress days)
• Also, wide variety in the networks
based on individuals' data
11

12. Implications for doctoral "design for progress"
(RQ1)
1. Self-Direction as the key basic value of "doctoral culture"
2. Time tensions and task conflicts (e.g., with other jobs or non-thesis
tasks) as a critical struggle of our participants
3. The quest for focus (vs. procrastination or interruptions) as another
hurdle for progress
4. Progress is uniquely experienced: allow for a wide variety of
contextual factors and direction of effect (+/-)
5. Motivational tips and strategies as a useful device to consider
12

13. Limitations
• Non-representative (but purposeful) sample: cannot generalize
beyond these participants/institutions/countries
• Inductive coding done by just one researcher
• Space limitations of the paper (few quotes, low grounding of findings)
13

14. Conclusion
What are the contributions of this paper?
1. Articulate doctoral dropout and well-being as important global problem
(amenable to TEL solution)
2. Design insights from (small) empirical study of doctoral values and progress in
two countries
3. Methodological blueprint/example for value-sensitive design studies in TEL
14

15. Conclusion
Future work
• This is part of a wider, ongoing design-based research project
• We are piloting a prototype technology developed using the design knowledge
elicited in this study...
• … but that prototype is our take on the design. What are yours?
15

16. Questions?
Thank you! :)
For further information,make sure to read the paper (link) or reach me at
luispablo.prieto@uva.es
Learn more about doctoral dropoutand well-beingat https://ahappyphd.org
16
The present work has been supported by grants RYC2021-032273-I and PID2020-112584RB-C32, funded by
MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and the European Union’s ”NextGenerationEU/PRTR”. It has also been
supported by the Estonian Research Council’s Personal Research Grant (PRG) under grant number PRG1634.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

17. References
1. More detailedmath and references on this at https://ahappyphd.org/posts/how-many-phd-students/
2. Wollast, R., Boudrenghien,G., Van der Linden, N., Galand, B., Roland,N., Devos, C., De Clercq, M., Klein,
O., Azzi, A., & Frenay, M. (2018). Who Are the DoctoralStudents Who Drop Out? Factors Associated with
the Rate of Doctoral Degree Completionin Universities. InternationalJournalof Higher Education,7(4),
143. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v7n4p143
3. Satinsky, E. N., Kimura, T., Kiang, M. V., Abebe, R., Cunningham,S., Lee, H., Lin, X., Liu, C. H., Rudan, I.,
Sen, S., Tomlinson,M., Yaver, M., & Tsai, A. C. (2021). Systematicreview and meta-analysisof depression,
anxiety, and suicidalideationamong Ph.D. Students. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 14370.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93687-7
4. De Clercq, M., Frenay, M., Azzi, A., Klein, O., & Galand, B. (2021). All You Need is Self-Determination:
Investigation ofPhD Students’ MotivationProfiles and TheirImpact on the Doctoral CompletionProcess.
International Journalof DoctoralStudies, 16, 189–209. https://doi.org/10.28945/4702
5. Friedman, B., Hendry, D. G., Borning, A., & others. (2017). A survey of value sensitive design methods.
Foundationsand Trends® in Human–ComputerInteraction,11(2), 63–125.
6. Schwartz, S. H. & others. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in
Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 2307–0919.
17

18. Schwartz's 10 basic values
• POWER: Social status and prestige, controlordominance overpeople and resources.(He likes to be in charge and tell others what
to do. He wants people to do what he says.)
• ACHIEVEMENT: Personal success through demonstratingcompetence accordingto social standards.(Beingverysuccessful is
important to him.He likes to stand out and to impress other people.)
• HEDONISM: Pleasure and sensuous gratificationforoneself.(He reallywants to enjoylife. Havinga good time is very importantto
him.)
• STIMULATION: Excitement,novelty,and challenge in life.(He looks for adventuresand likes to take risks.He wants to havean
excitinglife.)
• SELF-DIRECTION: Independent thought and action-choosing, creating, exploring. (He thinks it’s important to be interested in
things. He is curious and tries to understand everything.)
• UNIVERSALISM: Understanding,appreciation,toleranceand protection for the welfareof all people and for nature. (He thinks it
is important that every person in the world should be treated equally. He wants justice for everybody, even for peoplehe
doesn’t know.)
• BENEVOLENCE: Preservation and enhancement of the welfareof people with whom one is in frequent personal contact. (He
always wants to help the people who are close to him. It’s very important to him to care for the people he knows and likes.)
• TRADITION: Respect,commitment and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide the self.
(He thinks it is important to do things the way he learned fromhis family.He wants to followtheir customs and traditions.)
• CONFORMITY: Restraint ofactions,inclinations,and impulses likelyto upset or harm others and violate social expectations or
norms.(He believes that people should do what they’re told.He thinks people should followrules at all times, even when no one
is watching.)
• SECURITY: Safety,harmonyand stabilityofsociety,of relationships,and ofself.(The safetyof his countryis very importantto him.
He wants his countryto be safe from its enemies.)
18