The study, published in Discover Education, examined doctoral enrolment, retention, and completion across three Eastern African higher education systems using a comparative explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. The research team, led by Tom Peter Migun Ogada of the African Centre for Technology Studies in Nairobi, surveyed 154 doctoral students and conducted 27 key informant interviews with supervisors, university administrators, and higher education stakeholders. All three countries participate in the Regional Scholarship and Innovation Fund (RSIF), a flagship programme of the Partnership for Skills in Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, which provided a common framework for comparison while allowing the researchers to capture each nation’s distinctive institutional character.

The quantitative data revealed markedly different doctoral trajectories. Kenya exhibited a mature cohort, with nearly one-third of respondents in their fourth year of study and only 10.7 percent in their first year. Rwanda showed a balanced distribution across programme years, suggesting steady progression. Ethiopia displayed a polarized pattern, with students concentrated both at entry (29.6 percent in Year 1) and in prolonged enrolment beyond the expected completion period (29.6 percent in Year 5 or beyond), a bimodal signature the authors interpret as the result of rapid expansion outpacing institutional support.

Disciplinary specialization also diverged sharply. Energy research dominated in Kenya (33.3 percent) and Ethiopia (31.0 percent), while Food Security and Agribusiness accounted for another third of Kenyan enrolment. Rwanda, by contrast, concentrated an overwhelming 90 percent of its doctoral students in ICT, including Big Data and Artificial Intelligence, reflecting a deliberate state strategy. Full-time residential study was the norm everywhere, accounting for more than four-fifths of enrolment in Kenya and over nine-tenths in Rwanda and Ethiopia, underscoring how little doctoral training in the region has embraced flexible or distance modes.

Motivation for pursuing a PhD was remarkably consistent: career progression. More than nine in ten respondents across all three countries cited career advancement or transition as their principal reason for doctoral study, with Ethiopia at 96.3 percent, Kenya at 96.2 percent, and Rwanda at 90 percent. Funding opportunities ranked a distant second, cited by roughly a third of students, while mentor encouragement played only a minor role. The authors conclude that East African doctoral candidates treat the PhD primarily as a strategic career investment rather than a fallback option.

Retention, however, told a more sobering story. Rwanda reported the strongest sense of integration, with 70 percent of students feeling very or completely integrated into their programmes, and only 10 percent had considered withdrawing. Kenya fell in between, with 26.9 percent contemplating departure. Ethiopia fared worst: 40.7 percent of students had considered quitting or had temporarily left their programmes, and only 7.4 percent felt completely integrated. Across all three countries, students pointed to financial constraints, competing family responsibilities, employment commitments, mental health challenges, social isolation, and supervisory difficulties as the forces pushing them toward the exit.

Institutional support proved to be the decisive differentiator. Every Rwandan respondent rated institutional support as adequate or very adequate, and all reported clear guidance on programme requirements and milestones. Rwanda’s centralized doctoral strategy includes structured milestones, routine progress monitoring, co-supervision by teams of two or three academics ensuring at least biweekly feedback, ministry research grants with full stipends disbursed on schedule, and shared laboratories with reliable campus-wide connectivity. Kenyan students were largely positive but more variable, with 19.2 percent rating support inadequate. Ethiopian students were the most critical: 48.1 percent considered available support inadequate or very inadequate, and nearly half said programme expectations were unclear or inconsistently implemented.

Supervision and funding emerged as the twin levers of completion. Nearly a third of all surveyed students reported meeting their supervisors only rarely, and 15.4 percent described supervisory meetings as irregular, conditions that left students feeling stuck, delaying key research decisions, and heightening stress. In Kenya, about two-thirds of students received some financial support, but delayed disbursements and administrative bottlenecks undermined its value. Ethiopian students faced insufficient scholarships and stipends, with many forced into part-time work that delayed research milestones. Access to research resources was the most frequently reported barrier to completion, cited by roughly two-thirds of Kenyan and Ethiopian students.

Gender disparities persisted across all three systems, with women comprising just 23.1 percent of doctoral respondents in Kenya, 25.9 percent in Ethiopia, and 40 percent in Rwanda. Qualitative analysis traced these gaps to gendered educational pipelines, competing family and caregiving responsibilities, uneven access to funding, and inconsistent mentorship. Rwanda’s comparatively stronger female participation was attributed to sustained investment in girls’ STEM education, gender-responsive admission practices, dedicated funding, and structured mentoring, while Ethiopian informants described mentorship as largely informal and noted the absence of comprehensive gender-responsive doctoral policies.

The study’s theoretical contribution is an Integrated Doctoral Ecosystem Perspective, which repositions doctoral success from an individual-level outcome to an ecosystem-level process. While the findings partially support Tinto’s Student Integration Theory and Doctoral Socialization Theory, the authors argue that these Western-derived frameworks cannot fully explain doctoral outcomes in resource-constrained contexts where funding insecurity, infrastructure deficits, gendered responsibilities, and fragmented governance interact. The policy prescription is clear: sustainable funding packages that include living stipends, manageable supervisory loads, robust research infrastructure, structured milestone monitoring, and psychosocial support must be aligned simultaneously. Rwanda’s coordinated approach demonstrates what is possible; Kenya and Ethiopia illustrate the cost of reforms that expand enrolment faster than the systems meant to sustain it.

Subject of Research: Institutional, socioeconomic, psychosocial, and policy determinants of doctoral enrolment, retention, and completion in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Rwanda

Article Title: Institutional socioeconomic psychosocial and policy determinants of doctoral enrolment retention and completion in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Rwanda

Article References: Ogada, T. P. M., Ouko, K. O., Lutomiah, A., Odongo, N., Magale, E., Mbaya, C., Omwoyo, E., Mideva, C., Onyango, J., Oyugi, S., Orang’o, C. K., Nyagah, B., & Nguku, E. (2026). Institutional socioeconomic psychosocial and policy determinants of doctoral enrolment retention and completion in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Rwanda. Discover Education, 5(1), Article 823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-026-01973-1

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44217-026-01973-1

Keywords: doctoral education, PhD completion, Kenya, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Sub-Saharan Africa, supervision, research funding, student retention, gender disparities, higher education policy, RSIF