Public opinion plays a vital role in any democracy. A bottom-up approach to policy framing is always considered the best way forward. In India, most of the work on public opinion is carried out by the media. However, there is no mechanism that captures public opinion in a scholarly and data-driven manner.
With this gap in mind, CAP Rajasthan decided to initiate such an effort. The survey team of CAP Rajasthan is leading this work. The first survey conducted by the team focuses on the experiences of Ph.D. scholars in Rajasthan.
Objectives of the Survey
- To examine the motivational factors that influence research scholars in choosing to pursue a Ph.D., including career advancement, passion for research, academic prestige, societal contribution, and other personal drivers.
- To assess the level of satisfaction among Ph.D. scholars with the academic support and guidance provided by their supervisors.
- To evaluate the adequacy of academic infrastructure offered by universities such as access to seminars, libraries, books, and research publications in supporting doctoral research.
- To analyze the perceptions of Ph.D. scholars regarding the quality, relevance, and effectiveness of coursework provided during their doctoral studies.
- To investigate the availability and sufficiency of financial support (stipends, fellowships, or other funding) for meeting the academic and living expenses of research scholars.
- To identify the primary career aspirations of doctoral students after the completion of their Ph.D. including their inclination towards academic research, teaching, government service, corporate roles, or entrepreneurship.
Findings Section – 1:
Question-wise Analysis
1.1 Motivation to Pursue a PhD
To assess Respondents’ motivation for pursuing doctoral studies.
Findings:
The survey revealed that Ph.D. scholars in Rajasthan pursue doctoral studies for diverse reasons.
The most frequently cited motivation was career advancement (163 respondents), followed by passion for research (142 respondents).
A considerable number also chose academic prestige (94 respondents) and societal contribution (83 respondents).
A very small proportion (2 respondents) indicated other motivations such as fellowship.
Interpretation:
The dominance of career advancement suggests that Ph.D. is largely viewed as a pathway to professional growth and better opportunities.
Passion for research being the second-highest response indicates a strong intrinsic interest among scholars, though it remains slightly lower than career-driven factors.
The relatively smaller share of academic prestige and societal contribution implies that these are secondary, yet still significant, factors.
1.2 Satisfaction with Supervisor
To assess Level of satisfaction with supervisory support and guidance
Findings:
The responses indicate a generally positive outlook toward Ph.D. supervisors. A majority of scholars reported being satisfied (38%) or very satisfied (24.5%) with the support and guidance provided. About 20.1% of respondents remained neutral, while smaller proportions expressed dissatisfaction 8.4% dissatisfied and 9.1% very dissatisfied.
Interpretation:
Over 62% of scholars expressed satisfaction, highlighting that supervisors play an effective and supportive role in the Ph.D. journey.
The neutral segment (20%) shows that a significant number of students do not perceive their supervision as strongly positive or negative — this may indicate inconsistency in supervisory engagement.
The dissatisfied group (~17.5%) points to gaps in supervision practices.
1.3 Satisfaction with Academic Infrastructure
To assess Availability and Quality of Academic Resources and Facilities
Findings:
Responses were more varied regarding infrastructure. A significant proportion of respondents were satisfied (84), while 26 respondents were very satisfied. On the other hand, 61 respondents remained neutral, and dissatisfaction levels were also considerable with 56 dissatisfied and 47 very dissatisfied.
Interpretation:
Unlike supervisory support, satisfaction with infrastructure appears more divided, indicating that resources such as seminar access, books, and research papers may not be uniformly available across universities.
About 41% of respondents (103 total) expressed dissatisfaction, which is a substantial portion, highlighting infrastructure as a key challenge area.
The neutral responses (61) further suggest mixed experiences, where some students may find resources adequate, while others face constraints.
Only about 110 respondents (Satisfied + Very Satisfied) indicated positive experiences, showing that while support exists, it is not consistent or sufficient for all scholars.
1.4 Satisfaction with Ph.D. Coursework
To assess Perceptions of Quality and Relevance of Coursework
Findings:
The survey responses on coursework leaned positively. A large number of respondents were satisfied (104) and an additional 41 were very satisfied. Meanwhile, 61 respondents remained neutral, and smaller but notable groups expressed dissatisfaction 36 dissatisfied and 32 very dissatisfied.
Interpretation:
With 145 respondents (Satisfied + Very Satisfied), coursework appears to be relatively well-regarded, especially compared to infrastructure.
The neutral responses (61) highlight that while coursework is accepted, many students may feel it lacks full alignment with their research needs or academic expectations.
The dissatisfied group (68 total), though smaller, still signals that improvements are needed in terms of course design, delivery, or relevance.
Overall, coursework is perceived more positively than infrastructure, showing a comparative strength in academic preparation.
1.5 Financial Support for Research
To assess Availability and Sources of Financial Assistance
Findings:
Out of the total 274 respondents, 131 scholars (47.8%) reported receiving financial support from UGC/CSIR.
A smaller group of 22 respondents (8%) were supported by the State Government or their University.
On the other hand, a significant proportion of 118 respondents (43.1%) indicated that they received no financial support at all. Only 3 respondents (1.1%) marked the option as Not Applicable.
Interpretation:
The analysis reveals that while nearly half of the Ph.D. scholars depend on UGC/CSIR funding, a substantial number remain without any financial support.
The limited reach of state or university-level funding, accounting for only 8% of respondents, further underlines the heavy reliance on national-level funding schemes.
The fact that more than two out of every five doctoral scholars are pursuing research without financial assistance highlights a serious challenge to the sustainability and inclusiveness of doctoral education in Rajasthan.
This disparity underscores the urgent need for broader and more equitable funding mechanisms to support Ph.D. scholars across institutions.
1.6 Adequacy of Financial Support for Research and Living Needs
To assess Extent to Which Financial Assistance Covers Scholars’ Expenses
Findings:
The responses show that a majority of Ph.D. scholars find their financial support inadequate. About 63.9% of respondents reported that their fellowship or stipend is not sufficient to cover academic and living expenses, while only 36.1%indicated that their financial support is adequate.
Interpretation:
The fact that nearly two-thirds of scholars struggle with insufficient financial aid highlights a significant gap in the support system.
This insufficiency may lead to increased economic stress, reliance on family resources, or the need for part-time work, which could negatively affect research productivity.
Even among those receiving UGC/CSIR or state-level fellowships, the amount may not align with rising costs of living and academic requirements.
This finding strongly suggests the need for policy attention to enhance the amount and accessibility of financial support for research scholars.
1.7 Career Aspirations After Completion of Ph.D.
To assess Future Employment Plans and Professional Orientation of Scholars
Findings:
The responses highlight diverse career goals among Ph.D. scholars. The largest proportion of respondents (132) indicated a preference for pursuing a Government Job, while 94 scholars expressed interest in Academic Research as their primary goal. Smaller numbers opted for other paths: 7 for Private Teaching, 5 for corporate employment, and 7 for Start-up or Self-employment.
Interpretation:
The strong preference for Government Jobs (132) reflects the continuing appeal of stable employment opportunities in the public sector, possibly due to job security, social status, and financial stability.
A significant portion (94 respondents) aspiring for Academic Research demonstrates that many scholars remain committed to advancing knowledge and contributing to academia.
The very low representation in Private Teaching, Corporate, and Entrepreneurship (less than 10 each)suggests limited exposure, opportunities, or incentives in these sectors for Ph.D. graduates.
Overall, the findings indicate a dual orientation: one group driven by research and academia, and another leaning toward the security of government service, while entrepreneurial and corporate ambitions remain minimal.
1.8 Recommendation of University to Future Ph.D. Aspirants
To assess Scholars’ Willingness to Endorse Their University
Findings:
The majority of respondents (149) indicated that they would recommend their university to prospective Ph.D. scholars. However, a significant proportion showed hesitation: 67 respondents clearly stated they would not recommend, while 58 respondents chose “Maybe”, indicating uncertainty.
Interpretation:
The strong positive majority (149) suggests that many scholars had a satisfactory overall experience and believe their university provides an acceptable environment for Ph.D. research.
The presence of a substantial dissenting group (67) highlights that negative experiences—possibly related to supervision, infrastructure, or financial issues—discourage them from endorsing their institution.
The uncertain respondents (58) indicate that perceptions of quality are not uniform, with mixed experiences influencing their indecision.
Overall, while the universities receive more endorsements than rejections, the high number of “No” and “Maybe” responses combined (125 total) suggests that institutions still have significant room for improvement before earning broad-based recommendation.
Findings Section – 2:
Cross-tab Analysis
2.1. Relationship between Supervisor Satisfaction and University Recommendation
To assess whether positive supervisory experiences encourage scholars to recommend their university.
Findings:
For the very dissatisfied group (n=25), only 24% (6) would recommend their university, while a majority 68% (17 respondents) explicitly said No, and 8% (2) remained undecided (Maybe).
For the dissatisfied group (n=23), only 13% (3) responded Yes, nearly 48% (11) said No, while 39% (9) were undecided.
In the neutral group (n=55), the distribution was more balanced with 27% Yes (15), 38% No (21), and 35% Maybe (19).
Among the satisfied group (n=104), the results were clearly positive with 67% Yes (70), only 13% No (14), and 19% Maybe (20). Finally, in the very satisfied group (n=67), 82% (55) were willing to recommend their university, with just 6% No (4) and 12% Maybe (8).
Interpretation
There is a direct positive relationship between satisfaction with supervisors and willingness to recommend the university.
Respondents who are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied are highly unlikely to recommend their university, with most clearly rejecting it.
Those who are neutral remain divided, showing uncertainty about their institutional experience.
Satisfied and very satisfied scholars overwhelmingly support their university, with recommendation rates jumping from 67% (Satisfied) to 82% (Very Satisfied).
This clearly indicates that supervisory quality is one of the strongest determinants of institutional reputationamong Ph.D. scholars.
2.2. Impact of Academic infrastructure satisfaction on university recommendation
To explore whether the quality of academic infrastructure drives reputational endorsement.
Findings:
For the very dissatisfied group (n=47), only 4 respondents (9%) were willing to recommend their university, while a large majority of 37 respondents (79%) said No, and 6 respondents (12%) chose Maybe.
In the dissatisfied group (n=56), 16 respondents (29%) said Yes, 19 respondents (34%) said No, and 21 respondents (37%) remained undecided.
Among the neutral group (n=61), the distribution was more balanced, with 35 respondents (57%) saying Yes, 9 respondents (15%) saying No, and 17 respondents (28%) indicating Maybe.
The trend became strongly positive among the satisfied group (n=84), where 68 respondents (81%) recommended their university, only 2 respondents (2%) said No, and 14 respondents (17%) expressed doubt.
Finally, in the very satisfied group (n=26), every single respondent (100%) expressed willingness to recommend their university, showing complete alignment between infrastructure satisfaction and recommendation.
Interpretation
The cross-tab analysis demonstrates a strong positive relationship between satisfaction with academic infrastructure and willingness to recommend the university.
Respondents who were very dissatisfied with infrastructure showed an overwhelming tendency to reject their institution, while those who were dissatisfied were largely divided, with only a small minority recommending.
Neutral respondents reflected a transitional stage, with more than half showing a positive inclination but a considerable number remaining undecided.
The satisfied group showed a decisive shift, with more than four-fifths recommending their university and only a negligible share rejecting it.
Most strikingly, the very satisfied group displayed unanimous support, with every respondent expressing willingness to recommend their institution.
This clearly indicates that the quality of academic infrastructure is a critical determinant of the reputation and endorsement of universities among Ph.D. scholars.
2.3. Major 5 Institutional comparison of recommendation outcomes
To examine differences among universities with the largest respondent base.
Findings:
At UOR, Jaipur (n=47), nearly two-thirds of respondents (61.7%) recommended their university, while 12.8% opposed and 25.5% remained undecided.
In contrast, MSBU, Bharatpur (n=39) showed the weakest outcome, with only 17.9% willing to recommend, while a clear majority of 64.1% expressed unwillingness, and 17.9% were uncertain.
At PDSU, Sikar (n=33), the distribution was more divided, with 51.5% supporting, 15.2% rejecting, and 33.3% unsure.
MLSU, Udaipur (n=34) emerged as the strongest performer, with 82.4% respondents recommending, only 11.8% rejecting, and 5.9% undecided.
Finally, Banasthali Vidyapith, Tonk (n=24) recorded a positive outcome, with 70.8% willing to recommend, 12.5% opposed, and 16.7% uncertain.
Interpretation
The institutional comparison highlights striking differences in reputational endorsement across Rajasthan’s universities.
UOR, Jaipur and Banasthali Vidyapith, Tonk demonstrate strong support, while Udaipur stands out with exceptionally high recommendation levels and minimal opposition, reflecting a particularly positive experience for its doctoral scholars.
In contrast, MSBU, Bharatpur shows the weakest standing, where a majority of respondents expressed dissatisfaction and reluctance to recommend.
PDSU, Sikar presents a more mixed profile, with support and uncertainty almost equally balanced.
Overall, the analysis confirms that institutional reputation among Ph.D. scholars is not uniform but highly dependent on the academic environment, support systems, and facilities available at each university.
2.4. Academic Infrastructure Satisfaction across Major 5 Universities
To identify institutional disparities in infrastructure quality.
Findings:
At UOR, Jaipur (n=47), a significant share of respondents expressed satisfaction with infrastructure, with 13 satisfied and 4 very satisfied, while 17 were dissatisfied, 10 were neutral, and 3 were very dissatisfied.
At MSBU, Bharatpur (n=39), the outcome was heavily negative, as 21 respondents reported being very dissatisfied and 7 dissatisfied, compared with only 3 very satisfied, 8 neutral, and 0 satisfied respondents.
At PDSU, Sikar (n=33), the distribution was mixed: 13 respondents were neutral, 13 satisfied (including 1 very satisfied), 7 dissatisfied, and 6 very dissatisfied.
At MLSU, Udaipur (n=34), results leaned positive, with 13 satisfied and 7 very satisfied respondents, while 10 remained neutral, 4 dissatisfied, and none reported being very dissatisfied.
Finally, at Banasthali Vidyapith, Tonk (n=24), satisfaction levels were comparatively strong, with 14 satisfied, 3 very satisfied, 5 neutral, and only 2 dissatisfied respondents.
Interpretation
The institutional comparison highlights notable disparities in perceptions of academic infrastructure.
UOR, Jaipur shows a balanced profile, with a large middle segment that is either satisfied or dissatisfied, reflecting a divided experience.
MSBU, Bharatpur records the weakest performance, with a clear majority expressing dissatisfaction and very little satisfaction, indicating serious infrastructure concerns.
PDSU, Sikar presents a mixed outcome, with responses spread across categories and no clear majority trend. MLSU, Udaipur emerges as one of the strongest performers, with the majority of respondents satisfied or very satisfied and very few expressing dissatisfaction.
Banasthali Vidyapith, Tonk also demonstrates a positive profile, with nearly three-fourths of respondents satisfied or very satisfied, and minimal dissatisfaction.
Overall, the analysis reveals that infrastructure quality is a key differentiator in institutional reputation, with Udaipur and Tonk performing strongly, while Bharatpur lags significantly.
2.5. Supervisor satisfaction across 5 Major Universities
To assess institutional variation in supervisory quality.
Findings:
At UOR, Jaipur (n=47), the largest share of respondents were satisfied (23), followed by 11 very satisfied, 6 neutral, 3 dissatisfied, and 4 very dissatisfied.
At MSBU, Bharatpur (n=39), the distribution leaned more negative, with 10 very dissatisfied and 5 dissatisfied respondents, while 13 were neutral, 9 satisfied, and only 2 very satisfied.
At PDSU, Sikar (n=33), satisfaction was relatively strong, with 16 satisfied and 6 very satisfied respondents, while 5 were neutral, 4 dissatisfied, and 2 very dissatisfied.
At MLSU, Udaipur (n=34), the pattern was highly positive, with 14 very satisfied and 12 satisfied respondents, while only 4 were neutral, 1 dissatisfied, and 3 very dissatisfied.
Finally, at Banasthali University, Tonk (n=24), satisfaction was also high, with 10 very satisfied and 10 satisfied respondents, while only 3 were neutral and 1 was dissatisfied.
Interpretation
The analysis highlights significant institutional variation in supervisory satisfaction.
UOR, Jaipur shows a positive profile overall, though with some presence of dissatisfaction.
MSBU, Bharatpur reflects the weakest standing, with a relatively high share of dissatisfied and very dissatisfied respondents, and only limited satisfaction.
PDSU, Sikar demonstrates a largely positive outcome, with a majority satisfied or very satisfied, though some neutrality and dissatisfaction remain.
MLSU, Udaipur emerges as the strongest performer, with nearly 80% of respondents satisfied or very satisfied and only minimal dissatisfaction.
Banasthali University, Tonk also displays a strong positive profile, with nearly all respondents expressing satisfaction and only negligible dissatisfaction.
Overall, supervisory quality emerges as a clear institutional differentiator, with Udaipur and Tonk leading, Jaipur and Sikar showing moderate strength, and Bharatpur lagging behind.
Methodology
Very soon
Leave a Reply