The increase in doctoral training is an urgent requirement in Africa today. The continent requires PhD holders to improve existing academic staff in its Universities. Majority of the University academic staff are Master’s degree holders who are unable to teach postgraduate students. PhD holders are also required to boost research in various fields, work in the government, industrial sector and in private firms.
 

Doctorate education boosts the research capacity of universities. Similarly, it is regarded as home to research production in the world knowledge frugality. PhD degree holders are equipped with invaluable training in research and are capable of contributing to the world knowledge frugality [1]. Doctoral studies is the principal role of institutions of higher learning worldwide, that aims to produce highly skilled workers who can be able to transfer that intellectual and technical expertise to various sectors of the economy.
 

Compared to other nations like the US, Australia, Canada and South Africa, Kenya has a low PhD output [2]. In a decade, the US completion rates are at 56.6% [3]. Kenyan Universities have been blamed for low PhD output by doctoral students and the public [4]. The universities in Kenya have been accused for not doing enough to improve the rate of graduation [5]. Many graduate students in Kenya complete their studies after more than 10 years. Majority of these students graduate when they are between 40 and above 50 years which is a concern as they have less than 20 years left to work actively [6].
 

PhD students in Kenya are dropping out of programs due to delays and waste of time by bad supervisors. Some supervisors are rude and arrogant. In global ranking, Kenyan Universities are performing poorly as a result of low graduate rate. High or low completion rates for PhD programs affect global ranking positively and negatively. Most Universities in Kenya are ranked lowly globally because of low research output. It is noted that ranking of Universities globally depends on how PhD programs are completed successfully [7]. Therefore, Kenyan Universities need to be aware that PhD output will affect their ranking, regionally and globally. The Universities need to do more to address obstacles to successful completion of doctoral programs.
 

Globally, the country that attracts a big chunk of doctoral students from within and other countries is the US [8]. This is due to quality education and relevant education. In Africa, South Africa takes the front seat in attraction of 
PhD students from the continent [9]. Completion of PhD programs is the main challenge worldwide. According to Armstrong, none or late completion rates of doctorate programs in United Kingdom fell between 40-50%. The United States had non-completion rates at 50%.
 

Various reasons are attributed to challenges faced by PhD students of Linguistics in Kenya. The factors include; doctoral supervision, work load, funding, lack of enough PhD holders and to the power struggles. Throughout the process of research and writing, supervisors are critical to students pursuing doctoral degrees. Their work is to offer the required support, mentorship and guidance during the writing process. Funding is critical in the sense that fully funded PhD students of Linguistics on scholarship complete their studies within the required time. Those who are self- sponsored and on part time study programs take more time to complete their studies.

Statement of the Problem
In Kenya, majority of PhD candidates in Linguistics take longer to complete their studies than required. Doctoral candidates are supposed to take between 3-4 years to graduate. There are students who registered for doctoral studies in Linguistics, in nine Universities in Kenya in 2008 and by 2020 they are yet to graduate [4]. Such delays raise serious questions on why it has been allowed to drag on for quite some time. This is a big challenge and there is need to find out why universities in Kenya, which offer PhD in Linguistics are falling short of expectations. The challenges have to be addressed by applying better practices used elsewhere. Why is it that? PhD candidates of Linguistics in Kenya take long to complete their studies?
 

Kenya needs many PhD holders in Linguistics and several other areas of specialization. The shortage of PhD holders in various fields is brought about by delays in graduate programs. Currently, Kenya has a shortage of about 30,000 PhDs. It needs to graduate 3,000 PhDs annually in the next ten years to bridge the gap [10]. In Linguistics the country needs 50 PhDs per year. The rate at which PhD students of Linguistics are graduating is alarming. This is causing a lot of concern among all the stakeholders. What are the causes of low PhD graduates in Linguistics in Kenya?

Objectives

•    To find out the supervision practices that delay PhD students of Linguistics in graduating
•    To identify challenges that hinder doctoral students of Linguistics to graduate within the required time

The researcher used face to face interviews and document analysis method of reviewing documents. PhD candidates in Linguistics from Moi, Egerton and Mount Kenya Universities from Kenya were interviewed. The documents to be reviewed are computer based and transmitted through internet. In this method, data is examined and interpreted to bring out meaning, understanding and development of experiential information [11]. Journals, manuals and newspapers which are social facts, are produced for sharing socially in an orderly manner [12]. Document analysis is a method of research applicable to qualitative case studies. The method deals with rigorous studies which produce accounts of an occurrence [13].
 

In this research, online reading resources retrieved from the Online Course for Training African Supervisors on how to supervise doctoral students in African universities were used. Newspaper articles from the dailies in Kenya and other internet materials from journals were also used.
 

The analysis method involves proses of synthesizing data from documents with the aim of making sense out of them. Through content analysis, data is scrutinized in form of excerpts and quotations and then structured in themes [14].
 

The study findings and discussion were discussed in themes as follows.

Lack of Competent Supervisors
At all Kenyan Universities, just like at its counterpart South Africa, it is a requirement that for one to supervise a doctoral candidate, he or she must have a PhD [15]. However, academic staff members with doctorates may be available but with no experience in supervision. This is common in Kenyan Universities because of the growth in numbers of doctoral enrolment, leading to supervision burden. Fresh doctorate graduates are required to supervise their first PhD candidates but they lack experience. Having a doctorate is only a necessity but does not ensure quality in doctoral supervision. Quality supervision entails paying attention to detail and giving quality feedback [16].
 

A supervisor should come up with a structure of the research and share with the student during initial stages of study. This will define mutual expectations on the side of students and supervisor on the other hand. When a student hands in a draft for instance a chapter, the supervisor and student should sit down, go through the draft and provide feedback on the spot.
 

Group sessions should be organized by the supervisor to bring together students under his supervision. The graduate students should be able to meet after a fortnight or monthly to brainstorm on issues about their work. The support group will work towards eliminating lowliness and liminality. The doctoral students also gain confidence and end up developing critical reasoning skills. Both the student and the supervisor have to take responsibility for completion of doctoral studies within reasonable time [17].
 

Some supervisors in Kenyan universities end up doing editorial work. This is attested by some strategies of dissertation writing by Glatthorn and Joyner [18]. The suggestions in their study indicate that Kenyan universities are lacking ingredients such as the role of effective supervision.
 

Editorial work is important but supervisors need to focus on content and research issue. A thesis that does not focus on content ends up being rejected by examiners and the student may be advised to start all over again. According to module 3, theme 5, ‘Supervisor’s Role in the writing process’, DIES/CREST Training Course for Supervisors of PhD students, the role of the supervisor is not to correct the forms of language but to respond to ideas and the way he or she thinks they are linked. The supervisor is supposed to pose questions to the student in the margins of the text. The questions asked to seek elaboration. The student in response will redraft their text to address supervisor’s questions.
 

Supervisors discourage graduate students through wrong communication [10]. In this study, supervisors are advised to avoid tensions that can escalate to hostility. In Kenya, some supervisors give students bad comments on their drafts, which discourage them. The comments are sometimes, harsh, abusive and not insightful. In the Amutabi study of 2018, a respondent (student) gave the following comment from a supervisor:

•    “I have not seen any significant improvement in your work so far. Do not bring chapters for me to look at if you know that there is no significant improvement since the last draft”

Supervisor-Student Relationship
According to Brown and Atkins [19], a good supervisor directs by determining the topic of research and method to be used by providing ideas. A supervisor should facilitate the doctoral process through provision of resources. Further he or she should guide the PhD candidate by suggesting a schedule for writing the thesis, providing feedback and coming up with modalities for collecting data. Through a good supervision process, critiquing of design of enquiring, thesis chapters and data interpretation should be done appropriately. It is also important that a supervisor provides students with a leeway to make decisions and support students’ decisions. Also, supervision process should be friendly. One should be friendly and be ready to even assist the student or show concern to the student’s non-academic matters.
 

Good supervisory relationship should lead to the empowerment of the student. Supervisory relationship should not render students powerless as they will lose ability to make choices and therefore subjected to the prescriptions of others. Empowerment as a process takes place over time. It refers to the amount of control that people have over their ability to make choices [20]. In the context of PhD research, empowerment refers to aspects of control which entail the research identity of the student, development of his or her own voice in scholarship and successful completion of studies [21].
 

Kenyan graduate schools need to borrow widely, from American and European Universities and elsewhere in the world. Good and organized graduate schools would ask students to participate in choosing their advisors and supervisors [22]. The previous records held by a supervisor determines if he or she will be preferred by graduate students or not.

Rogue Supervisors
Some supervisors are rogue [10]. They have a habit of extorting students. In the study, a student was quoted saying:

•    “My supervisor demanded that we meet for lunch or dinner at expensive restaurants and would then pass the bill to me. He also invited us to his son’s graduation ceremony and gave us roles and those who did not attend did not graduate”

Many other doctoral candidates reported cases of extortion. Some dropped out because they could not accept this practice which they deemed as an injustice.

Conflicts among Supervisors
In the study by Amutabi [10]. Conflicts and disagreements between and among supervisors can be detrimental to PhD students. An affected student need to be smart and intelligent enough, otherwise he or she may take too long to graduate or may never graduate. Senior academic staff, in this case Professors may always want to have their way. The junior supervisors many at times are left with little choice but to agree or disagree with senior supervisor politely due to several reasons. The student finds himself or herself in a very awkward situation. In the Amutabi study, a supervisor was quoted telling a student the following:

•    “I will not append my signature on shoddy work. Theses copies are put in the library with some ending up online for everyone to see. I will not jeopardize my academic career by signing this work. If you cannot implement my corrections, let the professor sign alone”

The study revealed that among the causes of delays in graduation, in PhD programs in Linguistics in Kenya, supervision ranked highest. Some students have even dropped out, citing conflicts with their supervisors as the major cause.
 

According to the MoU template [23], “Negotiating the Supervisor Relationship” DIES/CREST Training, in module 3, an MoU should be put in place during which the student and supervisors can clarify on dos and don’ts to make way for a conducive and productive working relationship.

Power Relations and Hierarchies
Power relations are detrimental to the studies of a doctoral candidate. Supervisors have the advantage over the supervisees because they are experts in their respective disciplines and are also privileged with institutional authority. As much as this position is necessary for robust supervision, at times it brings about uneven power relations. Highly uneven power works against healthy discussions. There is a scenario in Module 3, theme 6, DIES/CREST Training, where in the first audio a postgraduate student who has waited for feedback on her last chapter of the thesis says:

•    “It has been two months and I have been waiting for feedback from my supervisor. I send him my last chapter but still waiting for feedback. I don’t know whether he received it, he has not communicated in any way and frustration is driving me out of my mind. I don’t know what I am supposed to do”

This particular student is really frustrated about the delayed feedback, being her last chapter of her project, she is waiting anxiously but no feedback is forthcoming from her supervisor, because her supervisor is in a position of authority, it forces her to wait, however long it takes.
 

Waghid [24] advocates for critical learning that allow the unexpected or “Something new” to emerge. Supervisors are supposed to play the role of embracing social justice responsibility in making contribution to the society by supervising students. The supervisor is supposed to use his or her expertise as part of democratic space to contribute to society by prioritizing the rights of students and facilitating the student to be able to think critically. Supervision process is supposed to be guided by democracy enabling mutual attachment that needs to exist in a student supervisor and relationship.
 

A student needs to open up academically and intellectually to the supervisor so that he or she can be supported formatively to narrow down ideas and make sense out of them for the purpose of enacting democratic justice. Supervisors, through democratic justice become the mirror through which the students see their strengths, weakness and what they need to learn.

Supervisors’ Knowledge on Their Roles and Responsibilities
The DIES/CREST training is a crucial one to PhD supervisors in African universities. This training vividly explains the supervisors’ duties. A supervisor is a mentor and counselor and is supposed to possess knowledge about models and practices of doctorial supervision. The right approaches to supervision are supposed to be put in place to enhance completion rates of doctoral candidates in the Kenyan universities. According to Anne [25], there are five approaches to effective supervision of doctoral candidates: functional, enculturation, critical thinking, emancipation and developing of quality relation.
 

Functional approach entails setting of tasks by the supervisor which are to be handled and accomplished within a particular time frame. For instance a supervisor can give a student three months to complete a proposal. Within the three months there could be weekly meetings to discuss about work progress, corrections and the student directed in what to do. In this approach the supervisor meets the students and addresses them. Schedules are given and each student is told what is expected of him or her during the period of study; three years, four years, five years.
 

In the enculturation approach, the supervisor plays the role of gatekeeper to several learning resources, special opinions and networks. He or she provides specific expertise to the student. The researcher and the supervisor are all present and playing their roles in the research process [26].
 

On critical thinking, the supervisor encourages independence by encouraging the students to think about how to solve problems. The student needs to explain why, what and how a certain conceptual framework or theory is applicable. In critical thinking, a problem is identified, then finding and corrections to it and finally get solutions. During viva, critical thinking becomes very crucial as student is able to explain his or her ideas vividly about the research. If the student can explain reasons for carrying out the research, how data was collected and methods used and how the theory used the study, such student passes the viva, hence avoiding completion delays.
 

Emancipation entails facilitation, support and challenge from the supervisor [27]. The supervisor provides mentorship, assists in conducting research and facilitates the PhD candidate to contribute to the learning exercise. The supervisor acts as the bridge between the knowledge and the student.
 

Relationship development is key to successful and early completion of research. This is enhanced by emotional, intelligent and flexibility of the supervisor [28]. Positive correlation between supervisee and supervisor is key to the research process.

Changing Supervisors
Changing supervisors can be equivalent to committing academic suicide depending on the situation. Notably the most important aspect of a doctoral process is choosing a supervisor. This shapes your doctoral experience and area of research. When an effective relationship is maintained by student and supervisor, the doctoral process becomes a success [29]. The PhD process is not always smooth sailing from the beginning to the end. It is a journey and anything can happen in between. Mostly, it is unlikely that students on the journey of the doctoral process will anticipate change of supervisor. Various reasons may lead to change of supervisors during the PhD process. It may be as a result of stormy student-supervisor relationship. The student can initiate change or by the supervisor. If it happens that change is inevitable then the student need to be honest and communicate well to the new supervisor for smooth transition.
 

In many Kenyan Universities unlike those in Europe, Australia, US and South Africa, students cannot change supervisors even when it is clear the supervisors are under performing [5]. Those who decide to do this end up suffering the consequences. There is unwritten rule that once a student is assigned a supervisor he or she should persevere to the end. In the study by Amutabi [10], a student was quoted saying the following:

•    “A classmate changed supervisors and her dream of acquiring a PhD went up in flames. The departmental members ganged up against him and no one wanted to supervise him. They accused the student of being problematic and he ended up terminating his studies. Trouble for him began when he proposed to drop his supervisor or who was arrogant and delayed in giving feedback”

Such a scenario can be avoided by Universities in Kenya. They should adopt practices used by their counterparts elsewhere, especially in Europe, South Africa, China, Australia and US, where the choice of supervision committee is done in consultation with the student. In Kenya selection is done by departmental heads and schools of post graduate studies without the input of the students. This should be democratic process, but in Kenya it is lacking, resulting to dropouts in doctoral programs and late completion.

Overworked Supervisors
Universities in Kenya have a serious shortage of teaching staff with PhD qualification. In 2019, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology graduated 118 doctorate candidates [30]. This caused an upro`ar among the public and the stakeholders as it had never happened before in any Kenyan University. Commission for University Education launched investigations to ascertain whether regulations were adhered to or not. According to the newspaper article in the Business Daily in Kenya [31], preliminary investigations revealed that, a single supervisor handled 15 PhD students, which raised eyebrows on quality. The problem in Kenya is that most supervisors are assigned more than 10 PhD candidates and more than 18 Master’s Degree students. Some supervisors handle supervision in more than four universities. This leads to late completion, dropouts and compromising of quality output.

Non-Payment of Supervisors
Some universities do not pay for PhD supervision. Supervisors are left demotivated and lack of commitment in their work. Some of them pass the burden to students who are expected to part with money every other time they hand in their various drafts for examination. A student at Mount Kenya University said the following:

•    “It took me 9 years to graduate with a PhD in Linguistics at Mount Kenya University. My first supervisor who submitted my thesis to the external supervisor without appending his signing my work. During the defense, the external supervisor notified the panel that he had examined my work but without the signature of one of the supervisors. That particular sitting was stopped forcing me to wait for another year before finally graduating. Shortly afterwards I discovered that my supervisor deliberately failed to sign my thesis because of not parting money as a token for appreciation to him for supervising me”

If universities can pay for post graduate supervision then such cases will be reduced or eradicated completely.

Lack of Financial Support
Majority of PhD students of Linguistics in Kenya are self-sponsored. Some of them are in regular employment while others are not. Many of those who are employed have several other family obligations and as a result falls short of financing their studies. This challenge compounded with yearly penalty for failure to graduate at universities such as Egerton becomes a nightmare to  some  students.  One  of the PhD candidates at Egerton University had the following to say during an interview:

•    “I almost opted out of my PhD studies in Linguistics due to lack of fees. I wasn’t the only one facing this challenge, but several other candidates. A policy at the university slapped a fine of kshs. 20,000 on every extra year after the required time of 4 years elapses. This created a huge problem for me. It forced me to turn to friends who organized for a fund raiser to bail me out”

The government of Kenya should increase funding for its universities. Then the universities should come with a policy to assist such needy students which will go a long way to assist the needy cases. PhD candidates should also make the necessary financial arrangements before enrolling for their studies.

Corrupt Practices
Some universities lack efficient fees collecting systems. This paves way for rogue officers in the administration and finance sections to manipulate the porous systems for their selfish gains:

•    “I completed my PhD studies in Linguistics at Moi University after 6 years and when I thought my years of agony were over, the finance section informed me that I owed the university kshs. 123,000. At first I thought it was a joke but it never turned out to be. I went ahead and produced the fee payment receipts but I was informed that the payments made did not reflect in the system. After several attempts of arguing out my case to the several relevant offices I gave up. According to the university, no such payments had been made by me. I was left disappointed. I missed my graduation and only graduated the following year after paying the kshs. 123,000”

In the modern world of technology, universities must put in place modern and efficient financial management systems to avoid the suffering of innocent students as in the above case.

Challenges that delay completion or delay doctorate process in Kenya can be rectified. Universities in Kenya through their respective graduate schools should be democratic in supervisor selection to allow students to participate in selecting the person. They should be allowed to choose a person that they are comfortable with.

Graduate handbooks will come in handy for graduate students in Kenya. This should be a requirement for every graduate school. This handbook clearly spell out what roles students and supervisors are supposed to play in the doctoral process.

Many supervisors in Kenya lack the requisite skills for supervising PhD candidates. Kenyan Universities need to come up with programs to train PhD holders how to supervise doctoral programs. Such programs are lacking and therefore, graduate schools should encourage their staff to attend trainings elsewhere, such as DIES/CREST training by Stellenbosch University.

Doctoral supervisors in Kenya should refrain from the gatekeeping mentality so that deserving students are not locked out. Quality should be the yardstick and if a student shows is capable, then such an individual should not be delayed. On the other hand, doctoral students need to develop a thick skin. Doctoral journey is tough hence students should always find ways of survival. Roadblocks erected for them on the way should not discourage them.

1. Nerad, M. et al. “Introduction.” Toward a Global PhD? Forces and Forms in Doctoral Education Worldwide, Edited by Nerad, M. and M. Heggelund, U of Washington, 2008, pp. 3-16.

2. Barasa, P.L. and C. Omulando. Research and PhD Capacities in Sub-Saharan Africa: Kenya Report. African Network for Internationalisation of Education (ANIE), 2018.

3. Sowell, R. et al. Ph.D. Completion and Attrition: Analysis of Baseline Program Data from the Ph.D. Completion Project. Council of Graduate Schools, 2008.

4. Wanzala, O. “Why Master’s, PhD Students Take Long to Graduate in Kenya.” Daily Nation, April 2018, www.nation.co.ke/news/Lecturers--shortage-to-blame-for-low-PhD-degrees/1056-4524136-nsd73g/index.html.

5. Amutabi, N.M. “Why Kenyans Take Forever to Acquire PhDs.” Daily Nation, 2011.

6. Dale, L.Avoiding Thesis and Dissertations Pitfalls: Sixty-One Cases of Problems and Solutions. Bergen and Garvey, 2011.

7. Marconi, G. “Rankings, Accreditations, and International Exchange Students.” IZA Journal of European Labor Studies, vol. 2, 2013, p. 5.

8. Begalla, R. “The Bologna Process and Internationalization for Higher Education in the U.S.” Journal of Teaching in International Business, vol. 24, no. 2, 2013, pp. 65-80.

9. Botha, M.M. “Compatibility between Internationalizing and Africanizing Higher Education in South Africa.” Journal of Studies in International Education, vol. 14, no. 2, 2010, pp. 200-213.

10. Amutabi, M.N. “Social and Political Obstacles in Pursuing PhD Degree in Africa: Interrogating the Problem of Gatekeepers and Structural Obstacles.” Journal of African Interdisciplinary Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, 2018, pp. 126-146.

11. Corbin, J. and A. Strauss. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 3rd ed., Sage, 2008.

12. Atkinson, P.A. and A. Coffey. “Analyzing Documentary Realities.” Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, edited by D. Silverman, 2nd ed., Sage, 1997, pp. 56-75.

13. Stake, R.E.The Art of Case Study Research. Sage, 1995.

14. Labuschagne, A. “Qualitative Research: Airy Fairy or Fundamental?” The Qualitative Report, vol. 8, no. 1, 2003, Article 7. www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-1/labuschagne. html. Accessed January 2009.

15. National Planning Commission. National Development Plan 2030: Our Future, Make It Work. Course Material of Module 1 of the DIES/CREST Training Course for Supervisors of Doctoral Candidates at African Universities, Stellenbosch University, 2012.

16. Mouton, J. et al. ASSAf Tracer Study of University Graduates in the Social Sciences, Humanities and Arts. Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology (CREST), Stellenbosch University, 2012.

17. Haksever, A.M. and E. Manisali. “Assessing Supervision Requirements of PhD Students: The Case of Construction Management and Engineering in the UK.” European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 25, no. 1, 2000, pp. 19-32.

18. Glatthorn, A.A. and R.L. Joyner. Writing the Winning Thesis/Dissertation: A Step by Step Guide. Corwin Press, 2005.

19. Brown, G. and M. Atkins. “Academic Staff Training in British Universities: Results of a National Survey.” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 11, no. 1, 1989, pp. 29-42.

20. Kabeer, N.Negotiating the Supervisory Relationship. Course Material of Module 3 of the DIES/CREST Training Supervisors of Doctoral Candidates at African Universities, Stellenbosch University, 2005.

21. Lee, A.Negotiating the Supervisory Relationship. Course Material of Module 3 of the DIES/CREST Training Supervisors of Doctoral Candidates at African Universities, Stellenbosch University, 2007.

22. Jiranek, V. “Potential Predictors of Timely Completion among Dissertation Research Students at an Australian Faculty of Sciences.” International Journal of Doctoral Studies, vol. 5, 2010, pp. 1-13.

23. MoU Template. Negotiating the Supervisor Relationship. Course Material of Module 3 of the DIES/CREST Training Supervisors of Doctoral Candidates at African Universities, Stellenbosch University, 2017.

24. Waghid, Y.Education, Democracy and Citizenship Revisited: Pedagogic Encounters. African Sun Media, 2010.

25. Anne, L.Supervisory Approaches and Styles. Course Material of Module 4 of the DIES/CREST Training Supervisors of Doctoral Candidates at African Universities, Stellenbosch University, 2008.

26. Brew, A. “Conceptions of Research: A Phenomenographic Study.” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 26, 2001, pp. 271-285.

27. Pearson, M. and C. Kayrooz. “Enabling Critical Reflection on Research Supervisory Practice.” International Journal for Academic Development, vol. 9, no. 1, 2004, pp. 99-116.

28. Wisker, G. et al. “Recognising and Overcoming Dissonance in Postgraduate Student Research.” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 28, no. 1, 2003, pp. 91-105.

29. Zhao, C.M. et al. “More than a Signature: How Advisor Choice and Advisor Behaviour Affect Doctoral Student Satisfaction.” Journal of Further and Higher Education, vol. 31, no. 3, 2007, pp. 263-281.

30. Wanzala, O. “JKUAT Report on Questionable PhD Degrees.” Daily Nation, October 2019, www.nation.co.ke/news/ Lecturers--shortage-to-blame-for-low-PhD-degrees/1056-4524136-nsd73g/index.html.

31. Business Daily, Kenya. “Why Only One out of 10 PhD Students in Kenya Complete Their Studies.” Business Daily, 2019.