THE TAC MODEL: PROCESS AND TEMPORAL DYNAMICS OF THESIS COMPLETION
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aims to analyze the structure of the thesis completion process, temporal behavior, and process-related factors influencing acceleration and delay in thesis completion using a qualitative case study approach. The research instruments included a research timeline record, a plan-versus-actual analysis form, and a reflective process log. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis combined with process analysis. The findings reveal that the thesis completion process can be categorized into four phases: preparation, execution, synthesis, and publication. In the controllable phases, process acceleration occurs due to effective resource utilization, such as proactive planning, parallel task management, and continuous feedback. In contrast, the publication phase is characterized by structural constraints arising from external factors, particularly the peer-review process, leading to delays. Based on these findings, the study proposes the Thesis Acceleration and Constraint Model (TAC Model), which conceptualizes thesis completion as a dual-speed process system. The results suggest that successful thesis completion depends on the ability to balance acceleration mechanisms and structural constraints across different phases of the process. The study contributes to a process-based understanding of thesis completion by explaining how time, resources, and structural constraints interact across different phases of academic work.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The owner of the article does not copy or violate any of its copyright. If any copyright infringement occurs or prosecution, in any case, the Editorial Board is not involved in all the rights to the owner of the article to be performed.
References
Aeon, B., & Aguinis, H. (2017). It’s about time: New perspectives and insights on time management. Academy of Management Perspectives, 31(4), 309–330. DOI: 10.5465/amp.2016.0166
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. DOI: 10.1037/ocp0000056
Becker, S., Jacobsen, M., & Friesen, S. (2025). Four supervisory mentoring practices that support online doctoral students’ academic writing. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1521452. DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1521452
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Claessens, B. J. C., van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Roe, R. A. (2007). A review of the time management literature. Personnel Review, 36(2), 255–276. DOI: 10.1108/00483480710726136
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands–resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Devos, C., Boudrenghien, G., Van der Linden, N., Azzi, A., Frenay, M., Galand, B., & Klein, O. (2017). Doctoral students’ experiences leading to completion or attrition: A matter of sense, progress and distress. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(1), 61–77. DOI: 10.1007/s10212-016-0290-0
Grohnert, T., Gromotka, L., Gast, I., Delnoij, L., & Beausaert, S. (2024). Effective master’s thesis supervision: A summative framework for research and practice. Educational Research Review, 42, Article 100589. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100589
Grover, V. (2007). Successfully navigating the stages of doctoral study. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 2, 9–21. DOI: 10.28945/54
Gupta, S., Fazeli, S., Sameera, V., Pan, C., & Epp, C. D. (2022). Academic writing challenges and supports: Perspectives of international doctoral students and their supervisors. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 891534. DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2022.891534
Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Ahola, K. (2008). The job demands–resources model: A three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work & Stress, 22(3), 224–241. DOI: 10.1080/02678370802379432
Hawari, O. M. A., Al-Shboul, Y., & Huwari, I. F. (2022). Supervisors’ perspectives on graduate students’ problems in academic writing. European Journal of Educational Research, 11(1), 545–556. DOI: 10.12973/eu-jer.11.1.545
Higher Education Standards Committee. (2022). Notification of the Higher Education Standards Committee on graduate program standards B.E. 2565. Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation. https://www.ops.go.th/th/role/edu-standard/item/6943-2022-07-22-03-20-23 [in Thai]
Ivankova, N. V., & Stick, S. L. (2007). Students’ persistence in a distributed doctoral program in educational leadership in higher education: A mixed methods study. Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 93–135. DOI: 10.1007/s11162-006-9025-4
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Rowman & Littlefield.
Macan, T. H. (1994). Time management: Test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3), 381–391. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.79.3.381
Nygaard, L. P. (2017). Publishing and perishing: An academic literacies framework for investigating research productivity. Studies in Higher Education, 42(3), 519–532. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1058351
Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation. (n.d.). Student data. Higher Education Information Dissemination System. https://info.mhesi.go.th/homestat_std.php [in Thai]
OpenAI. (2026). ChatGPT (April 18 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
