doctoral research project

LET US HELP

Welcome to Capella

Select your program and we'll help guide you through important information as you prepare for the application process.

FIND YOUR PROGRAM

Connect with us

A team of dedicated enrollment counselors is standing by, ready to answer your questions and help you get started.

• Capella University Blog
• PhD/Doctorate

The difference between a dissertation and doctoral capstone

May 30, 2023

Estimated reading time:  3-4 minutes

If you’ve been researching doctoral degrees, you may notice that virtually all PhD programs require a dissertation, while some professional doctorates require a doctoral capstone or an alternative doctoral project.

So, what’s the difference between the two?

What do a dissertation and doctoral capstone have in common?

All doctoral programs help prepare students to contribute evidence-based practice in their field. Students learn to apply leadership principles and strategies that promote community support, diversity and individuality in the workplace, and the community.

Completing either a dissertation or a doctoral capstone requires intense preparation and a strong foundation in writing and critical thinking. Both culminate in a final document or project that demonstrates a broadened knowledge of relevant theory and practice. 

What are the main differences between a dissertation and a doctoral capstone? 

The Capella doctoral experience offers a good comparison of the two types of final project.

The Capella dissertation is a traditional five-chapter research document that you’ll develop as you work with a faculty mentor and dissertation committee members. It’s meant to be a work of high-quality academic research that contributes to your field of study.

The doctoral capstone can take many different forms depending on your program, your specialization or area of interest within your subject and other variables. Working with a faculty mentor and committee, you’ll complete a project that offers solutions or improvements to a real-world problem relevant to your field of study. 

• Project focus
• Project deliverable
• Deliverable detail

Doctoral Capstone

• Extends or applies research to solve a real-world problem
• Provides a solution to a problem within a specific organizational setting
• Presents the results in a deliverable (paper, product, or portfolio) and a final report that describes the creation of the deliverable

Dissertation

• Involves a quest for new knowledge to solve a real-world problem
• Addresses a research problem in one field of specialization
• Involves either quantitative or qualitative research methods
• Paper, Product or Portfolio
• Action research
• Clinical Research Paper
• Program Curriculum
• Change Management Plan
• Chapter 1. Introduction and Statement of the Problem
• Chapter 2. Literature Review
• Chapter 3. Methodology
• Chapter 4. Data Analysis and Results
• Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Ready to explore the doctoral path that could work best for you? Capella University offers PhD and professional doctorate degree programs ranging from business and education to health care and technology.

Learn more about Capella’s online doctoral programs.

You may also like

Can I transfer credits into a doctoral program?

January 8, 2020

What are the steps in writing a dissertation?

December 11, 2019

What you need to know about paying for your doctorate

November 11, 2019

Start learning today

Get started on your journey now by connecting with an enrollment counselor. See how Capella may be a good fit for you, and start the application process.

Please Exit Private Browsing Mode

Your internet browser is in private browsing mode. Please turn off private browsing mode if you wish to use this site.

Are you sure you want to cancel?

• 24/7 : +1-866-687-2258

[email protected]

What is a Doctoral Research Project?

• April 8, 2024

Table of Contents

Pursuing a Doctorate in Business Administration (DBA), students embark on a comprehensive journey culminating in the Doctoral Research Project (DRP). This capstone experience bridges the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application, serving as a critical step in a student’s academic and professional development at California Intercontinental University.

Doing a DRP is about getting your hands dirty in real-world problem-solving. The Doctoral Research Project is an in-depth research project that challenges students to identify and solve real-world business problems . This endeavor not only tests their ability to apply academic theories but also their skills in creating viable solutions that have the potential to influence industry practices.

The beauty of the DRP lies in its global perspective. Students have the liberty to pinpoint research topics from corners far and wide, paving the way for a rich understanding of international business landscapes and strategies .

Why opt for a DBA with a Doctoral Research Project?

Flexibility is king in the DBA program. Tailored for the modern professional, this distance learning powerhouse allows learners to juggle their studies with personal and professional life.At CIU, it’s the main way to earn a DBA without a dissertation.

Plus, a DRP ensures a supporting learning environment. Despite the virtual setup, California Intercontinental University ensures a nurturing environment. A dedicated team of faculty members and student service advisors stands by to guide, encourage, and provide feedback to students . feedback, making the solitary journey of research feel less lonely.

Then, there’s a plus of a wide array of diverse experiences . The faculty’s global diversity enriches the learning experience, offering students insights from various cultural and professional backgrounds. This diversity enhances the quality of research and the depth of learning.

Navigating the Doctoral Research Project Journey

This journey from core courses to the final DRP submission is meticulous, fostering a focused and impactful research mentality. Regular faculty interactions are vital to this process, ensuring students stay on track and deeply engaged.

To make it short:

• Core coursework lays the groundwork with crucial business acumen.
• Then, students start their DRP, which takes 1 to 1 ½ years of research.
• The DRP is expected to be succinct – about 70 to 110 pages .

The foundation of a DRP is the core coursework. The journey begins with core courses designed to prepare students for their research. These courses cover essential business disciplines , providing a solid foundation to build their DRP.

Completing the DRP typically takes one to one and a half years , depending on the student’s dedication and the complexity of the research. Regular interactions with faculty are essential for maintaining progress.

A focused approach is recommended for the DRP, with suggested lengths between 70 to 110 pages to ensure clarity and conciseness. This guideline helps students to avoid unnecessary detail and maintain a clear research focus.

Resources and Support for DRP Students

CIU offers additional support through editing services, ensuring that each DRP meets the highest academic standards . This meticulous attention to detail ensures that students present their research professionally.

The DRP process is supported by a network of faculty members and advocates who provide specialized guidance. This comprehensive support system is vital for overcoming challenges and achieving success.

The Global and Practical Impact of DRP

The DRP benefits from CIU’s global community of students and faculty, offering diverse perspectives on business challenges and fostering an environment of international collaboration.

Meanwhile, the DRP’s emphasis on addressing specific business problems ensures that students’ research has practical implications , preparing them for impactful career roles.

Reflections on the DRP Experience

Dr. Camila Lopes, CIU’s Doctoral Research Coordinator, describes the DRP as challenging yet immensely rewarding . It is an opportunity for students to demonstrate their ability to conduct meaningful research and contribute to their field.

The Doctoral Research Project is a cornerstone of the DBA program, blending intellectual rigor with practical innovation. It’s a conduit between scholarly concepts and tangible business solutions, shaping students into future leaders ready to navigate and influence the business world.

Completing a DRP and earning a DBA signifies a significant academic and professional achievement . It highlights a commitment to excellence and a readiness to address complex business issues.

Doctoral Research Project: In Summary

The Doctoral Research Project is a cornerstone of the DBA program, blending intellectual rigor with practical innovation . It’s a conduit between scholarly concepts and tangible business solutions, shaping students into future leaders ready to navigate and influence the business world.

For those considering a DBA, the journey through a DRP offers an unparalleled opportunity to deepen their expertise, expand their professional network, and achieve their career goals .

Start at CIU Now!

With this form, I authorize California Intercontinental University to contact me by phone or sms at the wireless or home number above, or by email, regarding degree options, tuition or the enrollment process. This consent is not required before I enroll.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Read More Blog Posts

DBA vs PhD: What’s the difference in Business Administration?

Get to know your Success Partner: Student Success Advocate

DBA vs MBA: Understanding the Differences

100% online, accredited, & on your schedule. enroll today class starts soon, contact info.

California Intercontinental University

 101 South Reid Street, Suite 307, Sioux Falls, SD 57103

+1-866-687-2258

Accreditations & Approvals

© 2024. CIU

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Building a Foundation for a Successful Doctoral Student Journey: A Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Investigation

Dannelle d. stevens.

College of Education, Portland State University, Portland, OR USA

Micki M. Caskey

Doctoral students’ program non-completion continues to be a worldwide phenomenon. Given the challenges across the globe following the 2020-22 pandemic, we need scholarly and skilled PhD and education (EdD) doctoral program graduates. A place to look for retention improvement is by studying what students learn and how they are taught in their university doctoral programs. One purpose of this case study was to describe how 12 EdD students in a program seminar responded to instruction in research and writing strategies during their first year of a four-year program. The second purpose was to examine student responses to formative assessments and describe and explain ongoing instructional adjustments using a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) framework within our own faculty community of practice. Analysis of surveys and student work indicated that writing and research strategies were instructive, engaging, and useful in building research and writing foundations. Analysis of multiple formative assessments helped us refine our instructional strategies during the year. Because all students completed the first high stakes program milestone (comprehensive paper) in year two, our findings suggested that the seminar’s instructional strategies established a foundation for student success and timely program progress. Using multiple formative assessments over time was critical in strengthening our teaching practice as well. We recommended instructional practices associated with student research and writing skill development as well as student progress and retention.

If the 2020–2022 pandemic taught us anything, it was the interconnectedness of people across the globe. The pandemic caused major tears in the fabric that connects our lives in the social, economic, and political sectors. Higher education worldwide was not immune to the serious disruptions caused by COVID-19, the stealth virus underlying the pandemic. Universities and colleges cancelled classes, discontinued programs, and some closed their doors forever (Reis & Grady, 2020 ). The pandemic forced faculty and students to look deep inside their typical teaching and learning practices to find survival strategies.

Despite disruptions, universities need to fulfill the societal expectations for doctoral program graduates to be highly qualified and curious people who can address complex and multi-faceted problems. Doctoral program graduates add to the intellectual and creative firepower to douse our fears and lead us out of numerous and pervasive economic, educational, political, social, and health care challenges, revealed by the pandemic. EdD doctoral students are being prepared to address complex problems in their real world of practice. Because faculty are teaching the next generation of real-world problem-solvers, what they teach and how they teach becomes the foundation for research-informed practices of educational leaders in the future (Golde, 2006 ).

During the current educational context, faculty continue to be responsible for refining doctoral student research skills and fostering the development of educational leaders who address enduring problems of practice and contribute creative and research-grounded solutions in universities, schools, or other educational settings. Identifying practices that ensure doctoral student completion is essential in improving doctoral programs that invite, support, and sustain future educational leaders. Yet, even before the pandemic, a lingering problem in higher education worldwide was the number of doctoral students who enter but do not complete their studies (Lindsay, 2015 ). In the United States, more than 50% of PhD doctoral students do not complete their degrees (Church, 2009 ). In other countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom, the pattern of PhD non-completion degrees is also evident ranging from around 35–45% non-completion for full time students (Park, 2005 ). Unfortunately, most of the doctoral retention statistics are focused on PhD programs and do not include professional practice doctorates like the EdD. Given the pervasive impact of the pandemic on health, families, and even research funding (de Wit & Altbach, 2021 ), doctoral student completion rates are more likely to be impacted. However, according to Flaherty ( 2021 ), “It’s almost certain that COVID-19 played a role in how many students were able to finish their Ph.D.s… but it’s unclear from the data [Davies, 2020] how big a role” (p. 1). Yet, our 2002–2010 review of our own doctoral program in a U.S. urban comprehensive university shows our EdD students following a similar pattern as PhD students with an average of 45% non-completion rate.

Is doctoral student non-completion a worthwhile problem? Some say low retention and completion rates are acceptable because the programs are weeding out students who unprepared for the rigors of graduate work (Smallwood, 2004 ). Yet, others say that non-completion in U.S. doctoral education merits not only student but institutional attention (Lovitts, 2001 ; Park, 2005 ). With potential feelings of disappointment and, even failure, the psychological cost for doctoral program student dropouts is high (Lovitts, 2001 ; Smallwood, 2004 ). Because minority students tend to leave their programs at a higher rate than White students (Smallwood, 2004 ), the psychological cost for the minority student community is an additional concern for our core social justice values. Research seems to indicate that when faculty are sensitive and responsive to student needs in their teaching and interactions, students seem to be more engaged and, therefore, more likely to be successful (Amrein-Beardsley et al., 2012 ; Grant et al., 2014 ; Lee & Boud, 2003 ; Wellington, 2010 ; Zambo et al., 2014 ). In fact, a substantial body of research has demonstrated that faculty practices can have a powerful effect on undergraduate student success (Delmas & Childs, 2021 ; Tight, 2020 ; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005 ).

Some researchers sought to disentangle factors that undergird the lack of doctoral student program completion and looked for ways to support students through completion (Ahern & Manathunga, 2004 ; Bastalich et al., 2014 ; Lindsay, 2015 ; Zambo et al., 2014 ). Mentoring offered critical support (Caffarella & Barnett, 2000 ; Hilliard, 2012 ; Kamler, 2008 ; Mullen, 2001 ; Simpson & Matsuda, 2008 ; Thein & Beach, 2010 ). Writing groups fostered much needed peer support (Aitchison, 2009 ; Aitchison & Lee, 2006 ). Hilliard ( 2012 ) zeroed in on advisor quality:

…it is important for the advisor to continue to practice positive professional relationships and provide relevant academic support to candidates. The advisor should work closely with other faculty members and listen to the voices of candidates to ensure candidates’ success. (p. 7)

Another program practice, a cohort experience upon entry and throughout an EdD program, increased student retention and success (Friesen & Jacobsen, 2021 ; Zambo et al., 2013 ).

Many doctoral programs prepare candidates to earn either a PhD or an education doctorate (EdD). Many EdD students do not fit the traditional image of PhD graduate students (McAlpine et al., 2009 ). Typical PhD students attend the university full time with and spend their time teaching, assisting in a class, or doing research in a laboratory, and are fully immersed in a university setting. Whereas most EdD students seek to complete a degree while working full time in a professional setting, they can remain unaware and out-of-touch with the university campus facilities and student services (Taylor, 2007 ). Friesen and Jacobsen ( 2021 ) offer a more extensive discussion and comprehensive comparison of the EdD and PhD.

Preparation for a doctoral program most often begins with a master’s degree; yet master’s degree programs in education vary. Entering EdD doctoral students have very disparate master’s degree experiences, especially with academic writing and research. Some arrive grounded in the language and expectations surrounding research because they wrote a master’s thesis. Others complete a master’s program that offers in-depth understandings of the nature and practice of research as well as authentic research experiences, a strong foundation for an EdD degree (Brown et al., 2021 ; Jacobsen et al., 2018b ). Still other master’s students may write and publish an article based on their research. For these three groups of master’s students, their background knowledge may bode well for a smooth transition to doctoral writing and research expectations. However, other EdD students may have earned their master’s degree alongside a teaching credential, and, therefore, lack essential research knowledge and experience. In addition, as working professionals, many EdD students may be returning to the university later in life. For some, the socialization practices of writing, studying, and relationship-building among students in graduate school may be unknown (Sverdlik et al., 2018 ). International EdD students may be full time students like typical PhD students and yet can be at a disadvantage because academic literacies for reading research and writing are in a second language. To combat attrition, university faculty need to design programs that account for this variance in master’s degree experience.

In recent years, many U.S. faculty doctoral programs have banded together to design EdD programs that better meet student needs, seek to increase student retention, and strengthen the potentially significant contribution of the EdD graduate to research-informed educational practice. Through a cross-institutional network, Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED 2021 ) offers convenings and resources for faculty restructuring doctoral programs with the working professional in mind. In its underlying philosophy, CPED views education doctoral students as strong educational leaders who improve their schools and communities through research-informed practices. Then, EdD recipients can apply their research skills in their professional practice. Thus, CPED encourages faculty to aim their EdD programs at developing scholarly practitioners. The program goals are to teach doctoral students the skills, dispositions, and orientations to go forth into the world as problem-solvers in their professional practice settings. CPED EdD programs are designed to increase student retention and build solid research skills and practices without sacrificing the rigor of PhD programs (Shulman et al., 2006 ).

Our research was situated in an education doctoral program at an urban comprehensive university in the Western United States. Following interactions with CPED colleagues, we modified our program to meet the needs of our specific students. Our revised student learning outcomes included key elements from CPED: building a professional knowledge base, enhancing collaborative skills, and applying research-informed knowledge to the real-world problems in the workplace. In our own seminar, we sought to develop these CPED outcomes through encouraging interactions within a student community of practice (Wenger, 1998 ) where students reflected and applied their rich practical and professional background to real-world problems as scholarly practitioners (McClintock, 2004 ; Teeuwsen et al., 2014 ; Zambo et al., 2013 ). Thus, we expected our students to be scholars and apply that scholarly foundation to assess and address problems of practice in their professional settings.

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

Our study focused on describing and explaining the experiences of two groups: our education doctoral students and us, the instructors. We used situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991 ) to frame our research. Within our faculty group, we used a conceptual framework: the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) (Felten, 2013 ). Referencing the SoTL framework in our investigation enhanced our research credibility (Billot et al., 2017 ). To share ideas and work together as faculty under the SoTL umbrella, we also used the practices of mutual engagement , joint enterprise , and shared repertoire (Wenger, 1998 ), key components of a community of practice (Tierney et al., 2020 ).

Situated Learning and Communities of Practice

When describing situated learning theory, Lave and Wenger ( 1991 ) explained that “learning is not merely situated in practice—as if it were some independently reifiable process that just happened to be located somewhere; learning is an integral part of generative social practice in the lived-world” (p. 35). In other words, social interaction and shared experiences lead to learning within a specific context. Situated learning experiences contrast with classroom experiences in which knowledge remains abstract and without context. In our program, we situated learning within the doctoral seminar to engage our students with experiences to build academic writing and research knowledge. As instructors our learning was situated in the doctoral student seminar and based on student responses to activities and experiences related to academic writing and research.

Lave and Wenger ( 1991 ) described the generative social practice, situated learning, as “legitimate peripheral participation” (p. 29)—a process by which newcomers become members of a “community of practice” (p. 29). Over time and through active participation within the community, members acquire more knowledge and experience; the newcomers or novice learners move from the periphery of the community to the center of learning community alongside the old-timers or expert learners. Peripheral participation is not just any participation but participation in the legitimate or authentic activities that signify the community’s unique qualities. In our case, we included assignments and classroom activities that mirrored the typical work and expectations of an academic community, such as submission of an Institutional Review Board application and presenting a research poster. Key features of a community of practice included mutual engagement , joint enterprise , and shared repertoire (Wenger, 1998 ).

Our goal was for students to experience working in a community of practice where they could tap their experiences as leaders and working professionals and, through legitimate participation, move toward the identity of scholarly practitioners and meet personal and professional needs (Caskey et al., 2020 ; Foot et al., 2014 ; Olson & Clark, 2009 ).

Because writing and research are essential throughout any doctoral program, we hoped that our students would succeed in the short run, within the first year, completing the high stakes comprehensive examination core paper, and, in the long run, within the four-year program plan, the dissertation.

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

To observe and evaluate how our instructional practices supported student learning in a community of practice, we formed our own faculty community of practice. In his SoTL framework, Felten ( 2013 ) argued that “[F]or scholarly inquiry into student learning to be recognized as significant intellectual work in the academy, we (the community of practitioners) need to articulate our shared norms, our common principles of good practice of inquiry into student learning” (p. 122). We identified connections between Felten’s principles of SoTL practice and our instructional context (see Table  1 ).

Application of SoTL Principles of Practice to Instructional Context

Our faculty community of practice included Wenger’s ( 1998 ) key indicators: mutual engagement , joint enterprise , and shared repertoire . Our mutual engagement entailed collaborating in planning, teaching, assessing, and reflecting on our teaching. We shared a common passion for teaching but had little experience in collaborating to teach the same class. With our overall shared goal of student learning, we were risk-takers and willing to try new methods. Being professors, we had extensive experience as university faculty; yet we had little experience working with a cohort of doctoral students over a year. Our joint enterprise required us to respond to situations as they arose as well as be consistent in our observation and reflection practices. From student formative assessments and our own reflections, we determined what was important, what to discuss, and what actions to take. Before each seminar, we met to develop the agenda. Afterwards, we took notes in our journals to reflect on what worked and what did not. Then we shared the notes with each other and used our observations and reflections to collaborate and develop the agenda and activities for the next seminar. We also rotated giving written feedback on student work every week. By developing a shared repertoire of practice, we developed a coherence in our community of practice through our instructional routines, activities, and strategies. Using the SoTL framework and working in a community of practice, we took a stance as investigators examining student responses to our instructional practices not as evaluators judging the merits of our teaching.

Based on the SoTL framework we had four assumptions about our process. First, data is valued and used regularly : we collected and analyzed formative assessments as information not evaluation. Second, reflection improves practice : we not only talked about our teaching; we wrote and shared reflections from our journals about our teaching. Third, teaching is a work-in-progress : we could never be perfect as teachers; the best stance was to view teaching as a journey not a destination and to learn from that journey to foster student learning. Finally, collaboration strengthens practice : we were present in all the seminar classes; when one of us was not teaching, the other was observing and taking notes. Our collaboration was based on what we did and how we did it. In Fig.  1 , we illustrated the components of our faculty community of practice as applied to our SoTL project.

Application of SOTL to Our Faculty Community of Practice

We had two overarching research questions:

• How did doctoral students respond to the seminar experiences within a community of practice?
• Using a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning lens, what did we learn from our students about our teaching practices in our own community of practice?

Our study’s purposes were to (a) describe and explain how 12 EdD students responded to seminar experiences, and (b) apply a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning conceptual framework to our instructional practices to improve our teaching and impact student learning.

In the methods section, we articulate our use of a qualitative case study method: describing the context, participants, and seminar features, identifying the data sources, and reporting methods of data analysis.

We used a qualitative case study design because we were interested in investigating how our doctoral program seminar features helped our students be successful. In a case study, researchers investigate “a contemporary phenomenon (the ‘case’) in depth and within its real-world context…” (Yin, 2009 , p. 16). A case study is developed within a specific bounded system (Creswell, 2013 ; Merriam, 2009 ). Thus, a case study method was appropriate for discovering and interpreting our EdD students’ and our own learning experiences within that bounded system, the doctoral seminar.

Our educational doctoral program was in a Northwestern United States urban comprehensive university with an enrollment of approximately 28,600 students. Following a three-year pilot, our revised program admitted a cohort of 24 students to the 72-credit program comprised of courses, seminars, internships, and milestones (see Table  2 ). During the first year of our four-year doctoral program in an evening format which met fall, winter, and spring quarters, the full cohort took the three-course educational theory sequence. During the second year as foundation for developing their dissertation proposal by the end of the second year, the full cohort took the three-course research sequence.

EdD Program of Study with Milestones by Year

* Quarter credits

** Completed at the end of Year 1

The program also divided the full cohort into two smaller seminars to develop learning communities that met over three terms in each of the first two years of the program. This investigation focused on our experience as instructors with the smaller learning community, the doctoral seminar. In the second year we also supervised the students in a workplace internship where they piloted their ideas for their dissertation research. At the end of the second year, we wanted our students to be prepared to work with an advisor and defend the dissertation proposal during the third year and, finally, in the fourth year, to gather data and defend their dissertation.

Participants: Students

Our participants, 12 EdD students, were in the small learning community seminar. Most were female (9), spoke English as their first language (9), and were currently working professionals (9). About one-third of our students (4) were non-native speakers of English; of these, three were international students and former working professionals. The other eight held positions as adjunct faculty in education (3), teachers (2), a school administrator (1), an educational consultant (1), and a higher education administrator (1). Thus, many were currently grappling with the complex problems of practice in their professional settings. Their experience with academic writing and conducting research varied. Seven of 12 our students wrote a thesis for their master’s degree, while five completed a teacher work sample for a teaching credential and master’s degree.

Participants: Faculty

We, two female, White, and English-speaking professors, taught the doctoral student seminars. Prior to co-teaching in the doctoral program, we had taught in the same department for 14 years; we drew on extensive experience as public-school teachers. We were adept at developing curriculum, comfortable in the classroom, and experienced in teaching university classes for more than 30 combined years. We had served on student doctoral committees as advisors and committee members. Yet, we were new to co-planning curriculum and co-teaching a year-long doctoral student seminar.

Doctoral Seminar

We designed our doctoral seminar with two communities of practice in mind—the student community of practice and the faculty community of practice. To describe this seminar and the resulting communities of practice we will focus on two questions: how did we teach and what did students learn.

How Did We Teach? To guide students’ development of academic writing skills and knowledge of research methods, we used the cognitive apprenticeship instructional method (Collins, 2006 ) with an emphasis on modeling, coaching , and scaffolding . We applied this method often, as illustrated by the following example: how to develop an argument for a manuscript. First, we modeled how we used the one-page argument template (Graff & Birkenstein, 2018 ; Stevens, 2019 ) on our own manuscripts. Then, we coached the students as they used the template to frame the argument for their own research problem of practice for their comprehensive paper. After they developed their argument, we scaffolded the refinement of their argument to fit within their comprehensive paper using faculty and peer feedback within their small writing groups. We followed this instructional pattern of modeling, coaching, and scaffolding for teaching students how to do focused freewrites (Stevens & Cooper, 2009 ), write key sentences, develop an abstract, write an Institutional Review Board (IRB) proposal, set writing goals, and work in writing groups (Stevens, 2019 ). A fuller description of our research related to the use of the cognitive apprenticeship appeared in another manuscript (Caskey & Stevens, 2021 ).

The writing challenge for students was to develop their research and writing skills and, for the comprehensive exam paper, to identify a problem of practice and analyze it through the three theoretical perspectives taught in the program courses: learning, leadership, and program/policy. When students submitted successive drafts, we gave feedback and directed their attention to strategies and rhetorical structures that undergird academic writing (Stevens, 2019 ). For each draft, we used the track changes and comment features in MS (Microsoft) WORD™ and uploaded students’ drafts with our embedded feedback to their folder in the course management system. We created writing groups—smaller communities of practice in which our students set writing goals to be accountable for progress and to experience the shift of roles as readers (reviewers) and contributors (writers) (Guerin et al., 2015 ). We allocated at least 30 minutes of class time for their writing groups and expected groups to meet weekly for an hour outside of class. Their goals were to integrate faculty and peer feedback on three authentic assignments: the IRB proposal, the mini-research project, and the comprehensive paper.

What Did Students Learn? We wanted our students to learn how to be better thinkers and writers as well as become more familiar and comfortable with conducting research. We found that other doctoral programs included content about research ethics and expectations of IRB approval for student projects (Jacobsen et al., 2018a ) as well as opportunities for students to design action-oriented research experiences (Murakami-Ramalho et al., 2013 ). We created low-stakes assignments that helped students become conversant with research terminology and procedures—without the high-stakes expectations of a dissertation proposal. For example, our doctoral students designed a mini-research project about their selected topic but had only one to three research participants. The research design paper included a title, abstract, a two to three-page introduction with a concise argument and a clear purpose, a brief two-three page literature review, and methods identifying participants and data collection tools. Next, after an introduction to the ethics of conducting research and analysis of one of our own IRB proposals, students developed a proposal for their mini-research project and submitted it to the university’s IRB. Once the university approved their project, they collected the data. During the seminars, they worked on data analysis, interpretation, displays, and summaries. Using our research poster template, they shared their posters with the full cohort of doctoral students in a mock-conference format. Although their proposal was a full manuscript, the only outcome to present the results was a poster presentation. We documented the impact of these experiences on students’ identity as researchers in a prior publication (Caskey et al., 2020 ).

Data Collection

Our study focus used two data sets: completion of seminar assignments and responses to a series of anonymous formative assessments. Completion of key seminar assignments would demonstrate student’s engagement and success. The series of anonymous formative assessments would tell us, the instructors, what teaching methods and situated learning experiences impacted their learning. To conduct our study, we secured approval from our university’s IRB.

Key Seminar Assignments

We examined student completion of IRB proposal with university approval, mini-research project, and successive drafts of the comprehensive paper, a program milestone that all students needed to pass for continuation into the program’s second year.

Formative Assessments

Because we were curious about student learning and improving our practice, we used multiple formative assessments over time to learn how students responded to our assignments and teaching methods. In Table  3 , we listed the three, anonymous formative assessments along with collection dates. In February, we administered the first formative assessment—a Plus-Wishes chart. Students listed positive aspects of the program in the left column (Plus) and aspects that needed to change in the right column (Wishes). The chart included a narrative section for students to share their thoughts about their experiences in the doctoral seminar. Because we situated their learning within a community of practice, we gave students time to complete this open-ended chart in the seminar.

Formative Assessments of Doctoral Student Seminar Experiences

In March, we conducted our second formative assessment, the Experiences Questionnaire, which had two questions: “What two experiences stood out for you?” and “Please describe those experiences.” In this second assessment, we wanted students to distill their experiences into the most significant ones and invited their suggestions for improvement. Again, we provided students with time to complete this questionnaire during the seminar.

The final formative assessment was the Critical Incident Questionnaire (CIQ) (Brookfield, 2017 ), which we administered once a month for three months: April, May, June. Brookfield ( 2017 ) argued the CIQ could help faculty understand students’ perspectives and experiences and gain a more nuanced understanding of learning experiences. Because we were aware of the broader brushstrokes of what seemed to be working in our seminars, we used the CIQ to seek a clearer understanding about how specific assignments and activities worked within their student community of practice.

Data Analysis

First, we tabulated the completion of the three seminar assignments: an IRB proposal, mini-research project, and successive drafts of comprehensive paper. Collecting and analyzing student responses to our teaching was part of our SoTL work, where data collected from students are used to improve teaching practice, not evaluate whether we are “good teachers” or not. We analyzed the formative assessment data each month in February, March, April, and May. We collaborated on the formative assessment analysis using a constant comparative method to identify patterns during an open-ended coding process (Merriam, 2009 ). After reading and re-reading the data, we compared data segments “to determine similarities and differences” (Merriam, 2009 , p. 30) and assigned data to tentative categories that informed our instructional decisions. After reflecting on the data each month, we adjusted our instruction. Finally, we reviewed the clustered responses across the data to identify themes and select representative verbatim quotes for this paper.

During our two years of teaching the doctoral seminar, we studied our EdD students’ development as researchers and writers as well as our instructional methods. First, we examined the development of their identity as researchers as measured by the pre-post administration of the draw-a-researcher test (Caskey et al., 2020 ), which we based on the classic draw-a-scientist test (Finson, 2002 , 2009 ; Foutz et al., 2015 ). We learned that our embedded writing support model contributed to the development of a researcher identity. Second, we conducted an end-of-year multi-level survey to zero in on our teaching method of modeling, coaching, and scaffolding in the cognitive apprenticeship model (Caskey & Stevens, 2021 ).

For this case study, we examined student assignment completion and formative assessments to investigate both our EdD students’ and our instructor doctoral seminar experiences. These two data sources connected specifically to the two purposes of this case study.

Purpose I: Describing and Explaining Students’ Responses to Seminar Assignments

To begin, we summarize the findings from three seminar assignments: IRB proposal, mini-research project, and comprehensive paper. Student learning was situated within the doctoral seminar. All 12 students completed and submitted an IRB proposal and received university approval before conducting their mini-research project. First, they acquired the skill and confidence to complete the IRB proposal. Within this student community of practice, they shared ideas and engaged in the mutual practice of writing an IRB proposal. Second, our EdD students designed, conducted, and presented a mini-research project. All 12 EdD students excelled at initiating and completing these two authentic, low-stakes assignments.

All students also turned in and received feedback on successive drafts of the comprehensive paper throughout the first year. They learned to incorporate extensive instructor feedback and respond to peer feedback within the safe space of the seminar. Again, student learning was situated within the doctoral seminar. This student community of practice allowed them to live the process of building a writing practice (Guerin et al., 2015 ) as evidenced by all 12 successfully completing and defending the comprehensive paper on time. Success on the seminar assignments seemed to bode well for student retention and program completion in this first year of the program. Although we could not attribute their final success in the program to the year-long seminar, 11 of 12 EdD students (92%) completed their dissertations and doctorate within the four-year timeline.

Purpose II: Improving Our Teaching and Student Learning Using a SoTL Perspective

In this section, we delineate the findings derived from our analysis of the three formative assessments: Plus-Wishes Chart, Experiences Questionnaire, and Critical Incident Questionnaires.

Plus-Wishes Chart

In February of the first year, we used an open-ended Plus-Wishes Chart to assess what was working in the program (plus) and what needed to change (wishes). This first assessment served as a mid-year assessment allowing us to make informed instructional decisions based on student feedback. Students listed aspects of the program on a plus as well as listed others on the wishes side. In total they listed 60 different program aspects with 47 responses across the chart on the plus side and 13 on the wishes side.

Of 47 plus responses, 21 related to academic writing instruction and support, 13 referenced advising and interactions with the instructors, and nine focused on opportunities for interactions within the learning community. Representative plus responses included:

• Clear explanations; breaking things down in component parts; detailed explanations; skill-building activities (e.g., reading academic articles).
• Individual meetings with advisors.
• Community-building activities; structure of the whole session.

Regarding the wishes side, four responses listed the need for structural changes— features outside the purview of our instruction. Three responses noted wanting more opportunities for peer feedback on their academic writing. The remaining responses did not relate to the content of the program (e.g., parking, laptops). Representative wishes included:

• Change the schedule of the seminars to weekdays.
• More time for peer review/feedback on writing.

In the narrative section, we invited our students to comment on their pluses and wishes. Their comments included:

• I consider this class the “glue” that holds the core classes together. I like the fact that this class is so well-structured because it helps us understand the big picture.
• I feel very lucky to join (have) this seminar…where I am and what I need to do….
• Taken as a whole, the leadership seminar has been a very positive one. The goals for this first term have been clearly defined, and the activities appropriately scaffolded to reach those goals.
• Overall, the weekend classes, energizing rather than tiring. I like the work session nature of the class in which we get to get a good start on projects and get immediate feedback before going off on our own.
• This seminar is invaluable for the success of doctoral students. I couldn’t imagine navigating the program without it.

Experiences Questionnaire

In March, we administered the second formative assessment, the Experiences Questionnaire on which the 12 students identified and described two experiences that “stood out for them.” Twelve identified writing ( n  = 8) and the authentic research task of writing an IRB proposal ( n  = 6) as significant. Five responses related to classroom discussion activities. We identified three themes that contributed to their learning: writing, research, and class discussions (see Table  4 ).

Themes Derived from Experiences Questionnaire Responses

In the narrative section, typical responses included:

• Going through IRB process forced me to focus on my topic in a tighter way and clearing up parts that were confusing. It was also great experience for my dissertation and gave me ideas on how to conduct my study.
• I really like the feedback from the instructors and how to proceed on the next draft. Your clarification on what to do next and arranging the structure of the paper helped tremendously. Now it is just a matter of revision and tweeking the parts.
• Core paper analysis helped me in writing my core paper and what structure I should use, reference list.

In the suggestions section, representative comments were:

• very helpful class.
• more frequent peer feedback would be nice. I like having many different eyes look at my paper so I can incorporate how other people understand my topic. I like to see what others are working on and how they are going about it.
• I don’t have any suggestions, very useful class, exceeded my expectations.

Across these themes, we found that our students highlighted specific learning experiences, which had transpired or were fostered within the seminar.

Critical Incident Questionnaire

The third formative assessment was the Critical Incident Questionnaire (CIQ). Because we administered it monthly, we had three sets of CIQ questionnaires. Each month, we analyzed the student responses and adjusted our instructional methods (see Table  5 ). The questions in the CIQ were:

Analysis of Students’ CIQ Responses and Our Instructional Decisions

• At what moment in the seminar did you feel most engaged with what was happening?
• At what moment in the seminar were you most distanced from what was happening?
• What action that anyone (teacher or student) took during the seminar did you find most affirming or helpful?
• What action that anyone took during the seminar did you find most puzzling or confusing?
• What about the seminar surprised you the most?

In each of the preceding CIQ questions, we italicized the key words to help guide our interpretation of students’ responses; these words were not italicized when we gave the CIQs to the students. In Table  5 , we noted parenthetically to which CIQ question the response was found.

Regarding writing, students noted comprehensive paper development, peer sharing of comprehensive paper, pre-writing activities, and writing scaffolds. Repeatedly, they referenced experiences within the seminar space—their community of practice. They listed research activities including the mini-research project, data analysis, and faculty research presentations. Further analysis of responses to CIQ questions across three datasets led us to categorize the findings into four clusters: instructional processes, content, personal preferences, and program structure. Overall student responses were 115 (81%) for instructional processes, 11 (8%) for content, 9 (6%) for personal, and 7 (6%) for program structure. The CIQ was a rich source of formative feedback.

Themes from Formative Assessments

After analysis of the three assessments (Plus-Wishes Chart, Experiences Questionnaire, CIQ) administered during winter and spring terms, we identified four themes.

Theme 1: Provide Authentic, Low-Stakes Practice on Key Components of the Dissertation

Across formative assessments, students consistently responded positively to the assignments related to components of the dissertation: writing an IRB proposal, receiving IRB approval, and presenting a poster session about their research.

Theme 2: Focus on Building a Toolkit of Writing and Research Strategies

Students learned a set of strategies that provided practice in identifying the rhetorical infrastructure of academic writing and research (Stevens, 2019 ). Within their community of practice, we helped them build a toolkit of these strategies that could be applied to other writing tasks. For example, the strategies of freewriting and writing a purpose statement could be used for developing conference proposals, writing grants, or composing a newsletter article. We agreed with Rai and Lillis ( 2013 ) who argued for a more explicit connection about writing expectations across academic and professional settings to strengthen practitioners’ professional practice writing and communication skills. Across all formative assessments students seemed to appreciate having a set of ‘go-to’ strategies to address research and writing expectations.

Theme 3: Create a Community of Practice

Our EdD students shared repeatedly the importance of their community of practice. The seminar structure created the space and time needed for legitimate peripheral practice and community-building. They experienced mutual engagement , joint enterprise , and shared repertoire within the larger seminar community as well as the smaller writing groups. Their mutual engagement required interaction, negotiation, and sustained relations where their own competence, and the competence of others emerged (Wenger, 1998 ). They gave and received peer feedback on written drafts and exchanged ideas about unfamiliar or complex topics. Across the seminar, our EdD students participated in the joint enterprise of traversing along a doctoral program path. Together, they held one another mutually accountable and worked collaboratively to improve their research skills and academic writing practice. Their shared repertoire of practice helped to bring “coherence to the melody of activities” (Wenger, 1998 , p. 82) and ways of doing the work. Together, they acquired and applied strategies, skills, and knowledge to aid in academic writing and conducting research.

We learned how important it was for our students to give and receive feedback from their peers. Because of some disagreement about the value of peer feedback, we were initially hesitant incorporate opportunities for extensive peer feedback (Man et al., 2018 ). However, students mentioned the desire for more opportunities within their communities of practice at several junctures in the formative assessments. Thus, we created many more situated learning opportunities for peer feedback.

Limitations

We acknowledge the limitations of our case study focused on EdD students’ and instructors’ experiences within the doctoral seminars. First, our sample size was small. To mitigate this limitation, we need to gather data across multiple cohorts. Because cohorts only start every two years, it would be necessary to work with other institutions. Second, the formative assessments measured the students’ perceptions—in this case, their development as writers and researchers. We could include alternative data collection methods (e.g., observation) to address this limitation. Third, the use of multiple formative assessments over several months could be viewed as a drawback. However, from a SoTL perspective, the number of assessments gathered over time was informative and lead to strengthening our instructional practices as we taught the yearlong seminar. Fourth, completion of seminar assignments (i.e., comprehensive paper drafts, IRB proposal) provided only a snapshot of the quality of student work. The use of evaluative measures (e.g., rubrics) could produce detailed information about students’ abilities as writers and researchers. Fifth, this research is situated in a United States EdD program in which nearly half of our students did not complete a research-focused master’s degree. Our findings might not apply to PhD programs or doctoral programs in other countries.

According to the annual Survey of Earned Doctorates, declines in student enrollment and graduation reflect the pandemic’s effect on doctoral student retention (Flaherty, 2021 ; National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics & National Science Foundation, 2021 ). This trend can have a lasting impact on scholarly endeavors, and research-informed practice. While these are PhD data, we assume the EdD data has a similar trend. To address the tears in our social, economic, and political fabric due to the pandemic, we need more EdD doctoral students to become educational leaders charged with making critical decisions that affect students, families, and overall community life. EdD programs occupy a much-needed role in contributing to research on practice and producing professionals whose practice is deeply informed by research (Amrein-Beardsley et al., 2012 ; Friesen & Jacobsen, 2021 ; Kumar & Dawson, 2013 ; Shulman et al., 2006 ; Taylor, 2007 ). Our study provides research-based strategies on how doctoral programs can be structured to build a foundation for students as researchers and writers that seems to put them on a solid path toward graduation and educational leadership.

What are our recommendations for building a program with a solid foundation for education doctoral students? First, develop assignments that match the kind of work students are expected to do for their dissertation. Incorporate scaled-down, low-stakes versions of authentic tasks such as a mini-research and poster project that align with the university’s IRB processes. By creating these types of assignments, faculty build student confidence, deepen their familiarity with academic expectations, and extend their content knowledge. Because writing is one of the most challenging aspects of graduate work (Caskey & Stevens, 2021 ; Cotterall, 2011 ; Sverdlik et al., 2018 ), faculty should take steps to support students in practicing worthwhile writing and research strategies and imagining themselves as competent writers and researchers.

Second, create a student community of practice. Give students the time to meet in writing groups, be held accountable, and share their work. Not only do experienced faculty need to model how students can grapple with key elements of writing and research, but students also need to work with their peers. Students can practice and view themselves as a community of scholarly practitioners who engage in academic conversations (Huff, 1999 ) over the feasibility of research and its application to complex problems. Although many EdD programs use a cohort model (Bista & Cox, 2014 ), we found that to get full benefit from the cohort model, it is important to foster the development of a community of practice as well.

Third, gather formative assessment data while teaching because these data can be pivotal for improving our practice and fostering timely student learning. The SoTL Framework (Felten, 2013 ) reinforces our stance that teaching is a work in progress, and the best way to make improvements is to gather data from students about what and how they are learning. The time and effort of formative data analysis informs and strengthens a faculty community of practice where they are mutually engaged in teaching together as well as developing a joint enterprise. A shared repertoire of instructional practices can make a difference for students. The series of formative assessments can help to document, adjust, and refine instructional practices in real time.

Finally, several aspects of our work could benefit from further research. First, we need to more closely examine how student communities of practice work. What are students doing during the allocated time? What are they learning about academic writing and research? Second, we need more comprehensive data on EdD student completion rates to better evaluate the effectiveness and impact of programs. Although Kumar and Dawson ( 2013 ) assessed the post program impact of the EdD, it would be good to have more research comparing EdD programs with post dissertation EdD leadership completion rate and impact. Because the EdD makes a significant contribution to practice, research on practice and practice informing research, identifying quality EdD programs would strengthen those outcomes.

Biographies

Ph.D., Professor Emerita, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, received her degree from Michigan State University in educational psychology. Her research focuses on ways to identify strategies to help graduate students and faculty become confident, skillful, and successful as writers, teachers, and researchers. She has written numerous articles and five books. Her most recent book is Write More, Publish More, Stess Less! Five key principles for a creative and scholarly practice , 2019.

Ph.D., Professor Emerita, College of Education at Portland State University holds a doctoral degree inCurriculum and Instruction from the University of South Florida. Her research areas span doctoral education, academic writing strategies, and middle grades education. She has experience as a doctoral program director, book series co-editor, journal editor, and writing coach. She is author or editor of 15 books and numerous peer-reviewed publications who shares her scholarly work at national and international conferences.

Declarations

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. No funding, grants or other support were received.

All authors certify that the study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments as well as their university’s Institutional Review Board.

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Dannelle D. Stevens and Micki M. Caskey. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Dannelle D. Stevens, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Dannelle D. Stevens, Email: ude.xdp@dsnevets .

Micki M. Caskey, Email: ude.xdp@myeksac .

• Ahern K, Manathunga C. Clutch-starting stalled research students. Innovative Higher Education. 2004; 28 (4):237–254. doi: 10.1023/B:IHIE.0000018908.36113.a5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aitchison C. Writing groups for doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education. 2009; 34 (8):905–916. doi: 10.1080/03075070902785580. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aitchison C, Lee A. Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education. 2006; 11 (3):265–278. doi: 10.1080/13562510600680574. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amrein-Beardsley A, Zambo D, Moore DW, Buss RR, Perry NJ, Painter SR, Carlson DL, Foulger TS, Olson K, Puckett KS. Graduates respond to an innovative educational doctorate program. Journal of Research on Leadership Education. 2012; 7 (1):98–122. doi: 10.1177/1942775112440630. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bastalich W, Behrend M, Bloomfield R. Is non-subject based research training a ‘waste of time,’ good only for the development of professional skills? An academic literacies perspective. Teaching in Higher Education. 2014; 19 (4):373–384. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2013.860106. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Billot, J., Rowland, S., Carnell, B., Amundsen, C., & Evans, T. (2017). How experienced SoTL researchers develop the credibility of their work. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal , 5 (1), 10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.1.8
• Bista K, Cox DW. Cohort-based doctoral programs: What we have learned over the last 18 years. International Journal of Doctoral Studies. 2014; 9 :1–20. doi: 10.28945/1941. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brookfield, S. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
• Brookfield, S., & Preskill, S. (2016). The discussion book: 50 great ways to get people talking . Jossey-Bass.
• Brown B, Jacobsen M, McDermott M, Simmons M, Eaton SE, Roberts V, Becker S. Research-based learning in an online course-based Master of Education program. International Journal on Innovations in Online Education. 2021 doi: 10.1615/IntJInnovOnlineEdu.2022041609. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caffarella RS, Barnett BG. Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education. 2000; 25 (1):39–52. doi: 10.1080/030750700116000. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. (2021). The Knowledge Forum on the EdD. https://www.cpedinitiative.org/
• Caskey MM, Stevens DD. Leveraging a cognitive apprenticeship instructional model to support doctoral student writing and program completion. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching. 2021; 32 (2):151–181. [ Google Scholar ]
• Caskey, M. M., Stevens, D. D., & Yeo, M. (2020). Examining doctoral student development of a researcher identity: Using the draw a researcher test. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice , 5 (1), 10.5195/ie.2020.92
• Church SE. Facing reality: What are doctoral students’ chances for success? Journal of Instructional Psychology. 2009; 36 (4):307–318. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 47–60). Cambridge University Press.
• Cotterall S. Doctoral students writing: Where’s the pedagogy? Teaching in Higher Education. 2011; 16 (4):413–425. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2011.560381. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five approaches . SAGE Publications.
• de Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2021). Fighting for funding and against inequality post-COVID-19. International Higher Education , (105), 3–4. 10.36197/IHE.2021.105.01
• Delmas PM, Childs TN. Increasing faculty engagement in the early alert process. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2021; 58 (3):283–293. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2020.1740102. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Felten P. Principles of good practice in SOTL. Teaching and Learning Inquiry. 2013; 1 (1):121–125. doi: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.1.1.121. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Finson KD. Drawing a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty years of drawings. School Science and Mathematics. 2002; 102 (7):335–345. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb18217.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Finson, K. D. (2009). What drawings reveal about perceptions of scientists: Visual data operationally defined. In J. E. Pedersen & K. D. Finson (Eds.), Visual data: Understanding and applying visual data to research in education . Sense.
• Flaherty, C. (2021, December 3). The new PhDs. Inside Higher Ed . https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/12/03/survey-shows-annual-decline-number-phds-awarded
• Foot R, Crowe AR, Tollafield KA, Allan CE. Exploring doctoral student identity development using a self study approach. Teaching and Learning Inquiry. 2014; 2 (1):103–118. doi: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.2.1.103. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foutz T, Singer KP, Navarro M, Thompson S. Investigating the extent that an integrative learning module broadens the perception of first-year students about the engineering profession. American Journal of Engineering Education. 2015; 6 (2):99–111. doi: 10.19030/ajee.v6i2.9505. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Friesen S, Jacobsen M. Collaborative design of professional graduate programs in education. International Journal of Designs for Learning. 2021; 12 (1):64–76. doi: 10.14434/ijdl.v12i1.25778. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Golde, C. M. (2006). Preparing stewards of the discipline. In C. M. Golde, & G. E. Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline Carnegie, essays on the doctorate (pp. 3–20). Jossey-Bass.
• Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2018). They say / I say: The moves that matter in academic writing (4th ed.). W. W. Norton & Co.
• Grant K, Hackney R, Edgar D. Postgraduate research supervision: An ‘agreed’ conceptual view of good practice through derived metaphors. International Journal of Doctoral Studies. 2014; 9 :43–60. doi: 10.28945/1952. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guerin C, Carter S, Aitchison C. Blogging as community of practice: Lessons for academic development? International Journal for Academic Development. 2015; 20 (3):212–223. doi: 10.1080/1360144X.2015.1042480. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hilliard, A. T. (2012). Advising doctorate candidates and candidates’ views during the dissertation process. Journal of College Teaching & Learning , 10 (1), 7–12. 10.19030/tlc.v10i1.7525
• Huff, A. S. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication . SAGE Publications.
• Jacobsen M, Eaton SE, Brown B, Simmons M, McDermott M. Action research for graduate program improvements: A response to curriculum mapping and review. Canadian Journal of Higher Education. 2018; 48 (1):82–98. doi: 10.47678/cjhe.v48i1.188048. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobsen M, McDermott M, Brown B, Eaton SE, Simmons M. Graduate students’ research-based learning experiences in an online Master of Education program. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. 2018; 15 (4):56–74. doi: 10.53761/1.15.4.4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kamler, B. (2008). Rethinking doctoral publication practices: Writing from and beyond the thesis. Studies in Higher Education , 33 (3), 283–294. 10.1080/03075070802049236
• Kumar S, Dawson K. Exploring the impact of a professional practice education doctorate in educational environments. Studies in Continuing Education. 2013; 35 (2):165–178. doi: 10.1080/0158037X.2012.736380. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge University Press.
• Lee A, Boud D. Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education. 2003; 28 (2):187–200. doi: 10.1080/0307507032000058109. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindsay, S. (2015). What works for doctoral students in completing their thesis? Teaching in Higher Education , 20 (2), 183–196. 10.1080/13562517.2014.974025
• Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study . Rowman & Littlefield.
• Man D, Xu Y, O’Toole JM. Understanding autonomous peer feedback practices among postgraduate students: A case study in a Chinese university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2018; 43 (4):527–536. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2017.1376310. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McAlpine L, Jazvac-Martek M, Hopwood N. Doctoral student experience in Education: Activities and difficulties influencing identity development. International Journal for Researcher Development. 2009; 1 (1):97–109. doi: 10.1108/1759751X201100007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McClintock, C. (2004). The scholar-practitioner model. In A. DiStefano, K. E. Rudestan, & R. J. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning . (pp. 394–397) SAGE.
• Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative Research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass
• Mullen CA. The need for a curricular writing model for graduate students. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2001; 25 (1):117–126. doi: 10.1080/03098770020030551. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murakami-Ramalho E, Militello M, Piert J. A view from within: How doctoral students in educational administration develop research knowledge and identity. Studies in Higher Education. 2013; 38 (2):256–271. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.578738. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics & National Science Foundation (2021). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities: 2020 (NSF 22–300). https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22300/
• Olson K, Clark CM. A signature pedagogy in doctoral education: The leader-scholar community. Educational Researcher. 2009; 38 (3):216–221. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09334207. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park C. War of attrition: Patterns of non-completion amongst postgraduate research students. Higher Education Review- London. 2005; 38 (1):48–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rai L, Lillis T. ‘Getting it write’ in social work: Exploring the value of writing in academia to writing for professional practice. Teaching in Higher Education. 2013; 18 (4):352–364. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2012.719157. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reis T, Grady M. Doctoral advising in COVID-19: Opportunity for change. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Higher Education. 2020; 5 (1):136–140. doi: 10.32674/jimphe.v5i1.2652. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shulman LS, Golde CM, Bueschel AC, Garabedian KJ. Reclaiming education’s doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher. 2006; 35 (3):25–32. doi: 10.3102/0013189X035003025. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simpson, S., & Matsuda, P. K. (2008). Mentoring a long-term relationship: Situated learning in a doctoral program. In C. P. Casanave, & X. L. Li (Eds.), Learning the literacy practices of graduate school: Insiders’ reflections on academic enculturation (pp. 90–104). University of Michigan Press.
• Smallwood S. January 16). Doctor dropout. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 2004; 50 (19):A10. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stevens, D. D. (2019). Write more! Publish more! Stress less! Five key principles for a creative and sustainable scholarly practice . Stylus Publishing.
• Stevens, D. D., & Cooper, J. E. (2009). Journal keeping: How to use reflective writing for learning, teaching, professional insight, and positive change . Stylus Publishing.
• Sverdlik A, Hall N, McAlpine L, Hubbard K. The PhD experience: A review of the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and well-being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies. 2018; 13 :361–388. doi: 10.28945/4113. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor A. Learning to become researching professionals: The case of the doctorate of education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 2007; 19 (2):154–166. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teeuwsen P, Ratković S, Tilley SA. Becoming academics: Experiencing legitimate peripheral participation in part-time doctoral studies. Studies in Higher Education. 2014; 39 (4):680–694. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2012.729030. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thein, A. H., & Beach, R. (2010). Mentoring doctoral students towards publication within scholarly communities of practice. In C. Aitchison, & B. Kamler (Eds.), Publishing pedagogies for the doctorate and beyond (pp. 117–136). Routledge.
• Tierney AM, Aidulis D, Park J, Clark K. Supporting SoTL development through communities of practice. Teaching & Learning Inquiry. 2020; 8 (2):32–52. doi: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.8.2.4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tight M. Student retention and engagement in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2020; 44 (5):689–704. doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2019.1576860. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Umbach PD, Wawrzynski MR. Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education. 2005; 46 (2):153–184. doi: 10.1007/s11162-004-1598-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wellington J. More than a matter of cognition: An exploration of affective writing problems of post-graduate students and their possible solutions. Teaching in Higher Education. 2010; 15 (2):135–150. doi: 10.1080/13562511003619961. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity . Cambridge University Press.
• Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Zambo D, Buss RR, Zambo R. Uncovering the identities of students and graduates in a CPED-influenced EdD program. Studies in Higher Education. 2013; 40 (2):1–20. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.823932. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zambo R, Zambo D, Buss RR, Perry JA, Williams TR. Seven years after the call: Students’ and graduates’ perceptions of the re-envisioned EdD. Innovative Higher Education. 2014; 39 (2):123–137. doi: 10.1007/s10755-013-9262-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER COLUMN
• 04 January 2019

Six project-management tips for your PhD

• Angel Santiago-Lopez 0

Angel Santiago-Lopez is a PhD candidate at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

In my experience, a PhD project sometimes feels like it demands more time than is possible — especially if you were hoping to maintain a healthy work–life balance. In my view, every graduate-school curriculum should carry a course on project management.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 573 , 153 (2019)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07860-6

Related Articles

PhD supervisors: be better mentors

What makes a good PhD student?

I’m worried I’ve been contacted by a predatory publisher — how do I find out?

Career Feature 15 MAY 24

How I fled bombed Aleppo to continue my career in science

Career Feature 08 MAY 24

Illuminating ‘the ugly side of science’: fresh incentives for reporting negative results

Hunger on campus: why US PhD students are fighting over food

Career Feature 03 MAY 24

PhD/master's Candidate

PhD/master's Candidate    Graduate School of Frontier Science Initiative, Kanazawa University is seeking candidates for PhD and master's students i...

Kanazawa University

Senior Research Assistant in Human Immunology (wet lab)

Senior Research Scientist in Human Immunology, high-dimensional (40+) cytometry, ICS and automated robotic platforms.

Boston, Massachusetts (US)

Boston University Atomic Lab

Postdoctoral Fellow in Systems Immunology (dry lab)

Postdoc in systems immunology with expertise in AI and data-driven approaches for deciphering human immune responses to vaccines and diseases.

Global Talent Recruitment of Xinjiang University in 2024

Recruitment involves disciplines that can contact the person in charge by phone.

Wulumuqi city, Ürümqi, Xinjiang Province, China

Xinjiang University

Tenure-Track Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor

Westlake Center for Genome Editing seeks exceptional scholars in the many areas.

Westlake Center for Genome Editing, Westlake University

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Schools & departments

PhD research projects

PhD projects and studentships are defined pieces of research that an organisation wishes to explore. A research council may have provided funding for the project to ensure its successful outcome, although not all defined PhD projects have funding associated with them.

The availability of funded research projects varies significantly by subject area. They are usually offered in medical, scientific and technical disciplines, where the cost of research is high and where defined projects may be used to contribute to a wider area of research.

However, it is still worth checking to see if any funded research projects are available in the arts, humanities and social sciences.

The selection process for a funded project often works in the same way as applying for a job: there is usually only one place available, so it can be competitive. You also need to demonstrate your suitability to work alongside others in a research team.

Here are some things to remember:

• Funded projects tend to have early academic year deadlines, so be prepared to apply before January in the year before you plan to start your studies .
• Projects and studentships can be advertised in different places. The majority will be listed on FindaPhd.com and displayed below, but you should also check school and research centre/institute websites.
• Check the funding status and eligibility criteria of the project you are interested in. If there is no funding attached to it, then you will need to research other funding opportunities in order to finance your research.
• Some projects may require you to submit a research proposal as part of your application, or to contact a supervisor before you apply, but others won’t, so make sure you check the application requirements for what you need to submit.
• Application for PhD projects are usually made through the University of Edinburgh’s degree finder; however, there may be some exceptions. If you are in doubt, ask the project’s lead contact.

Find a PhD research project

If there aren’t any projects in your area.

If there are no PhD research projects available in your area of interest then you could try:

• Developing your own research idea
• School websites  (especially those in the College of Science and Engineering), which may be advertising projects separately
• Applying for a PhD through a doctoral training centre or partnership

Research for Your Doctoral Project in Organization Development: Sample Dissertations & Theses

• Getting Started
• Following the Research Trail
• Keeping Current
• Keeping Organized
• Sample Dissertations & Theses
• Copyright/Publishing
• Reading and Writing
• Qualitative Research
• When You're ABD

Dissertations at UST

Why look at dissertations?

• Find UST doctoral projects that your advisor has suggested. You'll know what he/she expects of you.
• Look at the issues the author faced using your chosen methodology.
• Find references for your topic.
• Find references for your chosen methodology.
• UST Doctoral Projects in Organization Development Doctoral projects published in Organization, Learning, and Development since 2011. Search by author, subject, or methodology to find good examples of previous doc projects
• Preparing to Submit Work to UST Research Online Guidance and step-by-step instructions on preparing your doctoral project when you've finished (Yay!) and ready to submit your doctoral project.
• 2011- UST doctoral projects and theses From 2011 on, all doctoral projects will be posted on the Research Online, our institutional repository. They are available free to everyone, everywhere. Enjoy! If you know the author or title of the dissertation, you can search directly from Google Scholar .
• Dissertations and Theses This link opens in a new window Some UST dissertations have been submitted to ProQuest's database. You may download any of them. To find St. Thomas dissertations, under Search Options, for School Name, type in University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) .

Subject Guide

• << Previous: Keeping Organized
• Next: Copyright/Publishing >>
• Last Updated: May 10, 2024 10:49 AM
• URL: https://libguides.stthomas.edu/dissertation_OLD

© 2023 University of St. Thomas, Minnesota

• Skip to main navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to search
• Arts and Humanities
• Health sciences
• Science and Engineering
• Future international student
• International student
• Doctoral Candidate

The doctoral research project

The preparation of a doctorate is based on a doctoral research project that defines the framework and content of the education of the future doctoral candidate's research and specifies the conditions of completion. This project must enable the doctoral candidate to acquire high-level scientific skills and gain professional know-how. 

Published on 7/01/2020 - Updated on 5/05/2022

Each doctoral research project is validated by the doctoral school to which it is attached, which ensures that it is scientific and innovative, and that it is feasible within the given timeframe. Validated doctoral research projects are posted and disseminated on the websites of the doctoral schools.

Each doctoral research project must specify:

• The research unit in which the doctoral candidate will work, the thesis director and any co-supervisors;
• The scientific context, the current state of knowledge in the field of research concerned;
• The scientific aims of the research project and the identification of what could constitute the originality of the scientific work, as perceived at the start of the project;
• The tools and methods to be implemented, the anticipated phases of the project and any scientific collaborations to be considered;
• The scientific, material and financial conditions necessary to guarantee the smooth running of the doctoral project;
• Management conditions.

Note: a candidate may participate in the design of a doctoral research project, but it is the thesis director who assumes scientific responsibility for it and who submits the project for validation to the doctoral school.

• Liberty University
• Jerry Falwell Library
• Special Collections

Home > ETD > Doctoral

Doctoral Dissertations and Projects

Submissions from 2024 2024.

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning on Organizations Cybersecurity , Mustafa Abdulhussein

The Relationship between Leadership Styles of a Principal and African-American Student Achievement in Elementary Reading , Joel James Abe

The Effect of Music on Spiritual Well Being Among Hospice Patients , Mathai Abraham

Exploring the Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Religiosity and the Experience of Emotional Labor in Working Women , Jane Naa Koshie Acquah-Bailey

Evidence-Based Strategy to Engage and Retain Patients in Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: A Contingency Management Plan , Olubukola Juliet Akinyele

Impacts of Opioids on Health and Ways to Overcome the Addiction , Kennedy Chidi Alajemba

Exploring the Lived Experiences of Teachers When Enrolled in an Asynchronous Certification Program: A Phenomenological Study , Sara R. Allen

Causal Comparative Study of Structured Literacy Knowledge Between Participants of Dyslexia Intervention Training Programs , Rhonda Rene' Alm

The Effectiveness of Integrating Religious/Spirituality Beliefs into Psychotherapy: An Integrative Review , Justina Anighoro-Okezie

Equipping Equippers: Training Alaska Bible College Students for Equipping Ministry through Mentorship , Justin Glenn Archuletta

Parent and Teacher Perspectives on Attachment/Relationships and Children's Self-Regulation , Elaina Arnold

Mentorship Experiences of College Level Educators: A Phenomenological Study , Rebecca M. Arsenault

A Predictive Correlation and Causal-Comparative Study on Early Childhood Social-Emotional Scores, Socioeconomic Status, and Academic Achievement , Denise A. Ashley

The French Piano School's Pedagogical Influence on Louis Moreau Gottschalk's Piano Etudes: A Narrative Inquiry , Kenner Layne Bailey

An Exegetical and Theological Exploration of Paul’s Self-Identity in Consideration of Modern Social Sciences , Chala Baker

Exploring the Role of Curricular Engagement in the Secondary English Classroom: A Case Study , Kelsey Leah Baldwin

A Transcendental Phenomenological Study of Multimedia-based Pedagogy: Experiences of Elementary School Teachers in Developing Cognitively Stimulating Instruction , Siyanbola Enitan Balogun

Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) Training of First Responders , Rebecca Leigh Bandy

The Academic Achievement Gap and the Cultural Experiences of Black College Students: A Phenomenological Study , Sonia Barnett

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Online Education For Recruitment, Retention, and Sustainability of Religious Organizations , Gordon Vaill Barrows

Understanding the Learning Experiences and Attitudes Related to the Academic Performance and Success of High School Students with Disabilities: A Phenomenological Study , Delavar Basha

Enhancing Productive Vocabulary of ESL Learners: A Qualitative Case Study , Hala Bastawros

Recommendations for Solving the Problem of Low Sixth-Grade Comprehension Proficiency Scores at Hermitage Middle School in Hermitage, Missouri , Shannon Beers

Psychology of Altruism: A Phenomenological Study of Christian Leaders , Joshua G. Belk

Critical Thinking and Worldview Formation in Ministry , David W. Belles

Page 1 of 218

• Collections
• Faculty Expert Gallery
• Theses and Dissertations
• Conferences and Events
• Open Educational Resources (OER)
• Explore Disciplines

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS .

Faculty Authors

• Submit Research
• Expert Gallery Login

Student Authors

• Undergraduate Submissions
• Graduate Submissions
• Honors Submissions

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Developing the PhD thesis project in relation to individual contexts: a multiple case study of five doctoral researchers

• Open access
• Published: 17 June 2022
• Volume 85 , pages 1143–1160, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Kelsey Inouye   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3961-3811 1  

5516 Accesses

2 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The early phase of doctoral education is a critical yet under-researched period in PhD programs, when doctoral researchers must solidify their thesis projects prior to embarking on data collection. What makes this time particularly challenging is that new doctoral researchers synthesize their research thinking while they are still learning the expectations and nature of PhD research. This study draws on Emirbayer and Mische’s ( 1998 ) chordal triad of agency to explore how PhD researchers’ goals and experiences (individual contexts) influence how they approach doctoral research and develop their thesis projects during the first year of the PhD. The results of this small-scale longitudinal multiple case study of five first-year UK PhD social science researchers suggest that there are at least three approaches PhD researchers may adopt in developing their research projects, influenced by personal histories and post-PhD goals—pragmatic/strategic, idealistic, and realistic. In turn, these approaches may change over time as PhD researchers acquire experience and encounter critical events. Implications include the need for attention to a diversity of PhD researchers’ needs and goals, which may necessitate additional support or training in tailored areas, and a call for questioning the capacity of PhD researchers to contribute to/stretch the structures surrounding thesis writing.

Similar content being viewed by others

A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis

Carl Rogers: A Person-Centered Approach

When Does a Researcher Choose a Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Research Approach?

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

This study focuses on the individual experiences of five first-year social science PhD researchers at a UK university. In the UK as elsewhere, doctoral education has been recognized as central to the growing knowledge economy (Department for Education, 2017 ). The structure of UK doctoral programs has moved on from the apprenticeship model predominant in the 1980s to address concerns about attrition and career preparedness. It now includes integrated research training courses, graduate schools, research training courses, graduate schools, doctoral colleges, and doctoral training centers or partnerships (UK Council for Graduate Education, 2015 ). Alongside changes in training, the doctoral degree has diversified to include professional doctorates and thesis formats other than the traditional monograph—for instance, thesis by publication or integration. Current UK policy outlined in the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) Characteristics Statement declares that “All UK doctorates, regardless of their form, continue to require the main focus of the candidate's work to demonstrate an original contribution to knowledge” (QAA, 2020 , p. 3) and that doctoral graduates should be able to “think critically about problems to produce innovative solutions” as well as synthesize large bodies of information and communicate with diverse audiences (QAA, 2020 , p. 3). This policy statement sets the backdrop against which all UK doctorates should be assessed.

Transitioning into a doctoral program can be challenging, as PhD researchers must make the shift from consuming and analyzing knowledge to producing it (Lovitts, 2005 ; McPherson, et al., 2018 ). For those in the humanities and social sciences, engaging in a substantial piece of research also means a level of self-direction and isolation for which many PhD researchers do not feel prepared (Gardner, 2008 ). As such, doctoral education is often described as a transition from dependence to independence, associated with developing and taking on a new identity as a researcher (e.g., Green, 2005 ) and becoming part of the academic and disciplinary discourse community.

Existing research on the early stages of doctoral programs, meaning the phases prior to thesis data collection and writing, suggest that challenges of transitioning into the PhD include establishing a sense of belonging, learning the expectations of the disciplinary field, developing research and writing skills, gaining ownership over the work, and understanding the nature of the doctorate (Chatterjee-Padmanabhan & Nielson, 2018 ; Creely & Laletas, 2019 ; Fisher et al., 2020 ). At the same time, PhD researchers do not have identical experiences; variations in PhD researcher transitions can be attributed to diversity in prior educational and cultural experiences and ways of thinking (see analytical vs. practical intelligence, Lovitts, 2008 ), highlighting the importance of individual/personal factors in understanding how new doctoral researchers adapt to the PhD.

Given the often challenging and individual nature of PhD researcher transitions, this study aimed to explore how personal contexts and goals influence the experiences of five first-year PhD researchers in the UK, as they designed their social science thesis projects over the course of 1 year. At the institution in which this study took place, plans for the PhD research project are synthesized in a document (hereafter “Upgrade document”) that is submitted alongside institutional documents (e.g., ethics forms) and orally examined by two internal assessors in a process referred to as Upgrade, which typically takes place at the end of the first year. The content of the Upgrade document varies slightly by department but generally includes the questions, theoretical framework, literature, and methods guiding the thesis research.

It is important to note that in the UK, doctoral programs vary in structure across institutions and departments. The goal of this study is therefore to provide insight into the individual experiences of the participants at a single university and disciplinary cluster as they conceived of and composed their Upgrade documents in the first year of the doctorate. The research question guiding this study was:

How do first-year PhD researchers in the social sciences (at a single UK institution) shape and negotiate their Upgrade documents over time and in relation to their prior experiences and goals?

Doctoral writing and supervisor feedback

Research suggests that writing is a challenge for many doctoral researchers (Aitchison & Lee, 2007 ; Cameron, et al., 2009 ; Cotterall, 2011 ; Lee & Aitchison, 2009 ), particularly in the early stages of the PhD (Caffarella & Barnett, 2000 ). What makes PhD writing difficult is that it not only requires an understanding of the expectations and nuances of the thesis and other academic genres, but also necessitates the synthesis of disciplinary and methodological knowledge; writing is both an expression of and tool for thinking (Bazerman & Prior, 2004 ; Klein, 1999 ; Yore, et al., 2004 , 2006 ).

Although variation in writing practices and writing structures exist across disciplines (Carter, 2007 ), in general, research writing requires the writer to draw from and analyze multiple sources and concepts to create new knowledge in a process of meaning-making (Ivanic, 1998 ) that extends from the literature review through the writing up of results (Kamler & Thomson, 2014 ). In many ways, the writing process and the research process are intimately related, suggesting that researchers use writing to construct and present knowledge, vacillating between data collection, writing, analysis, and inquiry (Yore, et al., 2006 , p. 116). At the same time, many doctoral writers struggle to articulate—or legitimize—their personal voices within the web of academic writing structures (Naomi, 2021 ).

Supervisors support the doctoral researcher’s thesis research and writing, ideally guiding them towards becoming independent researchers and experts in their relevant fields (Pearson & Brew, 2002 ). Although PhD researcher experience is influenced by a network of personal and professional relationships (Hopwood, 2010 ), the supervisory relationship is perhaps the most critical in the PhD context, often influencing the overall experience of the program (Cotterall, 2015 ; Pyhalto et al., 2015 ).

The primary pedagogical approach utilized in supervision is that of feedback, a dialogic process providing information about disciplinary and institutional expectations and facilitating critical discussion (Anderson, et al., 2008 ; McAlpine & McKinnon, 2012 ). Argument, logic, language, and genre are common foci of supervisor comments (Basturkmen, et al., 2014 ; Can & Walker, 2014 ; Xu, 2017 ). Several studies focused primarily on international graduate students have examined how doctoral students interpret and respond to supervisor feedback (e.g., Wang & Li, 2011 ; Xu, 2017 ; Xu & Hu, 2020 ), finding that PhD researchers’ prior experience is linked to supervision needs and feedback responses. For instance, PhD researchers in the early stages of their research tend to require more support, preferring “directive, specific and consistent feedback” and are more likely to respond negatively to criticism (Wang & Li, 2011 ). In contrast, PhD researchers with greater confidence and stronger ownership of their work exhibit more positive attitudes towards challenging or critical feedback (Wang & Li, 2011 ). Graduate students may also resist feedback out of a desire to promote their “own agendas” (Vehviläinen, 2009 , p. 197) or a belief that changes are unnecessary (Xu, 2017 ), suggesting that responses to feedback may be linked to individual goals and provide evidence of agency.

PhD contexts and goals

Doctoral researchers bring their individual histories and goals for the future to their PhD study. Understanding how prior experience and goals influence perspectives of and approaches to doctoral research is important, and existing studies suggests that biographical factors may affect the extent to which PhD researchers can access disciplinary and research training cultures (Deem & Brehony, 2000 ), as well as how they cope with challenges (Hockey, 1994 ) and respond to supervisor feedback (Inouye & McAlpine, 2017 ). International PhD researchers, in particular, may have more difficulty accessing academic research cultures due to differences in language, cultural norms, higher education systems, and expectations for doctoral study (Deem & Brehony, 2000 ). For instance, case studies and self-studies on international PhD researchers suggest that doctoral researchers from non-Anglophone contexts (e.g., China/East Asia) may experience disparities between their earlier education experiences and the expectations of their PhD programs in English-speaking countries (Li, 2018 ; Soong, et al., 2015 ). Challenges may include taking ownership over the thesis and displaying typically Eurocentric “critical thinking” (Wu & Hu, 2020 ; Xu & Grant, 2017 ). Further, PhD researchers from Confucian-influenced cultures may be more reluctant to disagree with or “push” their supervisors for additional feedback due to differing expectations of supervisory relationships (Nguyen & Robertson, 2020 ). Likewise, they may focus on gaining deep understanding of expert texts rather than critiquing them (Chang & Strauss, 2010 ; Xu & Grant, 2017 ), reflecting differences in academic practices and varying forms of critical thought (see Chang & Strauss, 2010 ; Paton, 2005 ).

Motivations for undertaking PhD work and career goals may also influence how PhD researchers experience doctoral research. Interview-based research on motivations for undertaking PhD work (Brailsford, 2010 ; Gill & Hoppe, 2009 ; Guerin, et al., 2015 ; Leonard, et al., 2005 ; Skakni, 2018 ; Taylor, 2007 ) indicate that preconceived notions of the PhD and goals/motivations may fall into several categories, including career considerations, professional development, and personal and intellectual fulfillment. Evidence suggests that motivation influences the strategies used to approach the PhD as well as supervision preferences (Skakni, 2018 ; Taylor, 2007 ). For example, PhD researchers motivated by career aspirations were strategic and pragmatic about the PhD, concerned with quick progress and desiring supervisors who could guide them through the institutional requirements and facilitate work opportunities (Skakni, 2018 ).

PhD researcher agency: individual goals and contexts

This study draws on Emirbayer and Mische’s chordal triad of agency (1988) to examine how PhD researchers make decisions about how to develop their Upgrade documents in relation to the personal, institutional, and disciplinary contexts that influence their experiences of early-stage doctoral research and, more specifically, the Upgrade document. In social science, agency is typically understood as the capacity of individuals to act independently and has been theorized in different ways depending on the extent to which social structure is believed to facilitate or constrain that capacity. Aldrich ( 1999 ) succinctly described the problem of agency as “how much scope…people have for independence and creativity in the face of social structural constraints on their understanding and behavior” (p. 23). Research on PhD researchers’ agency has explored how PhD researchers exercise agency to develop their scholarly identity-trajectories (McAlpine, et al., 2014 ) and address academic and cultural hurdles through establishing and drawing on relationships (Cotterall, 2015 ; Hopwood, 2010 ), sharing their research (Nguyen & Robertson, 2020 ), and negotiating supervisory relationships and supervisor feedback (Inouye & McAlpine, 2017 ). Such studies provide a counter-narrative to traditional framings of PhD education that position doctoral researchers as undergoing a one-way socialization process into the institution and relevant discipline (see Hopwood, 2010 ).

The chordal triad of agency developed by Emirbayer and Mische ( 1998 ) builds upon the work of Mead ( 1932 ), defining agency as:

...the temporally constructed engagement by actors of different structural environments—the temporal-relational contexts of action—which, through the interplay of habit, imagination, and judgment, both reproduces and transforms those structures in interactive response to the problems posed by changing historical situations. (1998, p. 970)

Agency is thus expressed through human action in response to a given temporal-relational context. In each act of agency, three elements are at play: iteration, projectivity, and practical-evaluation. Iteration represents the past and is characterized by habitual acts in response to similar situations—schemas for action developed over time. Projectivity represents the future: the person’s plans and desires. As people encounter new situations, they adapt existing schemas in relation to their goals and imagine possible outcomes. Practical-evaluation represents the present, acknowledging the ways in which actions are embedded in the current evolving situation, representing “the capacity of actors to make practical and normative judgments among alternative possible trajectories of action” (p. 971). Most importantly, practical-evaluation provides for reflection, insight into one’s particular circumstances in relation to past and future, which may lead to changes in behavior.

Applied to PhD researchers, the chordal triad lends two key things. First, the iteration and projectivity elements draw attention to how prior experience and imagined futures/goals influence individual PhD researchers’ actions as they shape their plans for their thesis projects. Second, the practical-evaluation element allows for consideration of how PhD researchers’ temporal-relational contexts (e.g., new knowledge, additional feedback, and upcoming deadlines) change over time and influence how they evaluate and gain insight into their particular circumstances, which may potentially lead to changes in behavior: exercising agency to alter one’s contexts. In other words, as PhD researchers learn over time the expectations for the thesis project through supervisor feedback and other relevant interactions and experiences (the temporal-relational context), they adjust their actions in response to the new knowledge and in relation to prior experiences and goals.

This paper draws from a longitudinal (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010 ) multiple-case study in which each participant constituted a case. The study involved five participants from three social science departments at a large research-intensive university in the UK. At this institution, social science departments require first-year PhD researchers to submit a written document (“Upgrade document”) for oral assessment by two examiners, usually from the same department. Successful completion of this milestone—hereafter referred to as “Upgrade”—marks the PhD researcher’s transition into the data collection phase of research and confers full doctoral status. Although all academic departments require an Upgrade examination, the specific timings and requirements vary across disciplinary areas—for instance, the Upgrade document in natural science departments tends to be much shorter. In the three social science departments in which this study took place—Education, Geography, and Sociology—Upgrade typically occurs between 8 and 12 months after commencement of the PhD program. The submitted Upgrade document is a lengthy document of roughly 10,000 words, containing a literature review, conceptual framework, research questions, and methodology/research design. Upgrade can result in three possible outcomes, pass, minor corrections, and resubmit, and a PhD researcher has two opportunities to successfully complete Upgrade.

Data collection took place from October 2018 through December 2019. The participants were first-year PhD researchers. Four participants were recruited through email solicitation and one via snowball sampling. This study received ethical approval from the institution. Demographic characteristics of the participants are displayed in Table 1 .

Data included (1) a five-item demographic questionnaire, (2) semi-structured interviews, (3) drafts of the Upgrade document and other related writings, (4) written feedback from supervisors and, if relevant, peers, and (5) recordings of supervision meetings. However, for the purpose of this paper, the results will focus primarily on findings from the participant interviews.

Three types of interviews were conducted: (1) background interviews, (2) Upgrade document process interviews, and (3) concluding interviews. Background interviews, which took place shortly after each participant joined the study, focused on the participant’s prior experiences with writing, feedback, and social science research, as well as their reasons for doing a PhD, perceived challenges, and post-PhD career goals. The purpose of these interviews was to establish each participant’s individual historical context.

Upgrade document process interviews comprised most interview data in this study. These interviews were scheduled every 2 months at a mutually convenient time and place and focused on the participant’s ongoing work in relation to the Upgrade document, using written drafts of the Upgrade document and if relevant, other notes and documents, to provide examples of specific feedback and revisions. Finally, concluding interviews took place following each participant’s successful completion of the Upgrade examination. These interviews focused on the participants’ experience of Upgrade and reflections on the first year of the PhD.

Drafts and supervision recordings

In addition to the interviews, I collected drafts of the participants’ Upgrade documents and recorded supervision meetings with supervisor consent. Each participant was given the option to self-record their supervisions or to have me attend and record the supervisions. All interviews and supervision recordings were manually transcribed. Using MaxQDA 12 software, I created five separate folders, one for each participant. Each folder served to store the collected data, which were chronologically organized. The data were analyzed via a combination of a priori and emergent coding, situated within an overall narrative analysis. Data were analyzed first within-cases to capture variation in individual experience and then across cases to detect emerging patterns.

A priori coding

A priori codes (Saldana, 2013 ) were based on relevant department guidelines for a successful Upgrade and Emirbayer and Mische’s ( 1998 ) chordal triad conceptualization of agency: iteration, projectivity, and practical-evaluation to identify evidence of past, future, and present factors in participants’ decision-making. These codes were applied throughout the dataset for each individual participant.

Emergent coding

Following a priori coding, I analyzed the interview and supervision transcripts via emergent (open) coding. Using the “spiral” approach (Creswell, 2013 ), I began by reading through the entire dataset for each participant, taking notes. I wrote case summaries for each participant 3, 5, and 8 months into the data collection process. To develop codes, I reviewed case summaries and notes to identify possible codes and analyzed the dataset of the individual participant using initial codes and definitions. These codes were refined over several iterations. I repeated this process for each participant, resulting in five sets of emergent codes, one for each participant. Example codes included explanation/justification (for responses to feedback), supervisor feedback (with subcodes including direction, confirmation, suggestion/guidance), and strategies (feedback-seeking, questioning, networking), and Upgrade experience. Throughout the analysis process, the definitions of each code and examples were discussed and verified with colleagues familiar with both qualitative analysis and the topics of writing and doctoral education.

Narrative analysis

The patterns that emerged through coding alongside relevant excerpts from the documents were situated within a narrative analysis that allowed each case to be presented as a linear whole, rich with “thick description” (Riessman, 2008 ). The narrative was supported by the results of the coding and specific examples from the transcripts and documents. Because this study is concerned with what participants say rather than how they say it, in constructing the narratives, I formatted participant quotes by excluding stutters and pauses for clarity.

Cross-case analysis

Having completed within-cases analyses of each participant’s experience, I conducted a cross-case analysis to identify any patterns. I began by re-reading my notes and all five case summaries, taking note of similarities and differences (Eisenhardt, 2002 ). From this process, I identified three key themes: approach to the PhD, compliance with and resistance to supervisor feedback, and the Upgrade exam as significant event. These themes reflected larger patterns in agency characterized by the individual’s considerations of past, present, and future action in relation to their changing contexts.

Participant feedback

Participant feedback, also known as member checking, was used to provide participants with an opportunity to express concerns about anonymity (see Thomas, 2017 ) and identify factual errors. Following their participation in this study, each participant was sent a copy of their draft case summary for feedback on (1) factual accuracy, (2) concerns about identifiability, and (3) opinions on how their experiences were interpreted. Participants were also the given the option of changing their assigned pseudonyms.

The analysis gave rise to two key findings. First, the participants adopted three approaches to navigating the construction of the Upgrade document—pragmatic/strategic, idealistic, and realistic/compromising, each reflecting agentive decision-making influenced by prior educational experiences and perceptions of doctoral education, as well as post-PhD career goals. These approaches were primarily conveyed in how the participants drew upon feedback to create research proposals for Upgrade. Second, the oral Upgrade exam was a critical structuring event that led participants to reassess their practices and, in some cases, alter their approaches to their thesis research. This section begins with brief descriptions of the participants’ relevant individual contexts followed by a discussion of the approaches adopted by each, ending with an exploration of whose approaches shifted over time.

Ben was a first-year doctoral researcher in Education. Prior to the PhD, he completed a Master’s in the USA and worked at a think tank. Although English was his second language—he was born in a non-Anglophone European country—Ben was comfortable writing in English given his experience studying in the USA. In his previous work at the think tank, Ben developed the practice of reaching out to his colleagues for substantive feedback, though he always critically assessed received comments, based in part on the expertise of the person providing the feedback. Following the PhD, Ben planned to pursue a career in policy at an international organization. Ben had three supervisors.

Charlie was a first-year doctoral researcher in Sociology. Prior to the PhD, he did a Master’s in the UK. Charlie was originally from China but had been in the UK since high school and thus felt comfortable writing in English, though he sometimes struggled with reading complex texts. Charlie viewed feedback as generally helpful but viewed “abstract” comments such as “the research question is too broad” as less helpful when not accompanied by details on how to improve. He did not have concrete career plans when he began the PhD but hoped the degree would broaden his employment opportunities and allow him to explore academia. Charlie had two supervisors.

Natalie was a first-year doctoral researcher in Geography from the UK. Prior to the PhD, Natalie completed Master’s degrees in related fields and had worked in several sectors. One of her careers involved writing, and thus Natalie had experience in certain genres of writing but viewed herself as a novice in academic writing. She valued feedback, including criticism, from a range of sources and was concerned that her work involved public outreach. Following the PhD, Natalie hoped to teach at a university and write a book based on her doctoral research. Natalie had one supervisor (an anomaly, as most social science PhD researchers at the institution had two or more supervisors).

Shankar was a first-year doctoral researcher in Education from India. The PhD was Shankar’s first educational experience outside of India, having completed his undergraduate study and a Master’s there. He also spent several years teaching in rural areas of India prior to the doctorate. Shankar considered English his first language as his parents spoke it at home. He had little experience receiving feedback on his work, because his previous Master’s research was largely independent. Following the PhD, Shankar planned to return to India and teach at a university. Shankar had two supervisors.

Ethan was a first-year doctoral researcher in Education from the UK. Prior to the PhD, Ethan taught in primary schools and completed a Master’s degree. He enjoyed writing and viewed himself as a “perfectionist” when he wrote. Ethan embraced critical feedback so long as it was constructive and believed that his positive response to criticism was related to the nature of his supervisory relationships. For instance, he had a good relationship with his Master’s supervisor who “valued the good bits” but would also “happily tear a piece of work to shreds” (November 2018, Interview). Following the PhD, Ethan hoped to work in academia or at a think tank. Ethan had two supervisors.

Pragmatic/strategic

The pragmatic/strategic approach to the PhD, adopted by Ben and Charlie, was characterized by an orientation towards the feasibility or practicality of the research in terms of time to completion, financial constraints, or whatever would most facilitate quick and effective success: the PhD as a means to an end. Both Ben and Charlie expressed their pragmatic/strategic approach through (1) pursuing learning opportunities during the PhD in relation to career objectives and (2) and their assessment and use of feedback.

Ben and Charlie pursued PhDs to further career goals. Ben, who had a clear objective—work at an international organization—believed that doctorate would assist him in developing research skills that would increase his employability. Ben thus framed the PhD as a vehicle for advancing his career. While he wanted to produce a quality thesis, he was not emotionally attached to the work and noted, unlike some of his op-eds and reports, the thesis would not be read by a wide audience. As such, Ben made sure to attend conferences, find research assistant work, and expand his networks: “I think I need to be part of a broader policy debate because that's my aim overall…so I need to go [to conferences]. Everything is part of [an] overall design of me getting better [as a researcher]” (February 2019, Interview). Further, because he was only partially funded, Ben was determined to finish within 3 years and designed his research timeline accordingly.

Like Ben, Charlie viewed the PhD as improving his career opportunities. However, Charlie was uncertain about his future and hoped the PhD would allow him to explore possibilities. Charlie was also self-funding and therefore applied for various scholarships and internships alongside his PhD work. New to sociology, Charlie spent the first few months of the PhD program gathering information towards the goal of understanding what was expected of him:

[W]hen I [am] doing my PhD how do I structure my research, how do I progress...how do I develop my ideas? And...in general, how [do] we develop theory, [and] use the theory to explain things in data?...I try to find out the answer by auditing lectures…[and reading] books. (December 2018, Interview)

Charlie thus focused on understanding his discipline and the nature of PhD research while figuring out what “can be asked and answered in a PhD thesis” (October 2018, Email to supervisor). At the same time, he consulted peers for emotional support and enrolled in additional research training courses to further his learning and improve his employment prospects.

Ben and Charlie also expressed their pragmatic/strategic approach to the PhD in how they assessed and used feedback on their Upgrade documents. Ben, who had a clear vision for his project and prior knowledge of the topic, maintained the critical stance towards feedback developed before the PhD:

You need to be really convincing for me to change what I’ve written because in the end it’s going to be my name. But I will say that I’m quite open to accept feedback from people who know [more] than me about a topic. (November 2018, Interview)

Because Ben viewed his supervisors as knowledgeable in their fields but lacking expertise in his specific topic, he relied on them for literature recommendations and to discuss his overall research design and the Upgrade process, using only suggestions that he believed furthered his goal of successful Upgrade and timely thesis completion. However, for substantive feedback on his methods and subject matter, he approached others, including post-docs in relevant departments, and often went long stretches without seeing his supervisors, preferring to work on his own and receive feedback on complete drafts of his work.

In contrast, because of his lack of experience in sociology, Charlie positioned his supervisors as experts who were best placed to guide him through the thesis and, specifically, the Upgrade phase of the PhD. Charlie thus tended to adopt all feedback his supervisors offered. Upon reflection, Charlie noted that he always agreed with his supervisors’ suggestions (“we think similarly”—July 2019, Interview), explaining the intent behind his choices to implement feedback; he believed adopting feedback benefitted the project or Upgrade document. Thus, both Ben and Charlie assessed and used feedback in ways they believed furthered their Upgrade documents—and ultimately their PhDs—in most efficient ways.

This approach was characterized by a romanticized, optimistic framing of the research process, including a preoccupation with “big” ideas and the desire to create a deeply impactful or meaningful project, closely tied to personal passions or philosophies. Shankar and Natalie, who adopted an idealistic approach, expressed this orientation through (1) their perceptions of research/the PhD and (2) tendencies to resist traditional genre conventions of the Upgrade document.

Both Shankar’s and Natalie’s research projects grew from personal experience, and it was apparent in supervisions and interviews that they were passionate and intellectually engaged with their topics to the extent that narrowing the scope of their interests to a feasible doctorate was a significant challenge—both participants had a tendency to think and talk about their projects in broad ways, exploring avenues of inquiry that connected elements of history, philosophy, language, and politics. Natalie also insisted that her project take an ethnographic approach in which research questions emerge from the fieldwork and thus was hesitant to narrow her topic too early—a desire supported by her supervisor (but cautioned against by her course instructors). As a compromise, Natalie constructed three broad research questions that indicated her areas of interest. For example, “Are cities the agrarian worlds of the future?” (Upgrade document draft).

Shankar and Natalie were creative in how they structured their Upgrade documents; Natalie’s Upgrade document was organized by themes rather than discrete sections for literature review, method, etc., and Shankar used “metaphorical signposting,” adding subtitles to each of his sections that corresponded to parts of a tree—for instance, the literature review was called “the seeds” (Upgrade document draft). Although he appreciated critical comments, Shankar struggled to implement supervisor feedback on defining terms in relation to existing literature and following citation practices. He tried to negotiate comments on his Upgrade document and incorporate aspects of feedback towards the goal of finding his own writing style. Shankar acknowledged that his writing was a “little bit of this, little bit of that,” an “amalgam of the kind of quality of writing which would be appreciated in India” that included anecdotal evidence (April 2019, Interview). These writing and research choices stretched the boundaries of the expected Upgrade document genre and reflected Natalie and Shankar’s personal preferences for writing and self-expression, indicative of an idealistic view of doctoral writing. However, both needed to re-evaluate their practices when they were asked to resubmit their Upgrade document after the initial Upgrade exam. This is elaborated upon later.

Realistic/compromising

The realistic approach lay between the pragmatic/strategic and idealistic approaches, characterized by compromise and accommodation: passion for the topic and desire for it to be impactful on a larger scale, while also being cognizant of institutional expectations and willing to shape the project accordingly. Ethan adopted the realistic approach, which was evident in his assessment and use of feedback.

Ethan worked to strike a balance between creating a project he was passionate about and crafting a document that satisfied his supervisors:

There’s been varying points this year where I thought, am I doing the right thing? Would I be better off doing other research?...I think it’s the first time where, I’m very cognizant of this is all mine [so] that’s been quite a big defining feature of it. The independence. (November 2019, Interview)

Ethan’s understanding of the need to manage his goals with supervisor approval may be linked to his previous Master’s experience, specifically his familiarity with the research process and supervisor feedback. Indeed, though Shankar and Natalie had completed Master’s in their fields, both described the experience as involving little supervisory contact.

What Ethan most appreciated about his supervisors was their shared interest in school policy and their shared experiences as teachers, which allowed him to speak openly about his concerns about education and engage in critical discussion. In such supervisory discussions—and in early drafts of his Upgrade document—Ethan expressed political views that were tied to his teaching experience and the inception of his thesis, revealing Ethan’s desire for impact and change. At the same time, he acknowledged the “authority” of his supervisors and gladly incorporated their feedback, which helped him to define a feasible research topic and demonstrated an understanding of the PhD as requiring negotiation between the desire to shape a large and important study and the need to meet institutional standards. Further, both of Ethan’s supervisors were careful to explain the reasoning behind their feedback while also being explicit about examiner expectations, which may have contributed to his willingness to compromise.

Ethan’s greatest struggle was his self-described “flowery” writing style. His supervisors referred to his writing as “journalistic” and “rhetorically beautiful” but not appropriate for the Upgrade document genre. Beautiful writing was of personal value to Ethan, and he initially hoped to reach a compromise and find “the line” defining the extent to which he could write descriptively—though, he acknowledged, “[my supervisors and I] may or may not agree where that line is” (June 2019, Interview). For Ethan, writing became a matter of “trial and error” (June 2019, Interview) in which he continually refined his style over several drafts, a process facilitated by the pruning down of his document prior to Upgrade. Later, Ethan noted that the improvement in his writing was the most concrete change from the first year of his PhD. The realistic/compromising approach therefore reflects an understanding of genre, disciplinary, and institutional requirements and the need to negotiate and adapt for the purposes of the Upgrade document.

Changes in approach over time

The approaches discussed above were not clear-cut categories; rather, each given approach reflected the general overarching way in which the participants structured their actions and communicated their thinking about their research, writing, and the PhD. These approaches were driven primarily by the iterative element of agency—patterns of behavior acquired over time from prior education and work experience, particularly in regard to responses to feedback. At the same time, participant approaches were not static; success or lack thereof at the Upgrade milestone either reinforced successful participants’ approaches or significantly changed the approaches of those who were unsuccessful.

For Natalie and Shankar, who were asked to revise and resubmit their Upgrade documents, Upgrade prompted reflection on PhD expectations and the research process, which led them to move from an idealistic to a pragmatic/strategic approach. Natalie, for instance, remarked that she had been “naïve” about doctoral work and following the Upgrade exam began to view the PhD as a “box-ticking exercise” she needed to work through in order to pass (pragmatic approach). Similarly, Shankar noted that the Upgrade exam highlighted gaps between his former schooling and the expectations of his PhD university, leading him to alter his Upgrade document in accordance with examiner feedback and conform to institutional expectations, which he described as putting on “clothes in a wardrobe”:

...it seems to me that the, what this whole program is about, or at least my experience of it [is] a particular way of...relating to knowledge. It’s a particular way of...looking at it and interpreting it and presenting it. (June 2019, Interview)

For Shankar, the way the examiners expected his literature review to be presented and the depth of detail required in the methods section conflicted with his prior experiences of writing and structuring arguments. Despite prior conversations with his supervisors about the purpose of the Upgrade document, the high-stakes nature of the Upgrade exam was a significant experience that catalyzed a shift in his approach to the Upgrade document—and his thesis research generally.

In contrast, for Charlie and Ethan, passing the Upgrade exam reinforced their preexisting pragmatic/strategic and realistic approaches, as success indicated that their previous strategies were effective. Ben, the outlier, did not alter his view of the PhD or approach to research and writing despite a revise and resubmit result; rather, he attributed this outcome to ineffective or late supervisor feedback, consistent with his belief that his supervisors were not experts in his particular field and methodology. Further, Ben was not emotionally affected by the result, viewing it as an inconvenience and choosing to comply with examiner feedback and resubmit quickly; he did not want to alter his timeline for data collection, in keeping with his pragmatic outlook.

Thus, the Upgrade exam was a critical structuring event capable of transforming or reinforcing how the participants understood PhD research and writing expectations, demonstrating how evolving temporal-relational contexts (Upgrade results) may affect agentive decision-making. Importantly, successful Upgrade required participants to negotiate their prior expectations and experiences and future goals with institutional and disciplinary conventions, showing the need for clarity around genre-based expectations for doctoral education and the extent to which PhD researchers can work within those boundaries.

This longitudinal multiple case study employed Emirbayer and Mische’s ( 1998 ) chordal triad of agency to examine how five first-year social science PhD researchers created their Upgrade documents towards the goal of successful Upgrade. According to the chordal triad, the individual, as agent, (re)acts in a temporal-relational context, with three elements at play: the past (acting in response to similar situations developed over time), the future (adapting existing schemas in relation to goals and imagined outcomes), and the present (making judgments among alternative possible actions in light of the current evolving situation). The approaches the participants used to create their Upgrade documents—pragmatic/strategic, idealistic, and realistic—represent three possible ways in which PhD researchers may navigate the doctoral thesis in relation to individual contexts. What this research contributes is (1) new insight into the role of agency in PhD researchers’ behaviors, (2) the importance of significant milestones (like Upgrade) in influencing/altering thinking and behaviors, and (3) the value of a longitudinal perspective in examining PhD researcher development.

Results suggest that a projective (future) orientation motivated participants to think about larger PhD and post-PhD goals, contributing to how they initially conceptualized the PhD and approached their research (and Upgrade documents), consistent with prior interview-based studies (Brailsford, 2010 ; Gill & Hoppe, 2009 ; Guerin et al., 2015 ; Leonard, et al., 2005 ; Skakni, 2018 ). What this study adds is an empirical account of how both goals (projectivity), prior contexts and experience (iteration), and the present situation (practical-evaluation) influence how doctoral researchers view the PhD and subsequently tackle the Upgrade documents, respond to feedback, and employ strategies in relation to their overarching purposes and perceptions of the doctorate.

Concurrently, the iterative (past) element provided the underlying writing, feedback, and disciplinary knowledge drawn upon to do the work. For instance, Shankar’s educational history influenced his writing choices, echoing studies finding disparities between international PhD researchers’ prior educational contexts and PhD expectations (Li, 2018 ; Soong, et al., 2015 ; Wu & Hu, 2020 ; Xu & Grant, 2017 ). Further, in preparing their Upgrade documents, all five participants used previously developed strategies to respond to feedback. Ben, for example, continued to seek feedback from a range of sources and critically assessed the usefulness of comments, while Charlie and Natalie accepted all supervisor feedback in line with their self-positioning as novices in the field and previous practices.

As in other work on supervision and supervisor feedback, the results suggested that PhD researchers with greater ownership over their work (e.g., Ben) were more likely to resist critical comments that conflicted with their goals (see Vehviläinen, 2009 ). Yet, the participants did not express negative emotional reactions to criticism—they accepted, evaluated, and at times rejected suggestions (see Wang & Li, 2011 ). Where the results diverge from Wang and Li ( 2011 ) is that the participants in this study were in the earliest stages of the PhD, conflicting with Wang and Li’s suggestion that new, less experienced PhD researchers are more likely to respond negatively to critical feedback. This discrepancy reinforces the finding that responses to feedback and ownership over the thesis may be linked not only to research and writing experience, but perhaps more powerfully to individual contexts/goals (see also Inouye & McAlpine, 2017 ).

Practical-evaluation, the element of agency representing the present, was perhaps the most complex but important aspect of agency captured in the participants’ decision-making. Given the nature of the PhD as an ongoing process fraught with information, particularly during the first year, participants were continually assessing their research goals and practices in relation to the new knowledge and feedback they received from texts, instructors, and supervisors—“the demands and contingencies of the present” (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998 , p. 994). For example, assessment of supervisor and other feedback often invoked a combination of practical-evaluation and projectivity as students evaluated comments within the evolving supervisory relationship and stage of their Upgrade documents, choosing to accept or reject changes in relation to what they believed would lead to the best outcome. At the same time, practical-evaluation and iteration co-occurred as students assessed feedback and their own writing and chose to continue accepting supervisor comments or write in a certain way. Importantly, the Upgrade exam, a new context, was the only event that led to substantial changes in the participants’ actions and approaches. These results suggest that experience contributes to a pattern of action that is less likely to change significantly unless the actor encounters a critical incident.

Finally, to revisit Emirbayer and Mische’s definition of agency, agency “both reproduces and transforms those structures in interactive response to the problems posed by changing historical situations” (1998, p. 970). As reflected in the results, Natalie’s and Shankar’s desire to create Upgrade documents that did not strictly conform to typical conventions was unsuccessful in transforming the structure of Upgrade; the examiners failed to recognize their initial documents as fulfilling Upgrade requirements (cf., Naomi, 2021 ). Thus, while the participants developed their Upgrade documents in creative ways, ultimately, the documents they produced—the documents that were eventually approved—reproduced the existing Upgrade document genre. Their experiences raise questions about the extent to which PhD researchers are able to bring creative approaches to their research and research writing and what counts as acceptable doctoral writing.

Limitations

First, this was a small-scale study of five first-year doctoral researchers at one UK university. Therefore, the results are specific to the particular institutional and disciplinary circumstances surrounding their experiences. Given the variation in milestone procedures and expectations across departments and institutions, the findings cannot be generalized to the wider UK PhD population, nor to the social sciences as a whole, or even to the population of PhD researchers within the participants’ specific departments. Rather, the study provides detailed insight into the individual experiences of the participants, providing examples of how agency may manifest in relation to personal contexts. Second, I was unable to capture the full range of data involved in the participants’ creation of the Upgrade document and focused primarily on supervisor feedback, meaning that additional sources of influence—e.g., readings, peer feedback, blogs, and social media—were not explored. Finally, the choice of the chordal triad of agency, while useful in exploring temporal changes in behavior, offered a limited discussion of how agency is developed within one’s larger personal trajectories, which may preclude exploration of how approaches to the doctoral Upgrade document are situated within the participants’ broader lives.

Implications

This study has shown the value of micro-level longitudinal research that encourages us to think biographically through time in relation to the individual’s specific context. Future longitudinal studies on doctoral writing and education, perhaps across disciplines, may be useful in enhancing our knowledge of the relationships between personal factors, disciplinary cultures, supervision, and examination processes and expectations. Studies covering the entire doctoral program would also be helpful in better understanding how PhD researchers’ conceptions of the doctoral research and writing change over time.

Further, academic research cultures are not accessed equally by all doctoral students (Deem & Brehony, 2000 ), and doctoral training does not always address research culture as an additional challenge for PhD researchers entering programs from different contexts. More studies on international and intercultural PhD education are required to better understand the needs and contributions of PhD researchers with diverse experiences.

Doctoral experience varies across individuals. Recognizing the role of personal contexts and goals in shaping doctoral researchers’ perspectives and practices is important, particularly during the early stages of the PhD when they are still developing their understanding of the PhD and their capacity for agency in shaping the research.

References  

Aitchison, C., & Lee, A. (2007). Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11 (3), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680574

Article   Google Scholar  

Aldrich, H.E. (1999). Organizations evolving . SAGE.

Anderson, C., Day, K., & McLaughlin, P. (2008). Student perspectives on the dissertation process in a Masters degree concerned with professional practice. Studies in Continuing Education, 30 (1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370701841531

Basturkmen, H., East, M., & Bitchener, J. (2014). Supervisors’ on-script feedback comments on drafts of dissertations: Socialising students into the academic discourse community. Teaching in Higher Education, 19 (4), 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.752728

Bazerman, C. & Prior, P. (2004). What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual Practices. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Brailsford, I. (2010). Motives and aspirations for doctoral study: Career, personal, and inter- personal factors in the decision to embark on a history PhD . International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 5 , 015–027. https://doi.org/10.28945/710

Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25 (1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/030750700116000

Cameron, J., Naim, K., & Higgins, J. (2009). Demystifying academic writing: Reflections on emotions, know-how and academic identity. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33 (2), 269–284.

Can, G., & Walker, A. (2014). Social science doctoral students’ needs and preferences for written feedback. Higher Education, 68 , 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9713-5

Carter, M. (2007). Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the disciplines. College Composition and Communication, 58 (3), 385–418. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20456952

Chang, C. E., & Strauss, P. (2010). ‘Active agents of change?’ Mandarin-speaking students in New Zealand and the thesis writing process. Language and Education, 24 (5), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500781003789873

Chatterjee-Padmanabhan, M., & Nielsen, W. (2018). Preparing to cross the research proposal threshold: A case study of two international doctoral students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55 (4), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1251331

Cotterall, S. (2011). Doctoral students writing: Where’s the pedagogy? Teaching in Higher Education, 16 (4), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.560381

Cotterall, S. (2015). The rich get richer: International doctoral candidates and scholarly identity. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52 (4), 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.839124

Creely, E. & Laletas, S. (2019). Transitions, transformations and finding success. A phenomenological analysis of the experiences of a doctoral student in early candidature. Higher Education Research & Development, 39 (3), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1680957

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Deem, R., & Brehony, K. (2000). Doctoral students’ access to research cultures-are some more unequal than others? Studies in Higher Education, 25 (2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696138

Department for Education. (2017). Postgraduate doctoral loans: Government consultation response. Retrieved 1 May 2020. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/597333/Doctoral_response_to_consultation.pdf

Eisenhardt, K. (2002). Building theories from case study research. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher's companion (pp. 4–35). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986274

Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103 (4), 962–1023.

Fisher, R., Brock, C. H., Frahm, T., Van Wig, A., & Gillis, V. R. (2020). Reflections on writing and identity: Exploring the role of qualifying exams in the sociocultural development of doctoral students. Studies in Continuing Education, 42 (3), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2019.1661237

Gardner, S. K. (2008). “What’s too much and what’s too little?”: The process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79 (3), 326–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772101

Gill, T. G., & Hoppe, U. (2009). The business professional doctorate as an informing channel: A survey and analysis. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 4, 27–57. http://www.ijds.org/Volume4/IJDSv4p027-057Gill267.pdf

Green, B. (2005). Unfinished business: Subjectivity and supervision. Higher Education Research and Development, 24 , 151–163.

Guerin, C., Jayatilaka, A., & Ranasinghe, D. (2015). Why start a higher degree by research? An exploratory factor analysis of motivations to undertake doctoral studies. Higher Education Research & Development, 34 (1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934663

Hockey, J. (1994). Establishing boundaries: Problems and solutions in managing the PhD supervisor’s role. Cambridge Journal of Education, 24 , 293–313.

Hopwood, N. (2010). A sociocultural view of doctoral students’ relationships and agency. Studies in Continuing Education, 32 (2), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2010.487482

Inouye, K. S., & McAlpine, L. (2017). Developing scholarly identity: Variation in agentive responses to supervisor feedback. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 14 , 1–31.

Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Benjamins.

Kamler, B. & Thomson, P. (2014). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision (2nd ed). Taylor and Francis.

Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11 (3), 203–270.

Lee, A., & Aitchison, C. (2009). Writing for the doctorate and beyond. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.), Changing practices of doctoral education (pp. 87–99). Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Leonard, D., Becker, R., & Coate, D. (2005). To prove myself at the highest level: The benefits of doctoral study. Higher Education Research & Development, 24 (2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360500062904

Li, Y. (2018). Rethinking education through self-study: An international doctoral student’s narrative. Reflective Practice, 19 (4), 530–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2018.1538946

Lovitts, B. E. (2005). Being a good course-taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30 (2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500043093

Lovitts, B. E. (2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t, and why. The Journal of Higher Education, 79 (3), 296–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772100

McAlpine, L., & McKinnon, M. (2012). Supervision - the most variable of variables: Student perspectives. Studies in Continuing Education, 35 (3), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2012.746227

McAlpine, A., Amundsen, C., & Turner, G. (2014). Identity-trajectory: Reframing early career academic experience. British Educational Research Journal, 40 (6), 952–969. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3123

McPherson, C., Punch, S., & Graham, S. (2018). Postgraduate transitions from Masters to doctoral study: Managing independence, emotion and support. Stirling International Journal of Postgraduate Research, 4 , 1–24.

Mead, G. H. (1932). The philosophy of the present . University of Chicago Press.

Naomi, S. S. (2021). Writing a doctoral thesis in a non-western voice. In Badenhorst, C., Arnell, B., & Burford, J., (Eds.), Re-imagining Doctoral Writing (pp. 185–199). The WAC Clearinghouse and University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.37514/INT-B.2021.1343.2.09

Nguyen, M. N., & Robertson, M. J. (2020). International students enacting agency in their PhD journey. Teaching in Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1747423

Paton, M. (2005). Is critical analysis foreign to Chinese students? In E. Manalo & G. Wong-Toi (Eds.), Communication skills in university education: The international dimension (pp. 1–11). Pearson Education New Zealand.

Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2002). Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education, 27 (2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070220119986c

Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36 (1), 94–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352110

Pyhalto, K., Vekkaila, J., & Keskinen, J. (2015). Fit matters in the supervisory relationship: Doctoral students’ and supervisors’ perceptions about the supervisory activities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52 (1), 4–16.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). (2020). Characteristics statement: Doctoral degree . Retrieved 1 May 2020. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/qualitycode/supporting-resources

Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences . SAGE.

Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed). SAGE.

Skakni, I. (2018). Reasons, motives and motivations for completing a PhD: A typology of doctoral studies as a quest. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 9 (2), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-D-18-00004

Soong, H., Tran, L. Y., & Hiep, P. H. (2015). Being and becoming an intercultural doctoral student: Reflective autobiographical narratives. Reflective Practice, 16 (4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2015.1023276

Taylor, A. (2007). Learning to become researching professionals: The case of the doctorate of education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19 (2), 154–166.

Thomas, D. R. (2017). Feedback from research participants: Are member checks useful in qualitative research? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 14 (1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2016.1219435

UK Council for Graduate Education. (2015). Structural changes in doctoral education in the UK: A review of graduate schools and the development of doctoral colleges. Retrieved 1 October 2019. http://www.ukcge.ac.uk/media/download.aspx?MediaId=1436

Vehviläinen, S. (2009). Problems in the research problem: Critical feedback and resistance in academic supervision. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53 (2), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830902757592

Wang, T., & Li, L. Y. (2011). ‘Tell me what to do’ vs ‘guide me through it’: Feedback experiences of international doctoral students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12 (2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787411402438

Wu, M., & Hu, Y. (2020). Transitioning to an independent researcher: Reconciling the conceptual conflicts in cross-cultural doctoral supervision. Studies in Continuing Education, 42 (3), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2019.1615423

Xu, L. (2017). Written feedback in intercultural doctoral supervision: A case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 22 (2), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1237483

Xu, L., & Grant, B. (2017). International doctoral students’ becoming: A dialogic perspective. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54 (6), 570–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1318711

Xu, L., & Hu, J. (2020). Language feedback responses, voices and identity (re)construction: Experiences of Chinese international doctoral students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57 (6), 724–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1593214

Yore, L. D., Florence, M. K., Pearson, T. W., & Weaver, A. J. (2006). Written discourse in scientific communities: A conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (2–3), 109–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336601

Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (4), 338–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20008

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Professor Lynn McAlpine and Dr. Velda Elliott for their support and feedback.

This research was supported by a Clarendon Scholarship from the University of Oxford.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Education, University of Oxford, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford, OX2 6PY, UK

Kelsey Inouye

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelsey Inouye .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Inouye, K. Developing the PhD thesis project in relation to individual contexts: a multiple case study of five doctoral researchers. High Educ 85 , 1143–1160 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00882-0

Download citation

Accepted : 25 May 2022

Published : 17 June 2022

Issue Date : May 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00882-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Doctoral writing
• PhD education
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Home > Student Publications and Other Works > Theses and Dissertations > DRP

Doctoral Research Project

Doctoral Research Projects are submitted in candidacy for the degree of Doctor of Education (EdD) at Loyola University Chicago.

Theses/Dissertations from 2016 2016

Mindfulness and Executive Function: Examining the Impact of the Mindup Curriculum on First Graders' Executive Functioning , Lauren A. Barker and Tasha L. Banks

Job Satisfaction Among Illinois School Psychologists , Nicole Billings, Noni Coleman, Marian Gandy, and Rhonda Rutherford

A Mixed-Methods Study of Academic Achievement and Parental Perspectives in a Dual Language Program , Nicole Folsom

Theses/Dissertations from 2015 2015

Latino Families' Knowledge of Bilingual Education , Rosalinda Barragan

An Action Research Project Aimed at Enhancing the Executive Skills of a Departmentalized Seventh Grades Class , Jacqueline M. Gilson

An Action Research Project Addressing the Impact of Trauma on Students in Schools Through Building a Trauma-Informed School Community , Meghan M. Meyer

Assessing the Impact of an Elementary School's Service Learning Program , Vicki Miceli-Randolph

Appraisal of a Benchmarking Plan Using an Action Research Approach with English Learner Program Teachers and Analysis of Predictive Validity of Spanish Curriculum Based Measures , Sandra Santillan

A Research Project Focused on Involving Parents with Behavior Program at Home , Susan M. Tucker

Advanced Search

• Set up email or RSS alerts

Submission Tools

• Contributor FAQ
• Collections
• Disciplines & Subjects

For Contributors

• SelectedWorks Faculty Profiles
• Why Contribute?
• Copyright & Intellectual Property
• What Do Publishers Allow?
• About Open Access
• Digitizing Your Materials

About eCommons

• License Agreement
• University Libraries
• Loyola Unviersity of Chicago School of Education

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Loyola eCommons Loyola University Chicago Libraries · 1032 W. Sheridan Rd., Chicago, IL 60660 · 773.508.2632 Comments & Suggestions Notice of Non-discriminatory Policy

BMAL 887 Doctoral Research Project I

• Course Description

This course is the first step for DSL Doctoral Candidates in the process of developing and completing their research project. Doctoral Candidates will develop Section 1 which includes the Foundation of the Study to include a detailed Literature Review relevant to the proposed research project.

For information regarding prerequisites for this course, please refer to the  Academic Course Catalog .

Course Guide

View this course’s outcomes, policies, schedule, and more.*

Requires a student login to access.

*The information contained in our Course Guides is provided as a sample. Specific course curriculum and requirements for each course are provided by individual instructors each semester. Students should not use Course Guides to find and complete assignments, class prerequisites, or order books.

BMAL 887, Doctoral Research Project I, is the first step for DSL doctoral candidates to develop and complete their research project. It provides a focused study of the problem, purpose, significance, theoretical framework, biblical integration, and important literature relevant to the proposed project.

Course Assignment

Assigned readings and lecture presentations.

No details available.

After reading the Course Syllabus and Student Expectations , the student will complete the related checklist found in the Course Overview.

Discussion: Progress Reports (16)

Discussions are collaborative learning experiences. Therefore, the student will submit weekly progress reports throughout the course. The purpose of these discussions is to ensure that the student and the student’s chair understand the work that the student has done and the steps needed to finish. For each discussion, the student will write a short, informal thread detailing his/her work up to this current module. The thread should be between 150 – 400 words. No peer replies are required ; however, the student is encouraged to read the peers’ threads and provide encouragement to build community.

Doctoral Research Project Guide: Tasks (8)

The student will locate the task he/she wants to complete in the Doctor of Strategic Leadership Doctoral Research Project Guide. The student must read the information concerning the task, complete the task requirements, then submit the task to Canvas. After the student submits the task, the student’s faculty member will review the completed task and provide feedback. The student will review the faculty member’s feedback and make any necessary adjustments to the task, then resubmit the task in Canvas until the faculty member approves the task and the student receives full credit on the assignment.

• Task 1: Bullet Point Outline
• Task 1: Bullet Point Outline – Admin Review
• Task 2: The Problem
• Task 3: The Nature of the Study
• Task 4: The Research Framework
• Task 5: Review of the Professional and Academic Literature
• Task 6: Supporting Material
• Task 7: Section 1, Foundation of the Study

Have questions about this course or a program?

Speak to one of our admissions specialists.

Inner Navigation

• Assignments

Have questions?

Are you ready to change your future?

Apply FREE This Week*

Request Information

*Some restrictions may occur for this promotion to apply. This promotion also excludes active faculty and staff, military, non-degree-seeking, DGIA, Continuing Education, WSB, and certificate students.

Request Information About a Program

Request info about liberty university online, what program are you interested in, choose a program level.

Choose a program level

Bachelor’s

Master’s

Certificate

Select a Field of Study

Select a field of study

Select a Program

Select a program

Next: Contact Info

Legal full name.

Enter legal full name

Legal Last Name

Enter legal last name

Enter an email address

Enter a phone number

Full Address

Enter an address

Apt., P.O. Box, or can’t find your address? Enter it manually instead .

Select a Country

Street Address

Enter Street Address

Enter State

ZIP/Postal Code

Enter Zip Code

Back to automated address search

Start my application now for FREE

Advancing scientific understanding of climate, improving society’s ability to plan and respond

NOAA’s Climate Program Office announces 2024 class of Climate and Global Change postdoctoral fellows

• May 14, 2024

Four new postdoctoral fellows are commencing cutting-edge research projects that will contribute innovative climate science to the research community as well as NOAA’s mission.

The 2024-2026 class of NOAA Climate and Global Change (C&GC) Postdoctoral Fellows are supported by NOAA’s Climate Program Office (CPO) and were selected by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR).

“We’re excited for these four new fellows who made it through a highly competitive selection process,” said Ben DeAngelo, acting director of NOAA’s Climate Program Office. “Their research offers innovative ways of advancing our collective understanding of a rapidly changing climate. This program continues to help launch the careers and train the next generation of climate science leaders.”

Chosen from 118 applications through a competitive review process, the fellows are promising early career scientists who are within five years of completing their Ph.D.s. Over the next two years, the fellows will be hosted by mentoring scientists at universities around the country to conduct projects focused on observing, understanding, modeling and predicting climate variability and change.

“The selected fellows span many areas in support of NOAA’s mission from atmospheric chemistry to sea level rise, and I’m excited to work with them to build their network within NOAA and amplify the impact of their research,” said Ginny Selz, the NOAA C&GC Postdoc Fellowship Program Federal Liaison and CPO Climate Variability and Predictability Program Manager.

Sponsored by CPO and managed by UCAR’s Cooperative Programs for the Advancement of Earth System Science (CPAESS), the NOAA C&GC Postdoc Fellowship Program helps create and train the future leading researchers needed for climate studies. “UCAR | CPAESS is so proud to partner with NOAA on this prestigious and critical program. These new fellows will now be part of the program’s 267 climate researchers over the past 34 years who have continued to make pivotal contributions to what may well be the most compelling scientific issue of our era,” said Hanne Mauriello, Director of UCAR’s CPAESS.

Due to budget constraints, this is a smaller group than in recent years, but one that embodies exceptional potential across the spectrum of the physical and interdisciplinary sciences needed to understand, better predict, plan for, and manage the Earth System and its interactions in a changing climate. We remain committed to providing our fellows with the high-quality resources, mentoring and opportunities for collaboration that are the hallmarks of our program. The NOAA Climate Program Office is dedicated to supporting the next generation of leaders and innovators in our field. We invite our community to join us in welcoming our new fellows. 

The program was originally founded in 1990 by former CPO Director, J. Michael Hall, Ph.D., in response to the lack of trained climate scientists to analyze the massive quantity of data collected by the international Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere Program , which ran from 1985 to 1994. Over the past 30 years, the program has developed an outstanding reputation for attracting the best and brightest PhDs in the climate sciences.

The program traditionally supports two forums where fellows can engage with NOAA and each other— a NOAA Summer Institute every other July and an annual alumni luncheon at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in December. The global pandemic, however, required innovation for the program to continue facilitating interactions between the fellows and the larger NOAA community. Since January 2021, UCAR has also hosted monthly virtual seminars featuring presentations by two current C&GC postdocs along with an invited NOAA scientist, or special professional development guest.

During the NOAA Summer Institute program, fellows and alumni come together to build a stronger global climate change community. The postdoctoral fellows collaborate with senior scientists in the field over four days. Participants explore the breadth of climate and global change research problem areas, discuss the future directions of climate science research, and discuss the bridge between climate and global change scientific goals and public policy.

The postdocs’ achievements after the fellowship continue to benefit NOAA and the larger scientific community. C&GC fellows go on to serve notable roles in climate science, from the first acting NASA senior climate advisor to academic researchers investigating the submarine melting of glaciers, the atmosphere’s self-cleansing capacity, or the role of atmospheric circulation in the prediction of El Niño and La Niña events.

Many former fellows credit the program with expanding their independence as scientists as well as supporting their professional growth at a crucial time in their careers. For the incoming class of fellows, this means being connected to a network of current and former NOAA postdocs and a community of scientists across a wide range of disciplines related to climate science.

2024 NOAA Climate & Global Change postdoctoral fellows:

Talia Anderson

Holly Olivarez 

Eliza Dawson

Tracking a New Forecast: Pollen Edition

• May 10, 2024

NOAA and NASA meet with partners and stakeholders advance readiness for atmospheric composition instrument in the future Geostationary Extended Observations satellite mission

Adaptation Sciences Program Supports Local2030 Islands Network Communities of Practice Meetings

The NOAA CAP program held an All-Interested Congressional Briefing hosted by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Deputy NOAA Administrator Jainey Bavishi

Changing climate trends make assessing and predicting drought more complex

NOAA CAP Program hosts panel at the National Adaptation Forum 2024 on Innovations in Federal Climate Research Funding for Frontline Communities

NOAA Blue Carbon Inventory Project partner, the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center Coastal Carbon Network, releases State-of-the-Data Blue Carbon Report

Ginny Selz, Climate Variability & Predictability Program Manager, graduated from the NOAA West Leadership Program

UCLA Graduate Student Huihuang Zhu is the 2024 recipient of the Treiman Fellowship

UCLA Department of Economics

8283 Bunche Hall Mail Stop: 147703 Los Angeles, CA 90095

Campus Resources

• Academic Calendar
• Maps, Directions, Parking
• University of California
• Terms of Use
• Injury & Illness Prevention Program

Internal Resources Manager’s Manual Admin Login Webmail (O365 Server) Contact Webmaster

• About the Department
• Administration
• Board of Visitors
• Department Newsletters
• Ladder Faculty
• Courtesy Faculty
• In Memoriam
• Recent Publications
• Research Spotlight
• Economics Major
• Business Economics Major
• Declare our Majors
• Degree Planning
• Benjamin Graham Value Investing Program
• Enrollment Procedures
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Student Wellness & Community
• Department of Economics Commencement 2024
• Course Descriptions
• Economics Class Schedule
• Learning Objectives
• Common Syllabus
• Non-UCLA Course Credit
• Econ Summer Courses for 2024
• Departmental Honors
• Departmental Scholar
• Departmental Scholarships
• Career Pathways
• Fellowships
• Career Center
• Internships
• Research Opportunities
• Preparing for a Ph.D. in Economics
• EDI Courses in Economics
• EDI Research
• EDI Resources for Students
• Incoming Undergraduates
• Why Study Economics?
• Freshmen Information
• Transfers Information
• Economics Courses
• Graduate Handbook
• Graduate Student Awards
• Standards and Procedures
• Second Year
• Thesis Writing
• TA Resources
• Job Market Prep
• Grad Econ Association
• Computing Resources
• Placement History
• Job Market Candidates
• Graduate Counseling Office
• Commencement videos
• Alumni Career Engagement
• UCLA Alumni Affairs
• Update Your Information
• Alumni Interviews
• Women in Business
• Proseminars

Department of Cognitive Science

Jane li receives an sshrc doctoral fellowship.

Congratulations to PhD student Jane Li for receiving a Social Science and Humanities Research Council (of Canada) Doctoral Fellowship !

Project Title: Allomorph computation in language production: a cross-linguistic study of speeded inflection

Field: Linguistics, Psycholinguistics

Project Description: When we want to speak, how do we mentally plan the sounds that eventually come together to form the word? This process seems trivial on the surface, but complications arise when one thinks of the finer details. One of the big wrinkles to this process is allomorphy — when a unit of meaning has multiple forms. For example, the English plural has three regular allomorphs: dog[z], cat[s], and leash[ɨz]. How do make sure we get the right allomorph? This is a question that has received a lot of attention in phonological theory (the first analysis of the English plural was almost 100 years ago!) yet severely understudied in psycholinguistics. My research hopes to bridge this gap by bringing together behavioural evidence from English and other languages (the content of this proposal) and potentially electrophysiological (EEG) evidence to shed light on the fine-grained timing properties of the processes described.

Advisor: Colin Wilson

About Me: I am from Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada. I graduated from Simon Fraser University in 2021 with a degree in Linguistics and minor in Philosophy. I am currently a third year PhD student in the department. I am interested in morpho-phonology, and specialize in using behavioural experiments (speeded inflection, naming) to draw out the properties of phonological or morphological mental representations.

In the short term: I want to finish this PhD and sketch out a preliminary theory of morpho-phonology in language production while I’m at it. In the long term: I want to keep studying the representational basis of morphology, especially with non-English languages, perhaps as a faculty member somewhere back home…

• 2022 Update
• 2021 Update
• 2020 Update
• Reputation and History
• Departments and Programs
• Faculty Recruiting
• Zoom Backgrounds
• Board of Visitors
• SCI Learning Academy
• Administration
• Faculty Directory
• Staff Directory
• PhD Students
• Diversity, Equity and Inclusion at SCI
• Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee
• School Initiatives and Resources
• University Initiatives and Resources
• Carving the path to safer and smarter buildings
• A holistic approach to intelligent social learning
• How to anticipate hiccups in health care
• Preserving a shared digital memory
• Holding information technologies accountable and addressing misinformation on the web
• More than an afterthought: Dr. Ibrahim shows students the necessity of cybersecurity
• Current Grants
• Faculty Accepting Undergraduate Students for Research
• Submit Research for Undergraduate Students
• Labs, Centers, and Institutes
• Visiting Scholars
• Undergraduate Research Scholars
• Degrees and Programs
• Find the Right Major for You
• Computational Biology
• Computational Social Science
• Computer Science
• Data Science
• Digital Narrative and Interactive Design
• Information Science
• BS + MS in Computer Science
• Physics and Quantum Computing
• Library and Information Science
• Intelligent Systems
• Telecommunications
• Computational Modeling and Simulation
• Information Science with a focus in Telecommunications
• Applied Data Driven Methods
• Big Data Analytics
• Cybersecurity, Policy, and Law
• Information and Network Security
• Professional Institute
• Types of Opportunities
• Experiential Learning Courses
• Meet Alexa Spaventa
• Meet J. Stephanie Rose
• Meet Lydon Pelletier
• Meet Pedro Bustamante
• Meet Nico Campuzano
• Meet Andrea Michael
• Meet Kinori Rosnow
• Take the Next Step
• Undergraduate Admissions FAQ
• Master's Admissions
• Doctoral Admissions
• Certificate Admissions
• GRE Requirements
• Financial Aid
• Scholarships
• Campus Life
• Information Sessions
• A-Z Student Resources
• Responsibilities
• Placement Assessments
• General Education Requirements
• Major and Minor Declaration
• Faculty Mentors
• Contact the SCI Advising Center
• Building Hours
• Career Resources
• Post-Graduate Outcomes
• Course Schedule
• Enrollment Resources
• Graduation Process and Expectations
• Apply for Graduation
• School Recognition Ceremony
• Information Technology
• Graduate Student Orientation
• New Graduate Student FAQ
• Undergraduate Student Orientation
• Ombudsperson
• Academic Integrity Policy
• Experiential Learning Policies
• School Forms
• Student Appeals
• Student Organizations
• Academic Support and Tutoring
• Student Success Workshops
• Who to Contact
• Submit a News Item
• Event Assistance & Promotion

Tim Huang’s “The Time Traveling Project” Presented at Governor’s Residence

Technology has the capability to transform the way people produce and consume art, and at SCI, Assistant Professor Tim Huang is making that happen with a Pittsburgh connection.

On March 19, Huang and fellow researcher Pat Healy, a PhD student studying information science, presented their work on The Time Traveling Project in Harrisburg at Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s residence.

“Being invited to present at the Governor's Residence was an incredible honor and a significant milestone in my career,” said Huang. “This opportunity showed that my work is starting to bring attention to the needs and stories of marginalized communities. The experience validated the importance of bridging the gap between technology and historical preservation while emphasizing community engagement. It reinforced the significance of inclusivity in technology research and the transformative impact immersive technologies can have on underserved communities.”

Healy also remarked on the opportunity to present at the Governor’s Residence.

“More people need to see these photos, they need to see what the Hill District was like in its golden era, see the stunning portrait of the Black working class in the bulk of his photos that we don't really see represented in any other media,” said Healy.

Huang, a faculty member in SCI’s Department of Information Culture and Data Stewardship (ICDS), developed an immersive artistic experience using virtual reality (VR), resulting in The Time Traveling Project. Using the photography of famed Black photographer and Pittsburgh native Teenie Harris and a VR headset, people can engage with Harris’ photos and historic Pittsburgh in an exciting new way.

The attendees at this reception, including Governor Shapiro, responded positively to Huang’s presentation.

“Several attendees, including leadership from the Carnegie Museum of Art, were enthusiastic about the potential of using VR for education and community engagement,” said Huang. “The positive reception underscored the importance of ICDS’s mission to positively impact local communities through information and technology, with a focus on meeting community needs through collaboration with residents.”

In addition to showcasing how The Time Traveling Project bridges the gap between historical preservation and modern technology, Huang noted how sharing this research aligned with his greater research goals.

“[This event] provid[ed] an opportunity to highlight the broader impact of immersive technology in historical preservation and community engagement,” said Huang. “The presentation provided an excellent platform to connect with a wider audience and to encourage more people to get involved. It opened new doors for collaboration, as several attendees expressed interest in supporting or partnering with the project.”

Though The Time Traveling Project looks to the past, Huang is excited about the future of this research and the potential for its impact.

“This experience has motivated me to continue exploring innovative ways to bring these technologies to a wider audience and further enrich the storytelling of marginalized communities,” said Huang. “It has also highlighted the visibility of the work ICDS and SCI have been focusing on, inspiring me to continue contributing to its mission to positively impact local communities using information and technology, while ensuring that projects like this address community needs together with local residents.”

Other next steps for Huang include working to expand community partnerships and refine the VR experiences to not only explore the past but envision future spaces.

“In April, I had discussions with Dr. Mindy Fullilove that helped shape my approach to community healing, further refining the concept of using VR storytelling as a tool to help communities impacted by displacement heal and envision a path toward restoration,” noted Huang. “The momentum from this event will be instrumental in reaching broader audiences and securing further funding for the project's expansion.”

Learn more about the Time Traveling Project here .

One Post Doctoral Fellowship (reference 55/2024/BIPD/AgendasPRR) at the Aveiro Institute of Materials, University of Aveiro - Project NGS (Agendas PRR)

Job information, offer description.

A call for application is now open for the attribution of  1 (one) Post Doctoral Fellowship, with reference 55/2024/BIPD/AgendasPRR, for development of scientific and technological research activities, under the scheme «Agendas Mobilizadoras para a Inovação Empresarial», namely NGS – New generation Storage project, at Aveiro Institute of Materials, at the University of Aveiro, Portugal, with the following conditions:

1. Scientific Area: Materials Science and Engineering, Energy, Physics, Physical Engineering, Chemistry and similar areas.

2. Funding entity: funded by the PRR - Recovery and Resilience Plan and by the NextGenerationEU, through the scheme «Agendas para a Inovação Empresarial».

3. Admission Requirements: candidates must be Doctorates, in the scientific field of Physics, Physical Engineering, Materials Science and Engineering, Chemistry , Chemical Engineering and similar areas.

If the qualification has been conferred by a foreign higher education institution it must be recognized by a Portuguese higher education institution, under the terms of the provisions of article 25 of Decree-Law no. 66/2018, of August 16th, which approves the legal regime of recognition of academic degrees and diplomas of Higher Education, attributed by foreign higher education institutions, and of paragraph e) of no. 2 of article 4 of Decree-Law no. 60/2018, of August 3rd, and any formalities established therein must be fulfilled by the date of the hiring act.

4. Eligibility: candidates who comply with provisions of paragraph a) nº1 from article 2 of the Statute of the Research Fellow are eligible, as amended by Decree-Law nº 123/2019, of 28 of August, and also the provisions of article nº 8 of the Scientific Research Grant Regulations of the University of Aveiro.

The postdoctoral fellowship can only be granted if all the following requirements are met:

a) The doctoral degree has been obtained within the three years prior to the date of submission of the application for the grant;

b) The postdoctoral research is carried out in a host entity different from the entity where the research work leading to the doctoral degree was carried out;

c) the research activities do not require postdoctoral experience;

d) the research activities have a time frame for development and implementation up to three years;

e) The fellow does not exceed, with the conclusion of the grant contract in question, including possible renewals, an accumulated period of three years in that type of grant, consecutive or interpolated.

5. Work Plan: Collaboration in the development of a technological platform for carrying out battery research and development activities, namely for the synthesis of new materials via chemical routes and their structural, microstructural, electrical and electrochemical characterization, manufacturing of CR2032 type cells based on materials selected and their functional characterization.

6. Legislation and regulations: the fellowship assignment will be done according to the Statute of the Scientific Research Fellow, published in Decree-Law nº 123/2019, of 28 of August; Scientific Research Grant Regulation of the University of Aveiro, Regulation No. 292/2020, published in Diário da República No. 61, Series II, of March 26th; Decree-Law No. 66/2018, of August 16th (Legal regime of recognition of academic degrees and diplomas of higher education awarded by foreign higher education institutions) (available at https://www.ua.pt/en/sgrh/bolseiros ).

7. Place of work: the work will take place at Department of Physics of the University of Aveiro, under the scientific supervision of Doctor Filipe Miguel Henrique Lebre Ramos Figueiredo, Principal Researcher.

8. Duration of the grant(s): the research fellowship will last for 12 (twelve) months, with an expected starting date on the July 1 st , 2024. The fellowship may be renewed up to the maximum limit of approved funding, during the project implementation period, and without exceeding the duration limits defined for the type of fellowship in article 8 of Regulation no. 292/2020, of February 28th, published in Diário da República, no. 61, Series II, of March 26th (Scientific Research Grant Regulation of the University of Aveiro).

9. Monthly allowance: The monthly allowance is €1801,00, according to the table of values of monthly allowance set out in Attachment III of the Regulation on Scientific Research Scholarship of University of Aveiro, subject to any updates that may occur if applicable. The payment will be made by bank transfer. The candidate may also be reimbursed for the amount corresponding to the Voluntary Social Security, in case of adherence.

10. Selection method: the selection methods to be used include Curricular Evaluation, with the option Interview in case the Jury considers that do not have the conditions of deciding based on Curricular Evaluation. The sub criteria to be assessed under Curricular Evaluation (with a weight of 0 - 20  points) are:

- Number of scientific publications (33%);

- R&D experience in the scientific area of the competition (33%);

- Adequacy and merit of the candidate's CV taking into account the scientific area of the competition (34%).

If the jury considers that do not have the conditions for deciding based on Curricular Evaluation, an interview may be held, where the final score will be 80% for curricular evaluation and 20% for interview.

The jury reserves the right to not admit candidates for interview that do not reach the minimum classification of 10 points (in a scale from 0 to 20 points), as well as not to assign the research fellowship if among candidates there is no one who has a minimum final classification of 10 points.

11. Members of the Jury: President: Dr. Filipe Lebre Henriques Lebre Ramos Figueiredo, Principal Reseacrher; Permanent members: Dr. José Richard Gomes, Principal Researcher and Dr. Pavel Zelenovskii, Junior Researcher; Substitute members: Dr. Andrei Kholkin, Principal Researcher and  Carlos António Delgado Sousa Brites, Assistant Professor

12. Period for submission of applications: the call is open between May 13 th , 2024 and May 24 th , 2024. Only applications received in this period will be considered for evaluation. Applications must be submitted by e-mail to [email protected] with identification of the reference number in the email subject.

Applications should include the following mandatory documents: certificate(s) of qualifications, curriculum vitae, declaration of honor, application form , motivation letter, supporting documents considered relevant. The candidate should also indicate the e-mail address to be notified for all purposes within the scope of this procedure.

Failure to comply with the deadline for submission of the application, as well as the incorrect formalization of the application, result in the exclusion of the application.

13. Publication/notification of results: the results of the evaluation will be published within 60 working days after the final date of submission of the application, whereas the candidates will be notified by email. For the purposes of prior hearing of interested parties, the deadline of 10 working days after notification is set, as provided for in the Code of Administrative Procedure. At the end of the period for hearing the interested parties, and in the absence of any response from them, the list of candidates will become final. Candidates may lodge a complaint against the final decision within 10 working days after notification of the final decision, by appealing to the Rector.

14. Research fellowship duration: The final ranking list of candidates will be valid for 12 months for the purpose of constituting a reserve list for selection.

University of Aveiro, 06/05/2024

Dr. Filipe Lebre Henriques Lebre Ramos Figueiredo

PT version: https://www.ua.pt/pt/noticias/0/86553

Requirements

Additional information, work location(s), where to apply.

Faculty of Agriculture

• Agricultural Economics
• Food Science, Nutrition & Technology
• Land Resource Management & Agricultural Technology
• Plant Science & Crop Protection

Faculty of Built Environment

• Art and Design
• Architecture
• Real Estate, Construction Management & Quantity Surveying
• Urban and Regional Planning

FACULTY OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT SCIENCES

• Business Administration
• Finance and Accounting
• Management Science and Project Planning

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

• Educational Management, Policy and Curriculum Studies
• Educational Communication and Pedagogical Studies
• Physical Education and Sport
• Educational Foundations
• Educational and Distance Studies
• FACULTY OF LAW

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

• Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
• Civil and Construction Engineering
• Electrical and Information Engineering
• Environmental and Biosystems Engineering
• Geospatial and Space Technology.

FACULTY OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

• Anthropology, Gender and African Studies
• Diplomacy and International Studies
• Economics and Development Studies
• Geography, Population and Environmental Studies
• History and Archaeology
• Journalism and Mass Communication
• Library and Information Science
• Linguistics and Languages
• Philosophy and Religious Studies
• Political Science and Public Administration
• Sociology, Social Work and African Women Studies

FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES

• Dental sciences
• Nursing Sciences
• Public and Global Health
• Human Anatomy & Physiology
• Clinical Medicine & Therapeutics
• Paediatrics and Child Health
• Obstetrics & Gynecology
• Human Pathology
• Diagnostic Imaging & Radiation Medicine
• Medical Microbiology and Immunology
• Ophthalmology

FACULTY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

• Computing and Informatics
• Mathematics
• Earth & Climate Science
• Biochemistry

FACULTY OF VETERINARY MEDICINE

• Public Health,Pharmacology & Toxicology
• Veterinary Anatomy & Physiology
• Animal Production
• Clinical Studies
• Veterinary Pathology, Microbiology & Parasitology

RESEARCH INSTITUTES

• Wangari Maathai Institute for Peace and Environmental Studies
• Institute of Nuclear Science & Technology
• The Institute for Climate Change and Adaptation
• Kenya Aids Vaccine Institute
• Institute of Diplomacy and International Studies
• Institute of Anthropology, Gender and African Studies
• Institute of Tropical & Infectious Diseases
• East African Kidney Institute
• Population Studies and Research Institute
• Institute for Development Studies
• Confucius institute

RESEARCH CENTRES

• African Women's Studies Centre
• Center for Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis (CEMA)
• Centre For Biotechnology & Bioinformatics
• Centre for Advanced Studies in Environmental Law & Policy
• Centre for Translation and Interpretation
• Virtual Tour
• Covid-19 Info
• Data Privacy

PhD Scholarships 2024- RS-4C - Call for Applications

Wangari Maathai Institute for Peace and Environmental Studies (WMI), University of Nairobi with funding from Netherlands hereby invite applications for two PhD scholarships under the project  Remote Sensing for Community-driven applications: from WA+ to co-learning  (RS-4C). Subject to satisfactory performance and legal requirements, each PhD scholar will obtain a degree from The University of Nairobi.

Click HERE to read the full call and application guidelines.