Introduction

Higher-Degree Research (HDR) is a “unique and paradoxical mode of institutional learning” (Cotterall, 2011, p. 413), a journey through which an individual transitions from the carefully scaffolded and sequenced curricula of coursework into the nebulous vagaries of independent research. On this journey of enculturation, students evolve into researchers: the receivers and containers of knowledge become knowledge creators; disciplinary outsiders are expected to establish their voices as credible insiders, speaking with authority as one who can participate effectively within the evolving conversation therein (Paré, 2019). In short, research students must begin to “think and act as [expert] researchers” (Castelló et al., 2013, p. 444).

Novice scholars often struggle with this transition. In particular, HDR students experience feelings of isolation, as well as “imposter syndrome”, feelings of “intellectual phoniness” that can be debilitating (Clance & Imes, 1978, p. 241): “After a student lifetime as a bystander—a reporter of and commentator on other people’s ideas—doctoral students must begin a ‘deep participation’ (Prior, 1998, p. 103) in disciplinary debate and become players rather than spectators” (Paré, 2019, p. 81). Although universities offer a range of resources to support HDR students through this process, this support is often “ad hoc, limited and sporadic” (Habibie, 2019, p. 45) ultimately leaving students to navigate the complexities of HDR on their own (Gardner, 2007).

The present study focuses on this critical stage of the HDR experience: the transition from coursework into independent research (Baker & Pifer, 2011). Through questionnaire and interview data, HDR candidates reflected on the challenges they experience and the support resources they found most beneficial during this transition.

The HDR experience

Research into HDR students’ experiences has grown significantly in recent years, providing insight into the challenges these students face when being enculturated into research discourse communities. At the forefront of this research is an increasing number and more varied demographic of HDR candidates. Across OECD countries, the number of doctoral degrees increased 56% in just over a decade, from 158,000 in 2000 up to 247,000 in 2012 (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2014, p. 1). In Australia alone, HDR enrolments have increased six-fold in just the past three decades (Department of Education & Training, [DET], 2015) and of those, a growing proportion is overseas students (i.e. 34%), representing diverse linguistic and educational backgrounds (OECD, 2018).

The amount of coursework required in doctoral programs differs across the globe. For example, in the United States, students engage in 1–4 years of advanced coursework, referred to as Stage 1, before commencing Stage 2, a large independent research project advised by a panel or team of supervisors (Baker & Pifer, 2011). In Australia, where the present study takes place, a number of universities have adopted the “Bologna model” in which the pathway into a doctoral program is a Masters by Research or “MRes”. The first year of the MRes (also referred to as the Bachelor of Philosophy or “BPhil”) involves specialised coursework focused on research theories and methodologies. In the second year, students conduct independent research, conceiving of an original project, obtaining relevant ethics clearances, conducting the study and writing a thesis of approximately 20,000 words to be externally examined. For many students, this study serves as a pilot for their larger PhD project and upon successful completion, they matriculate to the PhD.

When students transition from the directed coursework of Stage 1 into the less-regimented protocols of Stage 2, they often struggle with the comparative lack of structure as they experience a shift in identity from that of “course-taker” to that of “independent scholar/researcher” (Lovitts, 2005, p. 138). Independent research is highly autonomous and individualised. By its very nature, each student’s project is designed to be novel and distinct, making an original contribution to knowledge (Lovitts, 2005). These large independent research projects are conducted under the supervision of just a few disciplinary experts, a process during which students are required to adapt to their discipline’s discourse communities which have special ways of knowing, believing and persuading (Castelló et al., 2013). However, these practices are rarely explicitly taught. Instead, students are often left on their own to navigate the research process, acquiring insights from the ‘graduate student grapevine’ (Gardner, 2007).

During this transition, much of the structure and many of the social interactions of coursework fall away, contributing to the isolation many HDR students experience, and increasing the pressure on the supervisor relationship (Baker & Pifer, 2011; Lovitts, 2005). While coursework students learn under the instruction of several academics according to a set curriculum, HDR hinges on the supervisor-candidate relationship. This relationship is perhaps the most critical component of doctoral education, “the pivotal influence underpinning a student’s scholarly and professional development” (Maher et al., 2014, p. 701).

When HDR supervisors speak about their PhD candidates, an almost constant refrain is their concern over students’ writing skills. For example, in their investigation of doctoral writing feedback in New Zealand, Carter and Kumar (2017) found that problems with language and poorly written work monopolised the limited time that supervisors were allotted to spend with each candidate (p. 70). In another study, conducted in the USA, Lovitts (2007) examined the criteria employed for assessing dissertations and found that the “quality of doctoral students’ writing” was consistently raised as a primary concern among examiners (p. 48).

These writing-related challenges are salient across an array of pressures arising from the HDR experience. Several studies have illuminated just how anxiety-inducing the HDR journey can be. For example, in an examination of 81 doctoral candidates in an Australian University, “participants reported higher levels of depression, anxiety and stress than age-matched general population normative data” (Barry et al., 2018, p. 468). In a similar study of mental health among PhD students in Belgium, researchers found “32% of PhD students are at risk of having or developing a common psychiatric disorder, especially depression”, significantly higher than a comparable control group (Levecque et al., 2017, p. 868). Such findings reveal the enormity of pressures placed on HDR candidates, stemming from organisational policies, increased workloads, “work-family interface, job demands and job control, the supervisor’s leadership style, team decision-making culture, and perception of a career outside academia” (Levecque et al., 2017, p. 868; see also, Mackie & Bates, 2019).

To support this growing and varied group of HDR students, universities now offer a range of resources aimed at developing their writing skills, introducing them to research and referencing software (e.g. NVivo, Mendeley, EndNote) and developing research-related skills (e.g. statistics, methodologies, etc.). In addition to these skills workshops and consultations, many HDR support programs also offer mentoring or one-on-one consultations with more experienced HDR students or early-career researchers. Studies have shown that mentoring relationships are crucial for combatting the isolation inherent to doctoral study, strengthening candidates’ sense of belonging (e.g. Mantai, 2017, 2018), and their social and academic integration into university (Cornelius et al., 2016).

In short, research into HDR candidates’ experiences has grown significantly in the last decade; however, very few studies have focused specifically on the period of transition from coursework into independent research. Further, despite the growing number and variety of resources offered to HDR students, research into the efficacy of these resources remains limited, especially as it pertains to students engaging with these resources while navigating this critical transition period.

The study

With these concerns in mind, this qualitative study seeks to explore HDR candidates’ experiences at their point of transition from coursework students into novice researchers at a large Australian research university. Specifically, it examines their experiences during the early stages of interacting with their supervisors, setting up their research projects, and writing their confirmation of candidature reports. In doing so, the aims of this study are (1) to examine how novice researchers are initiated into their research projects; and (2) to identify which resources are most valuable for upskilling them during this transition.

To investigate these aims, 105 HDR candidates were surveyed about their experiences transitioning into a research degree. The questionnaire elicited both quantitative (numerical scales, closed-ended questions) and qualitative (open-ended questions) data. Specifically, questions focused on the aspects of conducting research the candidates found most challenging, as well as the support resources they found most beneficial. Of the 105 respondents, 64 studied in the Humanities and Social Sciences (61%; e.g. Linguistics, Psychology), 21 studied in the Life and Physical Sciences (20%; e.g. Geology, Engineering), and 20 studied in the Arts (19%; e.g. Anthropology, Film Studies).

To elaborate on the questionnaire data, a further 21 candidates participated in semi-structured interviews. Of the 21 participants, seven were enrolled in the Faculty of Arts (33%) and the remaining 14 studied in the Humanities and Social SciencesFootnote 1 (67%). Notably, 19 of the interview participants indicated they use English as an additional language (EAL) with only two identifying English as their first language (L1). Details about the interview participants are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1 Interview participant background
Full size table

The interview protocol was designed to elicit any obstacles that the candidate was experiencing and to identify any resources or strategies they were using to overcome these challenges. Notably, the interview participants commenced their degrees at the same time that the university was piloting a peer mentoring program in which candidates could access up to eight one-on-one consultations with a dedicated mentor. Mentors were recent HDR graduates or HDR students in the second half of their candidature. The program was unique from other peer mentoring and writing consultations in that mentors continually met with the same candidates, first establishing a relationship and then providing advice and feedback. All of the interviewed participants engaged in at least three consultations with a mentor.

The data from the open-ended survey questions and the transcribed interviews were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase thematic analysis, a methodology widely employed for its flexibility and usefulness in providing detailed and complex accounts of data. In total, 235 excerpts or quotes from the data were extracted. Of these, 74% (n = 173) related to the difficulties students face in the early stages of independent research. The remaining 26% (n = 62) related to the students’ assessments of the HDR resources or strategies they employ when overcoming these challenges. These excerpts were coded deductively by topic and sub-themes. Each excerpt and its coded theme were reviewed to ensure that there was no overlap across themes and that each one was explicitly distinct (i.e. “internal homogeneity” and “external heterogeneity”; Patton, 1990). One year after the initial coding was completed, an intra-rater reliability check was conducted. The results of the second thematic analysis were compared to the results of the original coding and established an intra-rater agreement of 88%. The following sections, supported by excerpts from the interview and questionnaire data, serve as an analytic narrative of these themes and more nuanced sub-themes, revealing which aspects of the transition into independent research candidates find most challenging and how they overcome these challenges. Pseudonyms are used to protect the participants’ identity and excerpts from the anonymous questionnaire are referred to as “Survey Response”, or the abbreviation “SR”.

Results and discussion

Challenges of the transition into independent research

When asked to describe the most challenging aspects of transitioning into independent research, survey participants (n = 105) most commonly cited tasks and abilities related to Project Design and Conceptualisation (33% challenging; 11% very challenging; 6% extremely challenging), followed closely by Writing and communicating research with clarity and scholarly expression (27% challenging; 10% very challenging; 5% extremely challenging). The processes of Identifying resources, reading and understanding scholarly materials were assessed to be the least challenging aspects of this transition (34% not challenging; 41% slightly challenging).

As illustrated in Fig. 1, the participants found Articulating my theoretical or conceptual framework to be most challenging (35% challenging; 16% very challenging; 7% extremely challenging). Other aspects of project conceptualisation and design attracted similarly high scores. For example, 38% indicated that Articulating my research questions was “challenging” (9% very challenging; 6% extremely challenging); 33% characterised Conceptualising my research problem as challenging (11% very challenging; 6% extremely challenging); and, 29% described Designing my research project as challenging, (12% very challenging; 6% extremely challenging). Two aspects of Communicating and Writing up research received similarly high designations. 29% of participants found Refining my writing to appear scholarly as “challenging” (15% very challenging; 6% extremely challenging) and 35% described Expressing ideas clearly to be challenging (10% very challenging; 5% extremely challenging).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Challenging aspects of transitioning into independent research

Full size image

The excerpts from the open-field questions on the survey and the transcribed interviews provided further insight into these challenges and highlighted other aspects of the transition that were of particular concern. The quotes were coded deductively by topic into four categories with 18 sub-themes created to distinguish each type of response (Table 2). Of the 173 excerpts that focused on the difficulties candidates face in the early stages of independent research, 39% focused on writing (n = 67), followed by personal challenges (30%; n = 52), the research project (26%; n = 45) and research reading (5%; n = 9). These themes and sub-themes are discussed in order of prominence in the following sections.

Table 2 Challenges of the transition into HDR: themes and sub-themes
Full size table

Writing challenges

While the survey data revealed a higher perception of difficulty related to the research project design, the qualitative data predominantly focused on writing challenges (n = 67). In order of prominence, participants most frequently commented on issues related to writing with appropriate scholarly style (n = 19), followed by structure and grammar (n = 10), EAL-specific challenges (n = 9), the writing process (n = 8), clarity (n = 6), supervisor feedback (n = 6), synthesis and argument development (n = 6), vocabulary (n = 2), and referencing (n = 1). When developing their research writing, participants often struggled to structure their content logically, as Demi explained: “sometimes I understand how to make it coherent…but when I put it into writing, my writing is not good enough for the readers to understand”. For some, the challenge of structuring ideas together logically stemmed from difficulties “understanding how concepts fit together” (Jin). Synthesising arguments is a skill closely related to research reading, as Alex explained: “Although I am able to identify the underlying backdrop of pertaining issues, theories and stances…I find it difficult to organise my own stance, that is, synthesise the information towards a streamlined argument”. Notably, research suggests that writing is not exclusively a cognitive skill, but an emotional skill that is tightly bound with students’ well-being (Wellington, 2010). As such, feelings of inadequacy and difficulties related to writing are closely tied with the personal challenges described below.

Personal challenges

The second most cited theme that emerged from the data related to the personal difficulties candidates encountered (n = 52). Most frequently, participants commented on issues related to their own mental health (n = 21), followed by self-management (n = 17), family (n = 9), and establishing their researcher identity (n = 5). When describing the transition into independent research, students used words such as “challenging and intense” (SR). This intensity often caused students to feel “stressed and overwhelmed” (SR), leading one student to even question “whether I was missing some preparation and just wasn’t equipped enough for conducting research” (Hei).

In some instances, this combination of stress and a pressure to perform was exacerbated by students’ perfectionistic tendencies (e.g. “I really want to have papers published in good journals”, Xue). By its very nature, HDR tends to attract high-achieving students who also often struggle with feelings of inadequacy and perfectionism (Jadidi et al., 2011); students are “prone to perfectionism, ‘as they gradually set idealistic and unreachable goals for themselves’ and often mistakenly believe that ‘everyone else writes flawlessly the first time’ (Badenhorst, 2010, p. 72)” (Russell-Pinson & Harris, 2019, p. 66). Some participants offered examples of such thinking. For example, Alex described her “struggle to stay on task and to manage [her] time meaningfully” and Thao explained, “my research causes me stress which results in my concentration lost”. The impact of mental health on research productivity is well encapsulated in the following survey response: “Initiating the writing process has also been very challenging as I struggle to focus when my physical and mental health are affected. These external factors impact on my work” (SR).

Within the subcategory of mental health (n = 21), three of the comments that related to anxiety also mentioned problems with self-regulation. Notably, one of the most common themes that emerged from the data was time- and self-management (n = 17). When commencing the research project, students are ‘thrown into the deep end’ of project management and expected to not only design a complex project, but estimate timelines for tasks they may have never performed before (e.g. data collection, analysis). Participants commented on how they “had little idea how to estimate workload and make plans” (SR), as Hei explained, “as I was new to research, I had difficulties in estimating workload and managing my time”. Similarly, Taban admitted to finding “time management and emotion management during the research journey [to be] challenging”. The frequency and manner with which participants mentioned their struggles with time management indicates that this is a larger issue than simply developing the ‘soft skills’ of research project management. As Russel-Pinson and Harris (2019) note, time management is closely related to self-efficacy; both are inversely linked to students’ levels of writing anxiety which in turn, is associated with a “fear of failure, often resulting in a hesitancy to begin a writing task, an inefficiency and ineffectiveness in completing a writing task, and a tendency towards chronic procrastination” (p. 66)

One further theme that emerged from the data related to candidates grappling with their new researcher identity, or their ability to “think like a researcher” (SR). For example, one candidate described how “in the past, I wasn’t independent enough to work by myself and own the work; I need space and time to become competent” (SR). Another candidate, Andrew, explained that he was “still learning to look at my work as a researcher…I don’t think I have the right mind space to see what I’m doing from a researcher’s point of view”. He further reflected on an interaction he had with a more advanced HDR candidate: “when I talked to her and she tells me what I should do, I was like ‘wow, she has such a researcher’s mind!’ These interactions with colleagues help me realise where I should put myself into the right space and see my work as a researcher”.

Research project

The third most common theme is related to the research project (n = 45). Within this category, quotes were further classified according to the research process (n = 23), achieving milestones (n = 12), and interacting with supervisors (n = 10). Notably, Research Process was the most prevalent sub-theme across all thematic categories (i.e. 14% of all sub-themes). Often these comments focused on narrowing research questions and designing the research project. For example, Idris explained: “The main problem is the research question and you know, the objective of the research…this needs to be more refined and more precise”. Another candidate, Jason, described “issues with defining my research questions” and “establishing a focused direction for my project”, while one survey respondent explained how they find it challenging “to decide and articulate how much information [they] needed to include and to what extent”. Refining their research projects and coming “up with valid and interesting research questions” (Wang) can seem particularly overwhelming considering that “the establishment of my clear research question [sets up] the direction for my whole research” (SR).

For students in the early months of designing their research projects, this process of narrowing their research focus is a critical step towards achieving important milestones related to candidature confirmation. At this stage, students are mainly focused on “preparing and completing [their candidature confirmation], from finding research focus, identifying research questions, planning methodology and to putting them together for the presentation as well as the report” (Malia). Once candidates are confirmed, they must apply for ethics, which requires them to first establish their “research design, research sample and sampling strategies” as well as develop their “research instruments” (Lien). Thus, the milestones in the early months of candidature serve as important measures of success in both designing the research project and establishing themselves as confirmed research candidates.

One further sub-theme that arose in relation to the research projects was the relationship between candidates and supervisors (n = 10). While some students described their supervisors as “supportive” and “flexible” (SR), others struggled to manage supervisor expectations. For example, Lucy explained how she was “dealing with two supervisors who have slightly different perspectives of experimental setup, RQs, how many projects I should be taking on, etc.” while Jason expressed ongoing frustration with his supervisor:

My main challenge [is] dealing with my supervisor situation and finding ways to deal with it myself. I’m not happy with her supervision and even felt undermined and felt I was being treated like a child. I feel she’s not giving adequate support. So I’ve contemplated changing supervisor.

The role of the supervisor in the journey of an HDR candidate cannot be overstated. Multiple studies have highlighted the ‘make or break’ nature of these interactions and the added stress involved when a mismatch in personalities or a breakdown in the relationship occurs (Barry et al., 2018). Responses such as those outlined above further serve to highlight the delicate nature of managing this relationship and the impact such interactions can have on the well-being and success of the HDR candidate.

Reading and secondary research

The fourth theme that emerged in the data involves students’ experiences reading and comprehending the research literature. Comments relating to conducting secondary research (n = 6) most often focused on selecting appropriate reports and articles (n = 3) and identifying critical information within these texts (e.g. “to find out the relevant articles and journals is another problem”, Idris). Once students identify relevant texts, they still often struggle to “fully understand the sources, especially because of the lack of familiarity with the vocabulary” (Comprehension, n = 3; Taban). Overall, the number of comments focused on the receptive skill of reading were relatively low compared to the number and diversity of sub-themes related to the productive skill of writing. This suggests that students are much more focused on shaping their outputs and may have overcome many of the challenges related to reading advanced texts prior to entering this stage of the research process.

HDR resources and strategies

The second part of the study explores which resources the candidates accessed during their transition into independent research and which of these they found most helpful. The surveyed candidates (n = 105) were asked to indicate which of the university’s HDR support resources they had accessed during candidature. As outlined in Fig. 2, the majority of surveyed candidates participated in the university’s commencement program (74%) and attended at least one HDR workshop (73%). Half of the respondents also indicated that they accessed the university’s HDR online resources (51%) and 44% indicated they accessed an HDR writing course during this transition period.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Percentage of surveyed candidates engaging with HDR support resources

Full size image

Notably, when the surveyed candidates were asked to evaluate these programs, two of the most accessed resources were also assessed to be the least helpful. Specifically, of the respondents who participated in the commencement program, 15% described it as “not helpful” and 35% as only “somewhat helpful” (see Fig. 3). Similarly, of the respondents who engaged with the university’s online HDR resources, 9% found them “not helpful” and 31% as only “somewhat helpful”.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Helpfulness of HDR support resources

Full size image

The resources found to be most helpful were the most individualised forms of support. Unfortunately, these were also some of the least frequently engaged resources. For example, as illustrated in Fig. 2, only 11% of surveyed candidates met one on one with an HDR-learning skills advisor. Of those, though 64% found the experience either “very” or “extremely” helpful, as outlined in Fig. 3. The HDR mentor pilot program similarly had low uptake amongst the surveyed participants (11%). Notably though, all of the candidates who participated in the program and responded to the questionnaire described it as “very helpful” (67%) or “extremely helpful” (33%). The three other resources that were found to be most helpful were Writing retreats (25% very helpful; 43% extremely helpful), HDR Workshops (33% very helpful; 13% extremely helpful), and the Research Enhancement Master Class (36% very helpful; 7% extremely helpful).

The excerpts from the open-field survey questions and the interviews provided further insight into participants’ experiences engaging with these support resources. As noted above, 235 excerpts were extracted from the data; of these, 173 related to the difficulties students experienced in the early stages of research. The remaining 62 excerpts related to the students’ assessments of the HDR resources or strategies they engaged with when overcoming these challenges; these were coded across three themes: the value of HDR mentors (n = 38), followed by HDR workshops (n = 19), and self-directed strategies or behaviours (n = 5), such as engaging peer reviewers or watching YouTube tutorials.

HDR mentors

Notably, when responding to the challenges associated with their transition into doctoral study, most candidates focused on the support they received from having a dedicated HDR mentor. Specifically, 38 excerpts related to the benefits drawn from these mentoring relationships. Across these comments, three key sub-themes emerged: mentor as advisor, mentor as counsellor, and mentor as sounding board.

The first and most prominent role these mentors take on is that of advisor. Students often sought out the mentors’ advice related to myriad issues around the research process. For example, candidates often used the mentoring sessions to gain feedback on their writing (“I tried to overcome this challenge by consulting with my mentor and re-systemising my idea, claim, argument, etc.”, SR). Sometimes this advice took the form of accountability as mentors strategised alongside the candidates to overcome problems such as organising notes or managing their time. For example, Jordan struggled with “synthesising the main points in scholarly articles”, so his mentor helped him “create a reading summary template which I’ve been using to help me summarise scholarly articles”. Another candidate, Andrew, struggled with time management. To respond to this challenge, his mentor worked with him “to set up a detailed daily work schedule to regulate and focus my time…to ensure I was maximising this time and not just dwindling it away”.

The second role mentors tended to fulfil was that of counsellor, providing encouragement and support to students as they share their own struggles adapting to research, their supervisors and new learning environments. For example, Wang explained that most of her mentoring consultations focused on “managing worry”: “I was worrying that my supervisor might feel disappointed with me…in the following session, I joyfully thanked [my mentor] for her advice in the last session. I realised worrying about my supervisor was truly not necessary and I followed the constructive advice and focused on writing the journal paper; now I’m nearly finished the paper”. Another candidate, Hei, recounted how she “found the consultations helpful, especially in giving me emotional support, knowing there was someone I can consult if I had any problems or questions”. While some may assume that this is the role of the supervisor, students often felt their mentor was more accessible: “my supervisor is very busy; my mentor is available and someone else I can approach” (Andrew). In effect, in the largely independent practice of research, situated in the landscape of over-burdened supervisors, mentors play a critical role in ensuring students do not fall off the radar, as Andrew explained, “having a mentor, you have someone watching over you during your journey”.

In addition to providing advice, feedback, and encouragement, mentors often function as a sounding board. Several comments focused on the value of having a dedicated mentor with whom the candidates could establish a relationship, a safe space where they could discuss their notions with an informed specialist (i.e. someone generally familiar with their research focus) who was more at the level of a peer. For example, Alex used her consultations to “discuss pieces of my texts, points of contention”. She described how having a mentor with whom she could “verbally express [her] research [was] extremely valuable”. Similarly, Malia recounted how processing ideas through conversation with her mentor helped her narrow her research focus: “Throughout our sessions I often devoted some time to describing the latest political developments that were having an impact on my research…explaining these events to my mentor gave me fresh perspective because it forced me to simplify my topic”. Another participant, Xue described how he engaged his mentor as a sounding board to process and clarify his understandings: it was “through the talking I understand my research better and know how to make the listener get what I’m trying to say”. Johnson (2018) refers to this process as “talking to think; thinking to write” and argues that this conversation helps “students clarify their ideas before they commence writing… the idea of language as a tool to mediate and develop academic scholarly identity” (p. 19).

HDR workshops

Apart from the support candidates drew from their mentors, 19 participants commented on the value of research workshops and seminars. For example, students who engaged with a specialised series of seminars recounted how “there really is a method that can be applied to creating a scholarly voice…I realise there’s more to it, things I never knew, for example, how to foreground/background information when citing and integrating evidence” (SR). In addition to the rhetorical skills of communicating research, these seminars focused on research processes and strategies for synthesising evidence to build an argument, as Idris recounted: “I learnt the system, how to narrow [how] I have to think—first, I have to think very big and then make it narrower and then narrower”. Another respondent noted: “I never knew how I have to start my research until I have been suggested from the seminars and I tried to write my research by applying the recommendation and knowledge that I got from my mentor and the seminars”. Notably, the students’ comments related to the workshops largely focused on taking the tacit and assumed knowledge of conducting and communicating research and making it explicit. This sentiment is perhaps best distilled in Malik’s reflection: “I found the information provided … to be very valuable, the type of information that cannot be learnt from books”.

Self-directed strategies

The third and final sub-theme involves the autonomous behaviours participants reported (n = 5). Most of these behaviours focus on overcoming writing challenges, such as infelicitous grammar or the inability to write with scholarly expression. In addition to self-directed practices such as consulting dictionaries or thesauruses, several students employed proof readers to revise their writing (“I try to improve my language as well as asking my partner, who is a native English speaker, to proofread my works”, Demi). One student even revealed that she paid an editor to review each chapter before she sent it to her supervisor (“this is a sensitive issue for me, so I use a proof-reader before sending my drafts to my supervisor”, Nadir). While the practice of engaging a ‘literacy broker’ is common when preparing manuscripts for publication or for receiving informal peer feedback on a draft, engaging editors at the earlier stages of writing can be counterproductive (Lillis & Curry, 2010, p. 88). Learning to write and refine a text is inextricably linked to the process of developing ideas and building the central arguments of a thesis. As Cotterall (2011) argues, doctoral “writing is ‘not just a mopping-up activity at the end of a research project’ (Richardson, 2000, p. 923), but the means by which doctoral students’ claims to scholarly identity are tested” (p. 414). If students avoid the process of developing and refining their scholarly voice by outsourcing this refinement to an editor, they are arguably missing a critical step in their development as researchers.

Conclusion

This paper has sought to explore the challenges candidates experience when commencing the largely autonomous and self-motivated journey of independent research. Although our sample size is limited to a single university and too small to make any generalisations against the larger population, data drawn from surveys and interviews reveal how the candidates in this study struggle most with negotiating the research process (narrowing their research ideas, managing the supervisor relationship), followed by writing with scholarly expression, and overcoming personal challenges related to mental health (anxiety, self-doubt) and self-management (time management, self-regulation, and motivation). These findings highlight the unique nature of designing and managing a large-scale research project as a novice scholar.

When asked to evaluate which resources were most helpful during the transition into independent research, candidates most commonly cited individualised support, such as one-on-one consultations with a learning skills advisor or a dedicated peer mentor. These results are unsurprising. Research has shown that for doctoral students to be socialised into researchers, they need to engage with a collegial and collaborative research community that allows them to assess their skills in comparison with those around them, to gain an understanding of what it takes to be a researcher and a recognised member of the disciplinary research community (Cornelius et al., 2016; Mantai, 2017). Unlike supervisors who are often years detached from their own doctoral study experiences, mentors who are in the later stages of their doctoral studies or are recent graduates provide a unique perspective—one of inspiration that the early challenges of the doctorate are surmountable, and one of shared experience that the challenges candidates face are not isolated.

While the present study has investigated the efficacy of mentorship and focused seminars in the transition into the initial stages of independent research, further research is necessary to explore the value of these resources in the later stages of candidature. In particular, considering the valuable role mentors play in helping students process their thoughts before writing them down, there is great potential for providing mentorship to students in the final and often anguish-filled stages of writing up their theses.

In short, while doctoral programs attract high-achieving candidates who have demonstrated excellence in coursework programs, these same students often struggle with the unstructured, independent nature of advanced research programs. Much of the existing support for HDR candidates addresses the ‘meta skills’ of conducting advanced research (e.g. referencing software, statistical analysis). These ‘one-off’ workshops largely align to the essence and philosophy that traditionally drives HDR: students are expected to work independently, being self-motivated to design and conduct independent research (Johnson et al., 2000). While this approach may work well for those candidates with greater research acuity, for those without such high levels of presumed autonomy, it presents additional and, arguably, unnecessary levels of stress and anxiety (Gardner, 2007). The findings of this study suggest that students benefit most from individualised and dedicated support that addresses not only their epistemological knowledge gaps but also their identity transformation, from student to researcher. In effect, by providing strategic support targeted at students’ most salient needs during this critical transition, candidates feel better equipped to navigate the vagaries of this unique and arduous journey.