Manoeuvring Through the Maze of Methodology: Constructing the Research-Ready Embodied RHD Student

  • Teresa Moore
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods book series (PSERM)


Having room to manoeuvre epistemologically, methodologically and intellectually enables informed choices about how to approach doctoral research. Introducing students to the conceptual and abstract nature of qualitative methodologies broadens the landscape for both novice and experienced researchers to think differently and become intimately part of their research project. As a supervisor and the course coordinator of research methodologies course, I encourage students to explore, investigate and challenge taken-for-granted discourses and practices relating to research and to link this back to the “self” thus positioning themselves ethically and intellectually within their research. In this chapter, I explore my continuing growth as a researcher, supervisor and educator, along with that of my students as they expand their own conceptualisation of meaning and negotiation of methodology.


Subject Position Epistemological Belief Epistemological Position Research High Degree Novice Researcher 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Boud, D., & Costley, C. (2007). From project supervision to advising: New conceptions of practice. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(2), 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braidotti, R. (1994). Nomadic subjects. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as method. Walnut Creek, CA: West Coast.Google Scholar
  4. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  5. Custer, D. (2014). Autoethnography as a transformative research method. The Qualitative Report, 19(21), 1–13.Google Scholar
  6. Green, B. (2005). Unfinished business: Subjectivity and supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(2), 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Green, B. (2012). Addressing the curriculum problem in doctoral education. Australian Universities Review, 54(1), 10–18.Google Scholar
  8. Halse, C. (2011). “Becoming a supervisor”: The impact of doctoral supervision on supervisors’ learning. Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 557–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Malfoy, J. (2005). Doctoral supervision, workplace research and changing pedagogic practices. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(2), 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Service, B. (2012). Keeping the faith: How reflective practice can turn emotional turmoil into a positive outcome in the context of doctoral study. Reflective Practice, 13(2), 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. St Pierre, E. (2013). The posts continue: Becoming. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 646–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Wearing, B. (1996). Gender the pain and pleasure of difference. Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman Pty Limited.Google Scholar
  13. Willison, J., & O’Regan, K. (2007). Commonly known, commonly not known, totally unknown: A framework for students becoming researchers. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(4), 393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teresa Moore
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Education and the ArtsCQUniversity AustraliaRockhamptonAustralia

Personalised recommendations