A multi-level researcher development framework to address contrasting views of student research challenges

Abstract

Students often battle to complete the research component of postgraduate studies. This challenge may be due to postgraduate students having a primary interest in theoretical and practical knowledge rather than research in the era of credential inflation. Research leaders may embark on researcher development initiatives but unless both parties in the postgraduate supervision relationship are considered, these interventions may not achieve their aim. Student research challenges were explored from both student and supervisor perspectives using an Interactive Qualitative Analysis research design. Through conducting four focus groups and 14 individual interviews, issues emerged related to educational input, support and identity development. Findings revealed contrasting student and supervisor views on research challenges. Identification of both perspectives of research challenges led to the formulation of a framework of strategies for multi-level researcher development. These strategies could guide researcher development activities and contribute to ensuring accountability, enhancing quality, ensuring timely completion of postgraduate studies.

An Illustration of Teaching and Assessment Practices of the “Conceptual Framework” as a Threshold Concept

“…Several implications emerge from this brief overview of teaching and assessment activities to introduce postgraduate students to conceptual frameworks as a threshold concept. Firstly, research supervisors should acknowledge that their students expect to be taught how to design and conduct research (Albertyn, van Coller-Peter, & Morrison 2018). Therefore they should embrace the teaching role within their supervisory practice (Murphy, Bain, & Conrad 2007;Van Veldhuizen, Oostdam, Enthoven, & Snoek 2021).…”

“…Numerous challenges are encountered by lecturers, research supervisors and students alike in teaching and applying research methods at a postgraduate level (Sverdlik, Hall, McAlpine, & Hubbard 2018). Furthermore, research suggests that postgraduate students expect to be taught how to apply research-based knowledge rather than discover it themselves (Albertyn, van Coller-Peter, & Morrison 2018). Consequently, team teaching and supervision models are more effective than having a single supervisor guide a research candidate (Agné & Mörkenstam 2018).…”

Ethical dilemmas associated wih hyper-structured student research

“…These are mainly mature students who enrol to increase their capital currency (Engebretson et al 2008) and to attain workplace skills. In general, they are not studying to attain the research skills required for academic careers (Albertyn, Van Coller-Peter and Morrison 2017). More so than other students, students in business-related programmes are motivated by expediency drivers (Alauddin and Ashman 2014) and the vocational utility of their studies (Tymon and Batistic 2016).…”

“…In this light, trying to instil a sense of vocational worth seems to be warranted when dealing with students' research projects (Albertyn et al 2017). Students want to take ownership of their own learning (Beqiri, Chase and Bishka 2010) and want to develop it in line with their personal goals (Eneau 2008).…”

“…The HSSRP seems to increase throughput rates, and the supervisors of these projects are appreciated and incentivised at university level (Peterson 2017). Some students, particularly those not especially interested in research, such as business school students (Albertyn et al 2017;Alauddin and Ashman 2014), may be drawn to programmes which provide structure and quick throughput. Supervisors may also find the HSSRP attractive, as it not only allows for supervising several students simultaneously, focusing on one topic only, and saving considerable time, but it also produces higher-level research outputs that are more publishable and attract academic recognition.…”