This research investigates a critical phenomenon in transitional academic systems: how doctoral scholars navigate the complex intersection of local and international research traditions in Kazakhstan's evolving higher education landscape. The study pays particular attention to the implications of European Bologna Process alignment initiatives, examining how this transformation shapes scholarly writing practices and academic identity formation.

The central research question guiding this investigation asks: How do doctoral candidates in Kazakhstan navigate and reconcile local and international research paradigms in their academic writing practices, particularly in the context of European higher education alignment? This question emerges from the observation that scholars in transitional academic systems must develop sophisticated strategies to meet diverse academic expectations while maintaining scholarly integrity.

The study pursues several interconnected objectives. First, it examines how doctoral candidates initially recognize and respond to divergent academic expectations between local and international contexts. Second, it analyzes the development of adaptive writing strategies that bridge local and international academic requirements. Third, it investigates how scholars manage publication demands across different academic contexts. Finally, it seeks to understand the formation of scholarly identity in transitional academic spaces where different research traditions intersect.

The theoretical framework integrates three distinct yet complementary perspectives to analyze the complex dynamics of academic writing in transitional contexts. Academic Literacies Theory, as developed by Lea and Street (2006), conceptualizes academic writing as a social practice embedded in institutional power relations. This perspective emphasizes the importance of understanding writing practices within specific institutional contexts and provides a framework for analyzing how writers navigate different academic discourse communities.

The second theoretical strand draws on Scholarly Identity Formation frameworks (Gardner & Doore, 2020), examining how emerging scholars develop professional identities across multiple academic contexts. This perspective considers the impact of competing academic traditions on scholarly development and addresses the role of institutional structures in shaping academic identity.

The third theoretical component focuses on Global-Local Knowledge Production Dynamics (Alperin, 2011), analyzing the intersection of local and international academic traditions. This perspective examines power relations in transnational academic spaces and considers how knowledge production practices vary across different academic contexts, particularly addressing the specific challenges faced by scholars in transitional academic systems.

The European dimension is particularly relevant as Kazakhstan's higher education system undergoes significant transformation through alignment with the Bologna Process. This alignment creates a unique context where traditional academic practices intersect with European higher education standards across multiple dimensions: research methodology expectations, publication requirements, academic writing conventions, quality assurance frameworks, and international collaboration requirements. The theoretical framework acknowledges these complexities while considering local academic traditions and institutional requirements.

This study's significance lies in its contribution to understanding how emerging scholars in transitional academic systems can successfully navigate European and international academic standards while maintaining connections to local academic communities. This understanding is crucial for developing effective support systems for doctoral candidates in countries aligning with European higher education standards. The research addresses a critical gap in current literature by examining the lived experiences of scholars who must actively negotiate different research paradigms in their daily academic practice. Through this investigation, we aim to contribute to broader discussions about academic writing development, scholarly identity formation, and the evolution of doctoral education in transitional academic contexts.

This study employed an interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) approach to examine the lived experiences of doctoral candidates navigating parallel research paradigms. The methodological design was specifically chosen to capture the nuanced ways scholars interpret and respond to different academic expectations in their writing practices, while acknowledging the researcher's role in making sense of participants' meaning-making processes. The research participants comprised eight recent PhD graduates from humanities and social sciences who had completed their degrees within the past two years. This specific timeframe coincided with significant developments in Kazakhstan's academic publishing requirements, offering insights into how doctoral candidates navigated evolving expectations. Through purposive sampling, we selected participants who had successfully defended their dissertations in Kazakhstani institutions and demonstrated experience publishing in both local journals approved by the Ministry of Education and Science and international peer-reviewed journals with impact factors. Data collection proceeded through semi-structured interviews lasting between 60 and 90 minutes. The interview protocol was developed through pilot testing with two doctoral candidates and refined based on feedback from senior researchers familiar with Kazakhstan's doctoral education system. Participants chose between Kazakh, Russian, or English for their interviews, acknowledging the multilingual nature of Kazakhstan's academic environment. All interviews were audio-recorded with consent and explored five key areas: doctoral study experience, dissertation writing process, perspectives on research quality, publication practices, and navigation of academic expectations. The analysis process integrated Braun and Clarke's six-phase thematic analysis approach with constant comparative analysis techniques. Using the Dedoose platform, we implemented systematic coding beginning with open coding of initial transcripts, followed by framework development and cross-case examination. To ensure methodological rigor, we maintained a detailed audit trail and regularly verified our interpretations against the primary data. Particular attention was paid to divergent cases, which were viewed as opportunities for theoretical refinement rather than anomalies.

The analysis revealed three interconnected themes that characterize how doctoral candidates navigate parallel research paradigms in Kazakhstan's academic environment. First, scholars experience an initial recognition phase where they encounter and begin to understand divergent writing expectations between local and international academic contexts. During this phase, participants discovered fundamental differences in how research problems are framed, structured, and presented across different academic traditions. The second theme emerged as participants developed increasingly sophisticated adaptive writing strategies. These strategies evolved from simple coping mechanisms to complex frameworks that effectively integrated multiple academic perspectives. Participants learned to layer their methodological discussions, incorporating both the precise statistical reporting valued by local supervisors and the theoretical justification expected by international mentors. This progression demonstrated not just a linear development of writing skills, but a fundamental transformation in how doctoral candidates conceptualized their role within multiple academic communities. The third theme centered on how participants navigated publication-specific challenges. Scholars developed flexible approaches that allowed them to maintain research integrity while meeting diverse publication requirements. Rather than simply alternating between different writing styles, successful candidates created core arguments that could be effectively framed for different academic audiences while preserving the essential integrity of their research. This strategic flexibility in framing research represented an evolution of the integration strategies developed during dissertation writing. These findings suggest that while managing parallel research paradigms creates additional complexity in academic writing, it ultimately leads to more robust and versatile scholarly communication skills. The strategies developed by these doctoral candidates not only served their immediate academic needs but contributed to their development as scholars capable of engaging effectively with diverse academic audiences while maintaining scholarly integrity.

Alperin, J. P. (2011). Academic publishing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English (review). Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42(4), 545-549. https://doi.org/10.1353/scp.2011.0034 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Gardner, S. K., & Doore, S. A. (2020). Doctoral student socialization and professional pathways. In K. Pifer & M. Baker (Eds.), Professional development in doctoral education: The multiple purposes of scholarly engagement (pp. 113-127). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33350-8_7 Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2006). The "academic literacies" model: Theory and applications. Theory Into Practice, 45(4), 368-377. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4504_11