Better development of research ability in doctoral students, to produce higher quality and more innovative research, is an international concern, driven by stakeholders such as governments, universities, research councils, researchers, and students (AUCC, 2008; Craswell, 2007; Gilbert et al. 2004). However, while there is agreement in both the hard and soft sciences that improvement is needed, it is unclear how make these improvements (Feldon, Maher, & Timmerman, 2010; Pallas, 2001). For instance, some argue that focusing on skills learning, as is the case in the UK and Australia, favors abstract learning (Craswell, 2007; Gilbert et al. 2004), while others argue an informal approach, as is typical in North America, encourages overtly specific research epistemologies (Pallas, 2001). Further, little guidance is found in the literature, with little research on the relative outcomes and effectiveness of different approaches to graduate research education (Feldon et al. 2010; Pallas, 2001). Existing literature largely focuses on research methods teaching/learning in undergraduate courses (e.g. Benson & Blackman, 2003). In the graduate education literature, the focus is on supervisory perspectives rather than student perspectives, and, on aggregated quantitative studies. What is required is work which focuses on doctoral students’ perspectives, providing accounts of actual learning experiences, and, an in-depth examination of learning context(s) which can provide crucial information about the relative lived outcomes of different learning experiences and contexts, as well as students’ needs and preferences (Boud & Lee, 2005; Craswell, 2007).

This research seeks to inform improvement in graduate research education by examining research methods learning from the perspective of individual doctoral students in context to understand how they approach and perceive their learning. The research goals are to: 1) establish a method and framework to understand doctoral research methods learning in context, 2) provide a rigorous and in-depth understanding of important supports and tensions that influence doctoral research learning/education, and 3) offer practical and useful findings to inform better pedagogy and policy.

In this research, I take the perspective of doctoral students as early career academics (ECA) (McAlpine & Amundsen, 2011). As ECAs, they are engaged in a process of workplace/professional learning as active self-directed learners, selecting from, and interpreting, learning experiences from varied formal and informal sources within their context(s) (e.g. peers, courses, supervisors) (Billett, 2006; Eraut, 2000; Pallas, 2001; Trowler & Knight, 2000; Webster-Wright, 2009). Additionally, recognizing that “scientific knowledge emerges from a nexus of interacting people, agencies, materials, instruments, individual and collective goals / interests, and the histories of all these factors” (McGinn and Roth, 1999; p. 15), an Activity Theory (AT) framework is used. AT recognizes the interactions between and within the individual’s intentional choices, and their socio-historic context. Cases of research learning will be structured using AT, and thus, in AT terminology, Activity (research methods learning) involves a Subject (doctoral student) pursuing an Object(ive) (research capability/dissertation research). This pursuit is mediated by four factors: tools (e.g. textbooks, equipment), rules (e.g. university policies), community (e.g. peers, faculty, supervisor), and division of labour (e.g. with: technicians, lab-mates, supervisor) (Engeström, 1999).

AUCC (2008). Momentum: The 2008 report on university research and knowledge mobilization. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Benson, A. & Blackman, D. (2003). Can research methods ever be interesting? Active Learning in Higher Education, 4(1), 39-55. Boud, D. & Lee, A. (2005). ‘Peer learning’ as pedagogic discourse for research education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 501-516. Craswell, G. (2007). Deconstructing the skills training debate in doctoral education. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(4), 377-391. Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Feldon, D. F., Maher, M. A., & Timmerman, B. E. (2010). Performance-Based data in the study of STEM Ph.D. education. Science, 329, 282-283. Gilbert, R., Balatti, J., Turner, P., & Whitehouse, H. (2004). The generic skills debate in research higher degrees. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), 375-388. Pallas, A. M. (2001). Preparing education doctoral students for epistemological diversity. Educational Researcher, 30(5), 6-11. McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2011). Making meaning of diverse experiences: Constructing an identity through time. In L. McAlpine and C. Amundsen (Eds.). Doctoral Education: Research Based Strategies for Doctoral Students, Supervisors and Administrators. (pp. 173-184), Amsterdam: Springer. McGinn, M. K. & Roth, W. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific practice: Implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher, 28(3). 14-24. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Trowler, P. & Knight, P. T. (2000). Coming to know in higher education: Theorising faculty entry to new work contexts. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(1), 27-42. Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739.