So what? Supporting PGRs to write about why their research matters

Dr Rachel Chin, Researcher Development Specialist (Writing and Communication) and Lecturer in History.

Writing clearly, concisely and elegantly about why a research project is worth doing is not easy. In the academic writing meetings that I hold for doctoral researchers it is the process of articulating the scope, rationale and contributions of their research that comes up most often. 

There are several reasons why writing about the value of research is so difficult. This type of writing is not a direct analysis of primary research data. It represents a complex synthesis of these findings and a conversation about their broader contribution to the existing body of knowledge. Justifying your research and insisting on the value of its findings very often involves feelings of vulnerability and self-doubt, particularly in a sector that emphasises robust critique and feedback.

Doctoral supervisors should feel able to support their students to convey why their research matters. This skill is an essential part of developing confidence as an independent researcher. It is embedded across the doctoral journey, from writing the introductory chapter of a thesis to drafting postdoctoral grant applications and publications. 

The supervisory relationship 

Doctoral supervisors support their PGRs to develop into independent researchers. This includes guiding them to taking ownership over their research and research findings. This process it is not straightforward. Supervision can be impacted by a range of factors including interpersonal dynamics and a lack of shared expectations about what the supervisory relationship should look like. There is also a real power difference between supervisors and supervisees that must be acknowledged.  

How might this relationship be fostered to give doctoral researchers the knowledge and skills to craft confident arguments about the value of their work? Scholarship around supervisory practice has identified two models that are useful to consider. In a mentoring model of supervision discussions around research are open and reflective exchanges of ideas. By contrast, an apprenticeship model of supervision is more akin to a one-way conversation. Supervisors give advice and PGRs accept it. 

Ting Wang and Linda Li’s study on supervisory experiences of international doctoral students found that student confidence was greater in a mentoring model, where students felt like they were being guided on their research journey. Student confidence was lower in an apprenticeship model where students were being told what to do (Wang and Li, 2011). 

Cultivating a supervisory relationship that guides rather than dictates can support doctoral researchers to develop agency over their research. Having this ownership is an important part of articulating its wider value. But what does ‘guidance’ look like in practice? 

Giving feedback and facilitating feedback conversations 

Written and verbal feedback is a regular part of a doctoral supervisor’s role. As the previous section established, how conversations around this feedback take place can significantly impact a doctoral researcher’s development. Thinking about supervision meetings as mentoring-style conversations can help ensure that the focus of these conversations remains on the researcher and on supporting them to develop as an independent scholar. These types of conversations are not about giving advice (although there may be some of this). Their focus is on amplifying the voice and ideas of the PGR and empowering them to become independent problem solvers, critical thinkers and confident researchers.

Feedback meetings can also support PGRs to speak about the original contribution of their research. As a supervisor, rather than simply telling or advising your supervisee what contribution their research is making, try asking them questions that encourage them to think critically about their research and unpack its meaning in their own way. Open questions, which support them to think deeply about their research, are a good place to start. Likewise, listening to what your PGR has to say and giving them time to reflect (even if that introduces some silences into the conversation) can make the practice of framing research contributions more natural and less intimidating.    

If facilitating this kind of conversation doesn’t feel natural to you, there is easily accessible support and guidance that goes into more detail about how to get started. Have a look at Kay Guccione’s blog on asking insightful mentoring questions and Steve Hutchinson’s thoughts on how coaching skills can be applied to research supervision.  More information on supervisor training and development is also available on the Research Culture & Researcher Development webpages. The exercises below are a starting point for facilitating discussions and writing around research contribution. 

Three sample exercises to get students writing about the value of their research

1. Set a pre-thinking exercise. Justifying the contributions of a research project can be overwhelming.  Break this process into shorter questions to make it less intimidating. These prompts could be set as a preparatory exercise:

• How would you summarise the scope of your project to a non-specialist that you met at a PGR networking event? 
• What is one key finding of your research? What makes it important? 
• What is one way your research is developing or adding something new to the existing research in your area of study? 

Use this pre-thinking as a starting point to encourage a doctoral researcher to deepen or nuance their initial responses. Challenge them to widen their thinking, and to consider the multiple levels upon which their research might make an original contribution. 

2. Practice writing an abstract. A good abstract can be an excellent example of how to effectively summarise the scope and rationale of a research project. Ask a doctoral researcher to pinpoint examples of impactful abstracts. Have a conversation about what makes these abstracts ‘work’ and encourage the PGR to be as specific as possible. Then ask them to draft their own abstract prior to their next supervision meeting. Use the abstract as a starting point to unpack their thinking around the rationale and contribution of their project.  

3. Keep a working draft chapter. The introductory chapter of a thesis is frequently the chapter that changes the most over the lifetime of the project. Yet, some PGRs will resist drafting their introduction until they have completed their other thesis chapters. 

Although writing practices are very individual, asking students to maintain a working draft of their introduction can provide them and you with a better sense of the project’s development. Encourage PGRs to use the draft to monitor and think through their research direction and findings. It is a space to critically reflect on their overarching project and it can shift and change as much as needed. 

If a PGR is struggling to start a draft introduction why not ask them to build a bank of examples of when a research project is framed well. Reading scholarship in this way can help doctoral researchers to identify techniques and styles for writing about research contributions. 

Conclusion 

Doctoral supervision is a practice that is honed over time and each supervisory relationship is unique and dynamic. Yet, the importance of developing PGRs as confident researchers who have the skills to articulate and defend their original research contribution is a feature of all these relationships. Making these discussions a regular feature of the supervisory relationship can build researcher confidence in speaking and writing about why their research matters.