Lessons From Doctoral Qualitative Research: Two Journeys;One Destination

Overview of Recent Research on ‘the Doctoral Experience’

There is an extensive literature concerned with issues around ‘the doctoral experience’ (McAlpine and Norton, 2006). This includes work on student well-being, doctoral socialization, and attrition rates. Three recent systematic reviews on this topic (Martínez-García et al., 2024; Saragih & Andriani, 2023; Mahsood et al., 2025), covering more than 100 articles, indicate a range of issues and suggestions for enhancement and support for doctoral students. These include work-life balance and workload management; stress, anxiety, and financial insecurity; supervisory quality, and institutional support. Psychological distress, including depression and burnout, remains widespread, particularly for women and international students facing visa and financial uncertainty.

Policies and programmes for amelioration include new funding models, mentoring, and an academic culture where support and openness is not regarded as secondary to productivity and publication metrics. Supportive supervisory relationships, financial stability, and a feeling of belonging lead to positive well-being outcomes, resulting in higher completion rates and enhanced career development.

In general, the literature demonstrates that doctoral well-being needs to be understood as a multidimensional, context-dependent issue requiring coordinated action across personal, institutional, and structural domains.

One of the aspects covered by the personal domain is self-efficacy. In the context of doctoral research, Overall et al. define this as follows:-

Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s beliefs that he or she is capable of enacting behaviours necessary to achieve desired goals. … self-efficacy is important because, regardless of actual abilities, individuals need to be confident that they have the required skills in order to engage and persist in tasks, particularly when encountering difficulties. Moreover, because self-efficacy is associated with persistence in challenging conditions, greater self-efficacy promotes further skill development and leads to more successful performance. (Overall et al., 2011, p.792)

Given our focus on the personal experiences of two recently successful doctoral candidates, we were keen to explore the ways in which research self-efficacy was developed, providing an account that can be drawn on by others travelling the same path. We did not, however, use this term in our conversations. Instead, we coined the phrase ‘doctoral affordances’, which complements the concept of research self-efficacy as will be explained below.

Doctoral Affordances

The term ‘affordance’ was coined by Gibson in the 1970s. ‘The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill. … It implies the complementarity of the animal and the environment.’ (Gibson, 1979, p.119) This was later developed by Norman, (2013 p.219, note 3) to incorporate mental interpretations: ‘I believe that affordances result from the mental interpretation of things, based on our past knowledge and experience applied to our perception of the things about us’. ‘[A]ffordances suggest the range of possibilities’ (p.82).

For Gibson, working in ecological psychology, ⁴ affordances exist objectively, regardless of being perceived or recognized by the actor. For example, a chair affords sitting regardless of whether someone sees or interprets it as such.

Norman adapted the concept for design and human-computer interaction, emphasizing ‘perceived affordances’ – i.e. properties an individual believes or perceives an object to afford, which may or may not correspond to the object’s actual capabilities. For Norman affordances are subjective and cognitive, depending on the user’s experience, knowledge, culture, and situational context. They can be signalled and learned. Hence he stresses the key role of visibility and signifiers that can indicate or communicate affordances as a guide to user actions. Affordances need to be considered in any design process, serving as markers helping users recognize possible actions.

An affordance is not a property of an object but is defined in relation between user and object: A door affords opening if you can reach the handle. An affordance is what a user can do with an object based on the full range of a user’s capabilities and perceptions. It is an action-possibility linking user and object. Doctoral affordances encompass features of the doctoral context, offering guidance and support for doctoral students. In a similar fashion to doorknobs or push-bars, they indicate possibilities, albeit intangible, for doctoral students.

Norman (2013) refers to ‘past knowledge’ regarding affordances, but they can also be associated with novel and complex environments such as those encountered by doctoral students. In such challenging contexts the affordances incorporating their ‘range of possibilities’ may not be readily apparent, necessitating drawing them to the attention of doctoral researchers keen to develop their research strategies and skills.

Keefer (2015) offers a valuable complementary position, introducing the concept of ‘liminality’, focusing on ‘doctoral learner experiences’ in the context of ‘the doctoral learning journey’. He argues that ‘doctoral students face numerous challenges along the path toward achieving a doctorate. With the experience likened to a rite of passage, many face periods of confusion and disorientation, liminal periods of being betwixt and between’ (2015, p.17).

Keefer notes that research rarely focuses on the ‘experience of doctoral liminality’, particularly the identity challenges encompassed by this rite of passage including imposter syndrome, isolation and loneliness, and research misalignment. He urges that doctoral students need enhanced ‘support and scaffolding that might alleviate some avoidable struggles’ (p.26). This necessitates focus on ‘the experiences of the learners themselves’, seeking better understanding of ‘what happens when doctoral candidates experience disorienting dilemmas through shifts in their frames of reference, such as when learning results in altered ways of thinking or perceiving reality’ (p.18).

For Keefer doctoral liminality exemplifies ‘threshold concept theory reconceived as conceptual thresholds’ (p.17). He draws on the work of Meyer and Land for whom threshold concepts were ‘akin to a portal, revealing new and previously inaccessible ways of thinking about something. It represents a transformed way of understanding, or interpreting, or viewing something without which the learner cannot progress. As a consequence of comprehending a threshold concept there may thus be a transformed internal view of subject matter, subject landscape, or even world view’ (Meyer & Land, quoted in Keefer 2015, p.18).

The use of metaphors such as ‘journey’, ‘landscape’, ‘frames of reference’, and ‘world view’ indicates that the experience of doctoral liminality can be profoundly disorienting, with doctoral students needing hints and clues that can guide them in this novel and challenging context. This is precisely where the concept of doctoral affordances provides insight and guidance.

Seven Doctoral Affordances

Our combined efforts, using auto-ethnography and GTM, resulted in 7 doctoral affordances

- Motivations for and immersion in the research context

These differ from the headings arrived at earlier, taking account of the analysis of the auto-ethnographic narratives through the lens of doctoral affordances. Each will now be explained, encompassing its derivation and links to the headings given earlier.

Affordance 1: Motivations for and Immersion in the Research Context

Sanela and Alexandra undertook doctoral research motivated by previous experience coupled with concerns on the state-of-play in their respective fields.

AL: Until 2011, I worked in the field of children’s play services within local authorities in England. I was also Trustee for two third sector play projects working with voluntary sector organisations helping them respond to new strategic priorities, including a move from local authority grant-giving to formal contracting or commissioning. This all occurred during a period of austerity in the UK, when funding children’s play provision experienced turmoil. This led to my interest in examining how commissioning play services was helping or hindering sustainability.

SL: I chose to do a professional doctorate – EdD – rather than a PhD. Initially I investigated various learning theories, with behaviourist, constructivist, and cognitive orientations. This led me to recognize the importance of issues such as self-regulation, meta-cognition, and self-efficacy. This helped the development of a focus encompassing the relationship my computing students had to learning, requiring investigation of the ways students experienced aspects of independent digital learning, and what they perceived the impact of digital technology was on their learning practices.

Both researchers were motivated by the desire to understand the impact of potentially far-reaching changes impacting their backgrounds in ‘commissioning’ and digital learning respectively. Alexandra’s initial ideas were challenged and changed once she entered the field, a re-engagement after a period in academia. Sanela’s focus was anchored in her day-to-day lecturing experience. This combination of initial motivation and immersion in the context did not preclude flexibility and insight, on the contrary they each demonstrated an open-minded orientation to their endeavours.

Doctoral students are often motivated to target their research on an area with which are familiar. This should be noted from the start as an important aspect of the study. Researchers claiming immunity from or omitting any reference to prior experiences may well be those most affected by them. Whatever the starting point may be, however, researchers must be open to surprise, ready to make what one of Tony’s PhD students described as ‘a big manoeuvre’; changing the overall aim and focus of the study. If this occurs it must, of course, be clearly discussed in the thesis itself.

Affordance 2: Research Dialogues

Both doctoral projects involved in-depth interactions with a small number of participants. We agreed calling these ‘interviews’ had narrow and even negative connotations, failing to encompass the full nature of this activity, hence ‘dialogues’. Researchers must understand that sometimes these interactions can be seen as interrogatory, confrontational and emanating from a power imbalance between the researcher and the participant. Alexandra and Sanela complemented these interactions with contemporaneous and reflective memos.

They were asked if they were surprised at any point, how they dealt with any challenges that arose, and what guidelines would they now offer doctoral researchers.

AL: I think the greatest challenge for me as a constructivist grounded theorist was being aware of my position and the potential bias this had when interviewing my participants. My post-interview memos were littered with ideas and emergent concepts, but also, were reflexive ⁵ accounts addressing how my position and experiences were shaping what I heard. Fook & Gardener (2007) discuss how,

… reflexivity alerts us to the fact that knowledge does not necessarily exist in some independent form, separate from our experiences and own sense of who we are. We are often responsible for interpreting, selecting, prioritizing, sometimes seeing and not seeing, and using knowledge in particular ways that are to do with a myriad of things about ourselves and our social and historical situations. (Fook & Gardener, 2007, p. 28).

I was responsible for interpreting, seeing and not seeing. I regularly restrained myself from getting involved in operational discussions, avoiding the passion, frustration, and exhaustion that my participants often expressed. In one of my memos I observed that

I need to be aware of my influence during these interviews… During the interviews I was aware of this and tried to refrain from discussing my own experiences. I did find myself craving my former roles – roles where I actually did the job. In some cases, feeling envious, learning from the interviewees, wanting to share my learning with others – how to do things better and in other cases, knowing, or at least feeling, that I could really help the projects out. Memo: Being aware of my influence. March 2019.

Memoing is a powerful way of holding yourself to account, especially when engaging in interviewing. It can help researchers consider what they see in their interviews during their data analysis and what influences their interpretations and prioritisations. It engages the researcher in an active process encouraging consideration of power and how researcher values can influence data analysis.

SL: Interviews are seen as a meaningful conversation, with both participants on the same power level. Ashworth and Lucas (1998) argue when conducting interviews and data analysis it is important to keep checking for presuppositions of the researchers, which should be bracketed. This was challenging for me being new to phenomenography and qualitative research. In my thesis I argued that bracketing and self-awareness on the part of the researcher during coding and analysis are important, realizing that it is impossible to analyse data without taking into consideration some of the researcher’s own values that may influence coding. I felt at times unsure about the phenomenographic approach, but my previous career as a systems analyst reinforced the inclination to be true to the data. Data collection and analysis in a research context correspond to the approach used by a systems analyst during requirements analysis.

After each interview I noted my thoughts on possible biases during data collection and analysis stages. One way to overcome individual bias is to have different individuals involved in collecting and analysing data, but this is not possible for PhD students. Therefore, it was important to record my thoughts and feelings before starting to make notes on any interview or during the data analysis stage. I noted my thoughts and opinions of what my respondents were saying, using the prefix Me. Here are some examples.

“(ME) They feel singular way, i.e. only way doing the work is via Digital Technology (DT). The trust in DT is huge.”

Later I came across Vorlet’s image derived from the parable of The Blind Men and The Elephant. ⁶ It encapsulates the problem of a lone researcher trying to ensure that different perspectives can be accounted for. Were my ‘findings’ simply one, incomplete and possibly misleading view? My supervisors read some of the transcripts, and I invited them to comment on my coding and review my approach to the analysis. Later I presented my results at conferences, seeking some form of affirmation from the research community Figure 1.OPEN IN VIEWER

In the context of GTM, Bryant has stressed that researchers need to be ‘in dialogue with their data’ (Bryant, 2019, p.37). This applies to all forms of research regardless of the method(s) employed, and should be understood to encompass all research participants – avoiding the term ‘research subjects’ – recognizing everyone’s active involvement in the process.

Other forms of dialogue occur within the doctoral process, some unique to that context, others with wider applicability. Doctoral researchers will be in dialogue with their supervisors/promoters, a relationship that evolves during the research, also with their peers. Both Alexandra and Sanela refer to this; Sanela having to distance herself from her supervisors as she engaged with phenomenography.

Researchers should continually conduct an internal dialogue, reflecting on their research. Sanela and Alexandra refer to their specific practices in this regard. Many research guides recommend researchers keep a research journal throughout the process to accomplish this. GTM incorporates this with the technique of memo-making, a pivotal intermediate step between data collection and writing papers or dissertations. ‘When grounded theorists write memos, they stop and analyse their ideas about their codes and emerging categories … Writing successive memos keeps researchers involved in the analysis and helps them to increase the level of abstraction of their ideas’ (Charmaz, 2014, p. 343).

In practice doctoral researchers’ early memos focus more on their research activities than on data and analysis. Students wonder whether they are following the method correctly, worrying where this is taking them. Later, as their research progresses, they become more confident they are working effectively and producing coherent outcomes. The analytic aspects then come to the fore. (See Bryant, 2017, chapter 10 for discussion and examples of this.)

Memos and research journals are primarily intended to be private records. Early GTM writings mentioned memos only in passing. In the last 20-30 years, however, reports on GTM research – theses, journal papers and the like – often include verbatim memos. Sanela noted that with a phenomenographic approach she was expected to signpost the use of bracketing throughout data collection, data analysis, and discussion chapters. She termed this an audit trail, allowing readers to see/follow the journey, including her processes of data collection and analysis.

However this is accomplished, this aspect of the research dialogue is part of ‘reflective practice’. Doctoral students are expected to offer a reflective discussion as part of their thesis – usually in the concluding chapter (see the endnote on reflexivity; Schön, 1983; Bryant, 2017, chapter 10). Doctoral researchers need to be able to recognize and understand the process of reflection and the different dimensions of ‘a dialogue with the data’ as a critical aspect of their journey.

Affordance 3: Methodological Sensitivity

Consciously building on the work of Glaser and Strauss (1967), and their term ‘theoretical sensitivity’, Bryant defines methodological sensitivity as ‘the skill or aptitude required by researchers in selecting, combining and employing methods, techniques and tools in actual research situations’ (Bryant, 2017, p.36). Researchers are now faced with a plethora of accounts of a variety of research methods, tools, and techniques. Many research reports include the claim that the researcher(s) used a ‘mixed methods’ strategy. This term originally denoted a research approach involving both qualitative and quantitative methods. In some cases, however, claims to this effect do not relate to such a strategy, but rather to one where the researcher finds that the overall research strategy needed to involve more than one selected method, usually both qualitative. This is more correctly termed ‘multi-methods research’.

Far more common, however, are the issues reported by Alexandra and Sanela. Alexandra started out thinking she would use a case-based strategy and initially rejected GTM. Sanela was encouraged by her supervisors to use Action Research but then decided it was unsuitable for her research focus on student experience. As their research progressed, they each began to understand the complexities of the process itself. The textbook versions of methods only go so far, and a key research skill is recognizing the points at which changes and compromises are required as the project progresses. This is methodological sensitivity, which must be under constant development by every researcher. Researchers need to gain wide familiarity with research methods, understanding various options open to them, avoiding slavishly sticking to one method treating it as a recipe to be strictly followed. This is encapsulated by Gorard, an insightful critic on research methods and mixed methods specifically, who argued that ‘[M]ixing methods is wrong, not because methods should be kept separate but because they should not have been divided at the outset’ (Gorard, quoted in Symonds and Gorard, 2010).

Both researchers were commended for their respective discussions of how their overall research strategy evolved, clearly demarcating these details from the textbook accounts. As their comments demonstrate, they found authoritative sources, building on these, moving on and, if necessary, away from them as circumstances dictated.

Illustrating aspects of methodological sensitivity, here are their accounts relating to Key authorities and influences; Choosing a method; Characterising a research strategy; Engaging with the data.

Key authorities and Influences, and Choice of Method

AB: Your memos mention key authorities influential in developing your ideas, guiding your understanding of key topics and research strategies. Why these specific figures and how did they impact upon you and your choice of method?

AL: Choosing where to start when trying to learn about grounded theory is a task in itself. Through pure serendipity, during my PhD induction, I attended a lecture delivered by a colleague, after which I initially disregarded GTM as irrelevant to my research. Thankfully, the lecture was recorded, and I came across the online version almost a year later. This happened as I began contacting potential research participants, seeking information about their commissioning arrangements. Through these initial conversations GTM began to make sense and feel relevant.

I then accessed the literature on GTM. On reflection, I now see that I was developing ‘methodological sensitivity’ acquiring the skills to be an effective researcher. Bryant (2017) explains that methodological sensitivity is developed when researchers seek guidance from other researchers and supervisors, through experience and studying research methods.

For a GTM study, you need to do two things. First, read the seminal texts. As a minimum Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory and Awareness of Dying (Glaser & Strauss, 1965), also Glaser’s (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity. Second, swiftly move on to read about the development of GTM, including its variants. This is to avoid getting stuck in positivist interpretations of the original approach, often referred to as Classic GTM. As a constructivist grounded theorist, this was especially important. I think if I had not continued to read more contemporary literature on the subject, I would have dismissed GTM as an option due to its positivist foundations.

Once I decided to consider GTM I went to the SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007) which helped inform the early development of my study and select the most appropriate form of GTM for my research. I realised there is more than one way to apply GTM.

At various points I searched for answers on how to conduct my research. I tried to do this using the literature, including the Handbook and peer-reviewed journal papers, but this often left me confused. However, reading more widely on Constructivist GTM (CGT), some trial and error, and seeking the support of research supervisors and peers, offered some resolution and contributed to enhancing what I now understand as my growing methodological sensitivity. This enabled me to move from the application of “method-in-textbook to method-in-use” (Bryant, 2017 p. 36).

Once I had disregarded the case-study approach, and having discovered GTM I was gifted a copy of Charmaz’s Constructing Grounded Theory and everything started falling into place. Charmaz (2014 p. 13) states that

The constructivist approach shreds notions of a neutral observer and value-free expert… researchers must examine rather than erase how their privileges and preconceptions may shape the analysis, but it also means that their values shape the very facts that they can identify.

The playwork profession is inherently reflexive (Long, 2022). Engaging with playing children requires an honest and critical examination of what we each bring to the interactions and how playing children affect how we engage with them. This approach is prescribed in our professional and ethical framework for practice (PPSG, 2005). As such, the reflexive nature of CGT resonated with me. It felt natural to think deeply about how my experiences would shape and inform the research process. My professional experiences of working in the field shaped who I was at the time of the research and as a constructivist grounded theorist, examining my subjectivity at all stages of the project became central to the journey. Other varieties of the method did not reflect my epistemological and ontological stance. It was at that point that I realised that CGT was the method most suited to my research.

SL: My supervisor suggested Action Research (AR), and for the first year I pursued this but gradually realised it was not going to work for the problem I wanted to investigate. I had used AR in various ways, to some extent intuitively, in 20 years of teaching, using feedback from students and colleagues to develop my teaching. This approach was not going to be effective in pursuing my research questions which were ‘pushing’ me towards phenomenography with its focus on understanding the experience of learning from the students’ perspective, promoting ‘a different way of thinking about teaching and learning’ (Ramsden, 1985, p.52) even amongst those not engaged in phenomenographic research.

Phenomenography is one of few methodological approaches that did not emerge out of other research methods but was specifically developed to cater for research in HE (Åkerlind, 2023, 2024). Recognising the suitability of this method and understanding its concepts was a complex process since I only really began to understand the shape and nature of my research contribution once I had clarified my use of the phenomenographic approach! The work of Marton and Booth (1992, 1997) was particularly helpful, particularly Booth as she had conducted research with computing students.

I specifically wanted to investigate student experiences of independent digital learning during the assessment period, when teaching had finished, and students were conducting their own learning through research and completing their programming assessments tasks.

As a computer scientist, working in the quantitative world of data analytics I was interested in developing my skills as a qualitative researcher. To this end I studied different research approaches to understand more about various student practices; research on self-directed learning (Knowles, 1975; Merriam, 2004); self-efficacy (Bandura, 1992); understanding student learning (Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983); learning by doing (Dewey, 1969, 2013).

This led me to investigate various qualitative research approaches. I had heard of phenomenography from a colleague who was considering this approach for his research, which aroused my interest. I realized that it provided the perfect fit with my research question since it focused on the experiences of others. It also aligned with my epistemological and ontological stance. As an independent learner myself, I needed to separate my experience from that of the context of independent digital learning under investigation. The Swedish form of phenomenography was particularly suited to this. It was developed in the Department of Pedagogy in Göteborg University, and since I can read Swedish, I was able to access the original papers.

Once I had opted for this I had to ensure that I clarified what this entailed given that the method has developed in various ways since its inception, including two distinct forms that I refer to as Swedish (Fence Marton, Roger Säljö, Lars Lindström and Shirley Booth) and Australian (Christine Bruce, Graham Webb, Gerlese Åkerlind, John Bowden) approaches.

Characterising the Research Strategy

AB: Over many years of supervising Masters and Doctoral research I have developed the view that the most appropriate term to apply to the researcher’s discussion of their overall approach is Research Strategy, rather than Method, Methodology, or Design (Bryant, 2017, chapter 2). This encompasses a researcher’s use of methods, tools, and techniques, highlighting the ways in which these combinations were used in practice, often involving idiosyncratic applications. How would you characterise your overall research strategy? Did it change over the course of your research, either regarding your focus or the process of carrying out the research, or both?

AL: My professional experiences to 2011 influenced how I thought about commissioning. I was keen to explore how the process of commissioning affected play service delivery, anticipating a disconnect between commissioning specifications and service delivery. When I entered the research field, I realised this was wrong, or at least the pace of change within our sector was so great that issues in 2011 when I left the sector had changed significantly. Following initial conversations with project representatives aiming to garner their support as research participants, the PhD started to become one which applied GTM. I realised the data was dictating what was important for the study. The GTM approach of simultaneously collecting and analysing data with the aim of capturing the stories of those within the research field shaped the study. I therefore changed focus and began my Constructivist Grounded Theory journey.

SL: I had studied theories of learning. The constructivist approach seemed most appropriate for my research, but it did not directly address the dilemmas that arose from students’ ways of experiencing (thinking, feeling, perceiving). Some of the key areas I had already identified were around self-regulation, metacognition and self-efficacy. Eventually I realised I did not want to study the learning process, rather my focus needed to be students’ relationships to learning and their conceptions of learning, particularly computing students and their relationships to and experiences of digital learning, and their perceptions of digital technology and its impact on their learning.

Engaging with the Data

AB: How would you characterize your initial engagement with the research context and ‘the data’?

AL: My supervisors raised the importance of looking for surprises in the data but there were surprises in how the research developed from the start. To do the field justice, I had to find a way to represent the experiences of those within it. I needed to apply a methodology that would allow flexibility, centring round the voices of research participants, not imposing my ideas through testing a hypothesis.

Having already undertaken a Masters by Research I was comfortable with the uncertainty I experienced during the early stages of the project. The study evolved as I became familiar with GTM and the study changed each time I engaged with the field and generated data. I was learning as I was doing. By the time I got to open-coding phase one data, I had discovered CGT and as I progressed towards phases two and three, my knowledge and confidence with this variety of GTM developed and evolved.

I know this uncertainty can feel uncomfortable at first, but I overcame this through various strategies. Firstly, finding a good supervision team, specifically a combination of those who understood the method and the field of study. This offered reassurance that whilst the field and the method might present me with surprises, these were not beyond the experiences of the supervision team. I also managed it through reflecting on the data. If my study was to be grounded in the data, then I had to ensure that I was responding to the categories identified within the field. I felt a responsibility to do justice to the data.

SL: My initial engagement with the topic started earlier listening to students reflecting on how they approached learning and what could have been factors for their good/bad results. I wanted to get beyond anecdotes, assumptions, guessing, and trial and error approaches to teaching. I wanted to focus on the learning experiences of students, finding out more about my students’ experiences, using these insights to help and support them.

Only towards the end of my research did I realise that my approach and attitude to data analysis were closely matched with the subject area of teaching. Initially I was seeking objectivity, then I came to accept that there could be different interpretations of the data, and that my research inevitably involved my own conceptions. The phenomenographic approach recognizes that research is interpretative, but this does not mean it is subjective. Rather it is seen as relational: ‘The experiences and understandings are jointly constituted by interviewer and interviewee’ (Marton, 1994, p. 4427). Moreover, the non-dualistic epistemology applied in this type of research (Marton & Booth, 1997) sees individuals’ understanding of a phenomenon as a relationship between the individual and the phenomenon being experienced. There is not a real world ‘out there’ and a subjective world ‘in here’. The world [as experienced] is not constructed by the learner, nor is it imposed upon her; it is constituted as an internal relation between them. (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 13).

Persistent enhancement of methodological sensitivity is crucial for all researchers, but particularly so for doctoral and early career researchers who lack extensive experience. Initially researchers will only have familiarity with the ‘method-in-text’, rather than the ‘method-in-use’. Indeed, the latter can only be developed once there is some understanding based on the former. It is, therefore, essential doctoral students recognize this transition is part of the doctoral journey and their dissertations need to reflect this, indicating the ways in which their research strategies involved an understanding that research methods are not recipes to be followed slavishly, rather they must be understood as heuristic and exploratory guides to concrete research activities and projects.

Affordance 4: Mentoring

Doctoral students develop their ideas under the guidance of more senior academic researchers. In the UK this latter group are called ‘supervisors’, elsewhere they are termed ‘promoters’ or ‘advisors’. None of these terms cover the full remit of the relationship as it develops over the course of the research, anywhere from 3-7 years. The term ‘mentor’ seems a more suitable one.

Most doctoral students start as novices, needing guidance and supervision for the early stages, even if they have been involved in research prior to embarking on a PhD. The initial stages may be constrained by senior academic(s) as the topic may already have been largely defined, perhaps as part of a funded project. Yet even in these cases the researcher will have to chart their own path as the study develops. In many other instances, including the projects undertaken by Alexandra and Sanela, the doctoral student largely devises the project from scratch with guidance from senior academics.

In their presentation of GTM in the 1960s, Glaser and Strauss stressed that the method was deliberately aimed at doctoral and early-career researchers in the social sciences who were otherwise regarded as ‘proletarian researchers’ toiling away, being exploited by ‘theoretical capitalists’ in control of the academy. Behind their colourful language lay the aim of instilling confidence in junior researchers, offering a strategy for them to develop their own theoretical concepts and models in the form of what Merton termed ‘theories of the middle-range’ (see Glaser and Strauss, 1967, pp.32-33). Yet this can be a difficult process as many doctoral researchers find themselves suffering from impostor syndrome and lack of confidence.

In the early stages a doctoral researcher may require close supervision, involving frequent meetings with one or more mentors, circulation of detailed notes, and clearly defined actions on the part of all parties concerned. Eventually, and preferably sooner rather than later, this scrutiny becomes superfluous; meetings take the form of discussions amongst equals rather than tutorials. Sometime by the latter stages, the roles are if not reversed then re-balanced, with the doctoral researcher taking the lead, presenting their findings and analysis to an expectant and receptive audience. In this latter stage mentors must act as the student’s keenest and most incisive critics, ensuring that the eventual PhD examination does not come as a nasty surprise. Alexandra and Sanela each enjoyed their viva, seeing it as an opportunity to engage with academics who had taken the time and effort to study their work from a position of expertise in their various fields.

Sanela commented that she felt rushed by her supervisors into starting data collection. In part this arose from their unfamiliarity with phenomenographic research and the necessity for her to clarify her overall research strategy. Once her understanding of phenomenography developed, she realized she knew more about this than her supervisors. The result was she grew in confidence and was able to move on.

One further aspect related to mentoring is the role of a doctoral student’s peers. Alexandra and Sanela noted the importance of the various support and teaching sessions offered by the university. These included sessions on specific methods, tools, and techniques, also ones on academic regulations and procedures. In addition, both researchers described the significance of engaging with the research community as an additional source of mentorship. Alexandra described the benefits of presenting tentative findings at conferences at two key points of her research journey. This offered an opportunity to check her findings with her peers, reviewing them against Charmaz’s (2006) criteria of ‘originality’, ‘resonance’, ‘credibility’, and ‘usefulness’. Likewise, Sanela felt strongly that engaging with the research community should be a requirement for doctoral researchers. She sought out the phenomenographic community to help develop her understanding of her approach, seeking feedback on her work and sharing ideas with others. This helped fill gaps present in published accounts of phenomenography.

Affordance 5: Epistemology and Ontology

There is often an expectation that doctoral students should declare their position on epistemology and ontology. This is not universal, and in some theses these issues are barely addressed, particularly if a quantitative strategy is used. Questions relating to ‘how do we know what we know?’ and ‘what is the nature of reality?’ hold a fascination for many, but is it fair and realistic to expect PhD students to immerse themselves in complex philosophical discussions? Without wishing to offer an extended discussion, we differed in our views on this issue. Tony felt that doctoral students should steer clear of these topics unless specifically requested to address them. On the other hand, Sanela and Alexandra felt that students need to engage with philosophical debates, particularly if their choice of method and/or research strategy emanates from areas where these issues are seen as critical or contentious. Alexandra felt that this was exactly the case regarding her choice of using Constructivist GTM.

We resolved this by agreeing that the affordance needs a sign ‘Danger – Beware: Do not use terms such as ‘positivist’, ‘induction’, ‘epistemology’, ‘ontology’, or the like unless you are prepared to defend and explain them in your viva’. Alexandra’s discussion of abduction in her thesis – see below – is a clear and cogent example of how to accomplish this. (See Bryant, 2017, pp.40-57 chapter 2 for further discussion of what he terms the ‘E’ and ‘O’ words.)

Affordance 6: Positionality and Embodiment – Personalizing

In both Alexandra’s and Sanela’s accounts there is a strong and sustained personal element. Each refers to highly personal reasons for wanting to undertake their study, gaining insight into issues that were important to them based on previous and current experiences and concerns. They also offer glimpses into their personal circumstances and biographical development. Furthermore, both Constructivist GTM and phenomenography characterize the research process as one that involves the researcher as an active and directing agent, firmly rejecting the image of the dispassionate, disinterested, and neutral researcher.

This personalizing of their respective research journeys exemplifies how researchers should account for their positionality and embodiment when reporting and reflecting on their work. Researchers, particularly those involved in qualitative research with other participants, should be encouraged to do this, albeit limiting discussion to aspects pertinent to the study itself. This is often accomplished, in part, by use of first person constructs which are all too often dismissed out of hand by editors and others.

Affordance 7: Flashes of Insight; Abduction

Alexandra refers to abduction, and GTM is now regarded by many as an abductive method. The term was used by C. S. Peirce in 19^th century denoting a form of logical argument distinct from both induction and deduction. Charmaz defines abduction as: ‘a type of reasoning that begins by examining data and after scrutiny of these data, entertains all possible explanations for the observed data, and then forms hypotheses to confirm or disconfirm until the researcher arrives at the most plausible interpretation of the observed data’. (Charmaz, 2006, p.186, emphasis added)

Abduction involves a logical ‘leap’, as opposed to the more careful and considered processes of induction and deduction. Moreover, abduction is both a cognitive process and a logical one. The two aspects being equally important, with the former predominating in the early phases. Alexandra’s reference to her understanding of the term as ‘a lightbulb moment’ is an example of abduction. The key issue for researchers is that it allows for and even encourages flashes of insight as part of the investigative process; the source for these often being the experience and skills of the researcher.

GTM is a model of research based on careful engagement with and scrutiny of the data, avoiding what Glaser termed ‘immaculate conceptualization’ (1978, p.8). But in their pioneering GTM manifesto, The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Glaser and Strauss (1967) devoted an entire chapter to the importance of flashes of insight to the research process. Note, however, how they distinguish between ‘the process of research’ and the ‘source of ideas’.

Generating a theory from data means that most hypotheses and concepts not only come from the data, but are systematically worked out in relation to the data during …the research. Generating a theory involves a process of research. By contrast, the source of certain ideas, or even “models,” can come from sources other than the data. The biographies of scientists are replete with stories of occasional flashes of insight, of seminal ideas, garnered from sources out-side the data. But the generation of theory from such insights must then be brought into relation to the data, or there is great danger that theory and empirical world will mismatch. (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p.6, emphasis in the original)

Researchers should not shy away from what Glaser and Strauss refer to as ‘cultivating reflections on personal experiences’ but treasure them as ‘springboards to systematic theorizing’ (1967, p.252). But note the emphasis they put on ‘systematic theorizing’ as part of a rigorous ‘process of research’.

Two Final Thoughts

The concept of doctoral affordances arose in our early discussions. We then developed our ideas using it as the basis for this article which we believe encapsulates what one reader of an early draft called ‘the inevitable messiness’ of doctoral research. The result is a deliberately detailed account of seven doctoral affordances drawn from the experiences of two recent doctoral students, deliberately eschewing any attempt to take the concept to a higher more abstract level at this stage. Based on our collective experience of doctoral supervision and examination we particularly wanted to offer doctoral students the basis for insightful reflection on the process, something that doctoral students crave and which is largely missing from textbooks and journal papers pitched at more abstract and often abstruse levels.

Moreover, in the foregoing we have tried to offer some practical insights for doctoral students and other early-career researchers as they embark upon and hopefully complete their research journeys. These offer guidelines for thinking about and enacting research strategies, encompassing not only the issues of methods, tools, and techniques, but also highly personal aspects involved in developing novel concepts and ideas. ⁷ Given the novelty of the doctoral experience anything that can be done to guide students from the outset should be welcome, both for students and their supervisors/mentors. The latter can find ways to indicate relevant affordances to the former, leaving it to doctoral researchers to experience their use and usefulness for themselves. We recognize that no two journeys are alike, but in offering these doctoral affordances, paraphrasing Keefer, we aim to indicate a portal, revealing new and previously inaccessible ways of thinking about the doctoral journey.