There is a limited literature on students’ conceptions of research and the earliest reported work on this topic is believed to be the seminal study by Meyer, Shanahan and Laugksh (2005). This two-part study, embracing both a qualitative and a quantitative methodological component, established the existence of inter-individual differences in postgraduate students’ conceptions of research thus laying a foundation for subsequent comparative work by Meyer, Shanahan and Laugksh (2007). In essence these two studies consolidate findings in terms of five conceptually discrete dimensions of variation: discovering the truth, insightful exploration and discovery, re-examining existing knowledge, problem-based activity, and a set of misconceptions.

The present study extends this earlier work in the important respect of focussing on a sample of doctoral students in a research intensive university. Initial findings support the existence of the five previously mentioned dimensions of variation and further extend them in terms of research as information gathering and a scientific process. Variation within these seven conceptually discrete dimensions is explored in the doctoral student sample according to broad disciplinary field of study (Science and Engineering. Arts and Humanities, Social Sciences and Health), gender, and status in terms of being an overseas student with English as a first language. Field and status but not gender exhibit a statistically significant overall effect. Analyses of structural (covariance) differences according to field are presently underway and findings will be reported at the EARLI Conference.

 Although work of this nature is still in its infancy it is clear from the findings of the present and earlier studies that there is multivariate complexity in the manner in which postgraduate students differ in their conceptions of research. In focussing exclusively on doctoral students the present study reports findings that are discussed in terms of their capacity to inform the ‘pedagogy’ of postgraduate training.

There are few studies that have explored variation in students’ conceptions of research. The earliest work known to the present authors is the two-part study by Meyer, Shanahan and Laugksh (2005). Part 1 of this study analysed postgraduate students’ (n=154) open ended written responses to questions about ‘research’ and, in particular, to questions about what they thought ‘research’ was, both generally and within their own subject or discipline. A qualitative analysis of these data supported an interpretation of underlying conceptual structure that captured variation in terms of eight categories, some of which were further differentiated in terms of finer conceptual distinctions. In terms of the main categories, ‘research’ was conceived in terms of variation in (a) information gathering, (b) discovering the truth, (c) insightful exploration and discovery, (d) analytic and systematic enquiry, (e) incompleteness, (f) re-examining existing knowledge, (g) problem-based activity, and (h) a set of misconceptions. Part 2 of the study addressed the research question of whether these eight qualitative dimensions of variation also represented sources of variation in a statistical sense. Findings supported by factor analysis were that there was empirical support for five of the eight categories suggested by the Part 1 qualitative analysis; namely categories b, c, f, g and h, each respectively manifested as a factor in a five-factor solution. Based on an independent sample, a second comparative factor analytic study by Meyer, Shanahan and Laugksch (2007) also supported an empirical structure defined essentially by the five categories (b, c, f, g and h) identified in Part 2 of the earlier study.

The research question here is whether the findings of the Meyer et al (2005, 2007) studies, based as they were on heterogeneous samples of considerable complexity, might be further extended and/or refined by analysing data emanating from a more select and homogeneous sample of postgraduate students within a designated level of research, and also broadly differentiated across particular disciplinary fields. To this end the present study focuses on a sample of 198 doctoral students within a single research intensive university. The analytic process followed that reported in Meyer et al (2005, 2007) in not making any assumptions about the empirical structure of responses to the item pool that formed the basis of the earlier work. Data were accordingly subjected to exploratory factor and item correlation analysis to isolate conceptually discrete dimensions of variation that might be amenable to further psychometric refinement.

Findings provide further support for the earlier reported empirical structures but also provisionally extends them in dimensionality from five to seven in terms of two additional dimensions of variation; namely, research as ‘information gathering’ and as a ‘scientific process’. ‘Information gathering’ did emerge as source of qualitative variation in the Meyer et al (2005) study but failed to manifest as a source of statistical variation in either that study or in the follow up comparative study. Responses to the seven sources of variation thus defined further vary significantly in terms of location parameters according to status or not as an overseas student with English as a first language, and field of study broadly designated as either (a) Science and Engineering, (b) Arts and Humanities, (c) Social Sciences and Health. There is no overall significant effect attributable to gender. Analyses aimed at exploring structural differences according to field are still in progress and these findings, as well as a discussion of the import of these and earlier findings for the pedagogy of postgraduate training will be presented at the EARLI conference.

The theoretical significance of the present work lies in the capacity of qualitative and quantitative modelling of postgraduate students’ conceptions of research to deepen our understanding of research as learning as seen from the internal perspectives of students themselves. The educational significance of the present work is grounded on the premise that a knowledge of variation in the manner in which students engage research as learning can inform the ‘pedagogy’ of postgraduate training; that is, supervisory practice.

Meyer, J.H.F., Shanahan, M.P & Laugksch, R.C. (2005). Students’ conceptions of research. I: A qualitative and quantitative analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49 (3) 225-244.

Meyer, J.H.F., Shanahan, M.P & Laugksch, R.C. (2007). Students’ conceptions of research II: An exploration of contrasting patterns of variation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research (accepted)