Abstract
Purpose: This study explores the research behaviours of post-proposal-defence doctoral students in communication studies in the Ghanaian context, with a focus on unpacking the diverse behavioural patterns used during fieldwork and thereafter.
Design/Methodology/Approach: Drawing on boundary work theory, the qualitative study employs in-depth interviews and observations as the main data collection methods. Nine (9) criterion-based, purposively selected doctoral students were interviewed, and sixteen (16) individual observations of seminar presentations by the doctoral student participants were conducted. Data collected were coded and thematised for analysis.
Research Limitation: The study relied exclusively on data from doctoral students in communication studies in a single university, thereby limiting the generalisability of its findings.
Findings: The evidence revealed that post-proposal-defence doctoral students in communication studies display contrasting and converging research behaviours. The results specifically revealed the following: research as boundary work influenced by supervisors’ direction and approval and moderated through faculty input during supervision and reviews at seminars; display of novice researcher nuances; exhibition of self-efficacy and self-handicapping dispositions; and cohort influence and admonitions in research behaviours.
Practical Implication: Post-proposal-defence doctoral students’ research knowledge, fieldwork experiences and behavioural practices offer valuable insights that can inform pedagogical reforms in doctoral training and research curricula across the West African sub-region.
Social Implication: The study underscores the value of discipline-specific, geographically situated research behaviours of doctoral students as a compelling call for researchers to pursue further inquiries to better unpack the behaviours and tendencies of such research subjects.
Originality/Value: The study extends boundary work theory beyond its predominantly Western orientation by illuminating how a distinct phase of the doctoral journey is shaped by practices and behaviours consequential to the theory’s application within African academia. Second, it shifts the field’s largely supervisor-centric focus by foregrounding doctoral students’ voices, thereby interrogating the power asymmetries that shape supervisor-supervisee discourse in academia.