Participatory PhD accounts reveal gaps in doctoral support

Updated Sep 30, 2026

A doctoral researcher can receive encouragement to collaborate yet struggle to make that collaboration fit university processes. When we interpret PGR feedback, it helps to ask exactly where support breaks down. In Higher Education, Cathy Beresford and colleagues bring together accounts of participatory PhDs, in which members of the public contribute to research.

What the paper examines

The paper asks how doctoral arrangements can accommodate collaborative knowledge production. It draws on the Participatory PhD Network, including eight member reflections. The authors collected no new data specifically for this article and report no formal analysis. These are experiential accounts and proposals, not a representative survey of doctoral provision.

For UK doctoral schools, the useful question is whether feedback collection lets researchers explain the processes that help or obstruct their chosen approach.

What the accounts reveal

Funding constraints affected involvement. Piotr Teodorowski describes excluding public advisers from part of his doctoral research because the reimbursement budget was insufficient. His account identifies a concrete resource barrier.

Collaborative authorship met submission constraints. Victoria Mason-Angelow reports adapting a chapter written with co-researchers into a single-voiced academic format for submission. The example raises questions about recognising contributions.

Guidance could be difficult to navigate. A network member describes supportive university guidance that did not accommodate participatory work in practice. The authors also describe a doctoral peer group sharing learning where institutional guidance was absent.

The network acknowledges gaps in the diversity of its perspectives. Its accounts cannot establish how widespread these experiences are or whether its proposed changes improve doctoral outcomes.

Turn broad support themes into questions teams can answer

Our suggested application is to look within PGR support comments for accounts of involving community partners. Where a process became difficult, distinguish finding information, obtaining a decision, accessing funds and getting academic advice. Keep overlapping issues visible. Our PGR comment themes and categories provide a starting structure to examine with researchers, so the next discussion can focus on a specific obstacle.

Invite researchers to check whether the interpretation matches their experience. For example, does a comment about delayed approval concern unclear instructions, an unanswered request or disagreement about the proposed method? These are suggested follow-up questions, not categories tested by the paper. Clarifying the difference helps route the issue to the team able to respond.

Bring the relevant doctoral, finance and research-support colleagues into that discussion. Ask them to map the route a researcher is expected to follow and identify where responsibilities need clarification. Record the proposed response, its owner and how researchers will hear the outcome. This turns a broad theme into an accountable local review.

Agree what can be shared before circulating examples. A distinctive project description may need careful handling even after names are removed. Use the student comment analysis governance checklist to discuss access and reporting rules, so colleagues receive useful context without unnecessary identifying detail.

FAQ

Q: How can a doctoral school apply this to its next feedback review?

A: Start with an existing support theme and read the underlying comments for specific requests or obstacles. Ask researchers whether your summary captures the problem, then assign a follow-up decision. Pilot this approach locally before expanding the categories; the paper does not validate a comment-analysis method.

Q: Can these accounts tell us how common the barriers are?

A: No. Do not turn the number of reflections into a prevalence estimate or rank institutions against these examples. If you need to assess local reach, define the relevant population and examine response coverage alongside the comments.

Q: What does this mean for student voice beyond doctoral research?

A: Give students room to explain how an institutional process works in practice, then involve them in reviewing the response. Keep requests for individual help and proposals for wider change visible in reporting. Our briefing on doctoral support and informal arrangements offers another perspective on that distinction.

References

[Paper Source]: Cathy Beresford, Susan Conquer, Peter Beresford, Piotr Teodorowski, Jay Webster, Ellie Rossiter, Sally Burrows, Helen A. Evans, Stephen Bahooshy, Anna Pettican, Jane Chevous, Victoria Mason-Angelow, Robert Gough and Sophie Staniszewska. "Supporting participatory PhDs: a call to action"

DOI: 10.1007/s10734-026-01776-1

Published online: 22 September 2026, Higher Education.