Building and examining research capability in Australian health students: a mixed methods study

Abstract

Research honours programs are traditionally used in Australian universities to build and evaluate research capacity in undergraduate health students. The effectiveness of such programs in achieving this in the current higher education landscape has not recently been explored. This mixed methods study examined 66 health research honours programs. Webpage, survey and interview data were gathered to examine the learning outcomes, pedagogical approaches, assessment practices, and the purpose of the programs. Learning outcomes included conducting research, working with independence, critical thinking and collaborating. Pedagogical approaches focussed on the completion of a research project under supervision and a research thesis featured as the main assessment piece. Rigorous moderation practices were employed within assessment procedures. However, there was considerable variation in standards of high performance. The stated purpose of honours programs included development of research skills, providing a stepping stone into a research career, preparation of the health workforce, and production of research. Models for building and examining research capability should draw from the strengths of this approach which include authentic learning and assessment. Sector-wide benchmarking of performance standards and the inclusion of learning outcomes that consider research within clinical careers would strengthen the role of honours programs into the future.

Keywords:

• Research capability
• assessment
• learning outcomes
• clinician researcher

Introduction

The healthcare workforce must have the research skills to facilitate an evidence-based approach to care and ensure the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of the healthcare system (Halcomb et al. 2018). Research skills are thus embedded within undergraduate training programs with the focus on giving graduates the skills to search, evaluate, and apply existing research (Manathunga et al. 2012; Halcomb et al. 2018; Vieno, Rogers, and Campbell 2022). However, the skills to perform research and build the evidence base are not required of graduates of bachelor-level health degrees. The exception to this is the honours program. These are optional undergraduate research training programs available at most Australian universities.

Traditionally, the pedagogical goal of honours programs is to enable students to develop from the ability to acquire and apply knowledge to the ability to produce it by undertaking a research project under academic supervision (Manathunga et al. 2012). Students in honours programs are advantaged because this mode of learning research sits within the undergraduate structure and funding in Australia, and is only one year in duration (Horstmanshof and Boyd 2019). Moreover, high performing students in these programs are eligible for direct entry into a PhD as a first-class honours achievement is the standard of entry for PhD programs and scholarships (Australian Government 2017).

Honours is viewed as a marker of the capacity of students to undertake research and receive scholarships. Therefore, consistency in standards of the output and its examination is of importance (Kiley, Moyes, and Clayton 2009). The standard of research produced by honours programs is not measured against the same national standard that sets out requirements for research and research training within PhD and Masters programs (Australian Government - Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency 2018). Instead, this is managed by each institution in line with undergraduate policy and procedure and under the guidance of the Australia Qualification Framework (AQF). However, this framework only advises on the skill and knowledge requirements of graduates (Zeegers and Barron 2009; AQF Council 2013). There have long been calls for more consistency in policy and procedure in other aspects of the delivery of honours programs (Zeegers and Barron 2009). Concerns about the equivalence of the experience of students both within and between programs have been raised because of the variations in curricula (Halcomb et al. 2018), lack of uniformity in resourcing, inconsistencies in the amount and nature of feedback given to students and the differing standards and categories used to define academic performance across institutions (Barwick and Horstmanshof 2023).

A previous review of honours programs, over a decade ago, also raised concerns about the transparency of the pedagogical approaches, noting that the ‘pedagogical dimension of honours is relatively invisible and relatively unarticulated, given its pivotal role in the higher education landscape’ (Kiley et al. 2009 p. 26). The review found that students needed more support in developing the skills for knowledge production (Manathunga et al. 2012). Many programs at the time of that review were in the process of re-designing curricula and assessment to promote greater integration (Kiley, Moyes, and Clayton 2009).

Importantly, research honours programs are only completed by a minority of students. Furthermore, it is challenging to retain these programs within university offerings due to the resource-intensive nature of the programs and low student numbers (Barwick and Horstmanshof 2023). These factors present both a challenge and an opportunity to explore and adapt to more sustainable models of research training to address pedagogical and benchmarking concerns and potentially provide a model for international application.

This research examines the assessment practices of undergraduate research programs across all health disciplines in Australia, its congruence with the states purpose of the programs, and the constructive alignment with learning objectives and pedagogical approaches. In doing, so it seeks to answer the following questions about honours research programs:

1. What are the course learning outcomes and pedagogical approaches used?

2. How are students formally evaluated?

3. What is their role in health higher education and practice?

Methods

This analysis was part of a larger explanatory sequential mixed methods study (Shorten and Smith 2017) aiming to explore the health honours programs across Australia (Barwick and Horstmanshof 2023). A pragmatic approach (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004) underpinned by reflectivity (Olmos-Vega et al. 2022) guided the methods, including sampling, data collection and analysis. The full methodology of this study, including a description of the data collection techniques is described elsewhere (Barwick and Horstmanshof 2023) and briefly below.

Data collection

The webpages of 227 health honours programs offered in Australia were examined. The following items of relevance for this study were extracted: program name, location, discipline(s), program structure, program learning outcomes, and assessment details. Contact details of the program convenors were also obtained, and the link to an online survey was sent to them. This survey was hosted by Qualtrics (www.qualtrics.com) and explored various aspects of program delivery. Open-text questions were asked about the role of the honours program, pedagogical approaches used in delivery, components of the final grade, and grading structure, examination, and moderation procedures. It also asked for any assessment rubrics the program convenors were willing and able to share.

At the conclusion of this survey, participants were asked to indicate whether they were willing to be interviewed on the topic. Purposive sampling was then used to ensure the representation of regionality, size of the program, and disciplines among interviewees. In these interviews, participants were asked to confirm and clarify items from the survey, expand on what they viewed the role of honours programs to be and comment on the themes that emerged from the survey questions. Interviews were recorded and transcribed.

The project was approved by the Southern Cross University Human Research Ethics Committee (ECN-19-100).

Data analysis and integration

Program characteristics from the web search (discipline, location and structure) were analysed using descriptive statistics. Data arising from the survey question on the role of honours was thematically analysed using a semantic approach (Braun and Clarke 2006). Hard copies of data were produced and the researcher (AB) was immersed in the data through multiple readings and data were manually coded into units of meaning with reference to the research questions. Memos were made of consistency of items with the researcher’s existing understandings in an effort to bracket them and consider all items equally (Henry 2015). Patterns of meaning among the codes were identified through a process of physical organisation into themes. Peer debriefing took place with the second researcher (LH) via discussion and exploration of themes (Henry 2015).

These themes were further explored in the interviews, and the analysis occurred concurrently. Purposive sampling, as described above, took place until sufficient diversity existed in the sample and there were no new codes occurring, indicating redundancy in the data (Saunders et al. 2018). If the meaning of the data was uncertain, member checking took place for validation (Henry 2015).

The text-based data arising from the webpage extraction and survey that related to the learning outcomes, pedagogical approaches and assessment approaches were analysed using conventional qualitative content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon 2005; White and Marsh 2006). This approach was used because of its flexibility and usefulness in analysing text-based data. It involved reading, re-reading, and highlighting each element and giving one or more keywords describing the overall meaning. This was performed separately for the learning outcomes, pedagogical approaches, and assessment approaches. During this process, a set of preliminary keywords were developed and then applied to the total dataset, and a new keyword applied as needed. This was discussed for agreement between the researchers. Each keyword was then examined for internal consistency, with some being combined and some divided into subthemes, as described by Hsieh and Shannon (2005). Finally, rubrics were examined to distinguish elements of a first-class designation that indicated high performance.

The primary analysis was performed by a previous program convenor with experience in convening an honours program (AB) and an academic who had previously reviewed honours programs and published in the area (LH) ensuring the analysis was performed against a rich knowledge of the context. This may, however, have introduced bias in the manner in which interviews were conducted and analysis was performed.

Bracketing, peer debriefing, reflectivity, and member checking, as described above, were performed to optimise the rigour of the findings. Following the initial analysis of each section, data were integrated into the final write-up to answer the research questions drawing on information from each source in keeping with the mixed methods methodology (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004). This approach was chosen to give breadth and depth to the findings. Findings are integrated below and illustrated with quotes.

Results

The convenors of 66 of the 227 (33%) programs responded to the survey and these programs were explored in this analysis. The characteristics of these programs are in Table 1. Eight program convenors were interviewed.

Table 1. Characteristics of programmes (n = 66).

Characteristic	Sub-category	N	%
Location	Major city	59	89%
	Inner regional	8	12%
	Outer regional	3	5%
	International	1	<1%
Structure	End-on	43	65%
	Embedded	24	36%
Discipline	Biomedicine/medicine/paramedicine	18	27%
	Exercise/sport science	13	20%
	Psychology	10	15%
	Nursing/midwifery	9	14%
	Nutrition/dietetics	9	14%
	Occupational therapy	6	9%
	Public health	5	8%
	Physiotherapy	4	6%
	Other	17	26%

Totals add to >100% where multiple offerings exist.

Course learning outcomes

The course learning outcomes of 31 of the 66 programs were found on webpages and analysed. Themes included conducting research, independence, integrity, applying advanced skills, critical thinking, and collaborating. This is further explored in Table 2.

Table 2. Themes arising from qualitative content analysis of learning outcomes.

Conducting research
Most learning outcomes revolved around one or more aspects of conducting a research project. The full research process was represented in the outcomes: reviewing evidence, identifying problems, formulating questions and hypotheses, designing research, planning research, meeting ethical requirements, collecting data, analysing data, communicating and disseminating research, and applying research.
Independence
Independence was an attribute applied to many of the outcomes of conducting research. Use of initiative, independence of thought, taking responsibility for one’s own learning and working with increasing autonomy were featured among outcomes.
Integrity
Working with integrity was also a prominent attribute among the learning outcomes. Accountability, ethical conduct, cultural competence, professionality, respect and inclusivity were values required of students. This was also linked with the quality and rigour of the work.
Applying advanced skills
Learning outcomes often mention the acquiring or use of advanced discipline-based knowledge and skills. The level of knowledge was variously described as coherent, broad and highly developed.
Critical thinking
Critical analytical, and reflective thinking were also skills that were prominently featured. Further, problem-solving skills and adaptability during the research process were often mentioned including being able to adapt knowledge and skills to different situations, anticipate and identify problems and be creative and innovative in solving them.
Collaborating
Students were required to show collaboration through research with reference to multi-disciplinary and diverse teams. The ability to communicate at a high level in oral and written formats was repeatedly mentioned as a required skill. Making a contribution to the advancement of a field, to research groups, or to the academic community was also often mentioned.

Pedagogical approaches

Thirty of 66 participants responded to a question about the pedagogical models used in their program. Five were not aware of any formal pedagogical approaches that were applied in their programs. Responses to this question usually focussed on the nature of the coursework, particular learning strategies employed, and the nature of the mentorship or supervision support provided.

The content of the coursework in the program was often described. This included research methodologies, systematic review, ethics, writing, information literacy and so forth. Frameworks for this content were less frequently mentioned, but included ‘constructive alignment is employed for the course work components’ [Respondent 11]. Coursework was often described as being delivered by specialists, experts, or academics other than supervisors. For example, one convenor explained that students ‘participate in workshops given by academic and professionals (who are not their project supervisors) regarding scientific writing…’ [Respondent 56]. Various learning principles, including ‘adult learning principles’ and strategies, including the ‘flipped classroom’, were cited and described. ‘Blended learning’ was commonly included, the benefits of this included improved access to materials.

Social constructivism was cited multiple times as an overall guiding framework for delivery. ‘I use social constructivist approach and hold group seminars on topics that are timed to coincide with where students are up to’ [Respondent 5]. In keeping with this, group work was often described and a mentorship or apprenticeship approach was used to describe the approach to supervision.

Although not explicitly stated as a pedagogical strategy, experiential learning was often described with the research project being the centrepiece experience. Within this, learning experiences were described as: ‘hands-on’, ‘enquiry-based learning’ and ‘problem-based learning’ as types of experiential learning. The benefits of the experiential approach to presenting research were described by one convenor as ‘this increases confidence with presentation of research and often [they] then present at the national conference the following year’ [Respondent 54].

Assessment approaches

The final grade for the honours performance was usually made up of more than one assessment piece. The most common assessments and their contribution are summarised in Table 3 noting the coursework contribution could be made up of many assessment types.

Table 3. Final grade components (n = 56).

Component	Range of weightings for component	Proportion of programs that include component
Thesis	40–100%	98%
Presentation/Seminar	5–20%	70%
Coursework/GPA	up to 100%	45%
Project proposal	5–33%	27%
Literature review	10–25%	21%
Supervisor evaluation	10–15%	16%
Ethics proposal	10–20%	11%

There is a universal five-point grading system for the final determination of performance that includes the designations: first class; second class division I; second class division II; third class; and fail. There are a variety of ways a designation is determined. The thesis grade, or its components, is most commonly forms the largest component. Performance standards vary with third class always requiring a minimum 50%, moving to a second-class division II at either 60% or 65%, second class division I at 70 or 75% and finally first class at 80 or 85%. Other components such as grade point average may also factor into the designation.

Distinguishing features of first-class honours designation used in thesis rubrics included ‘excellent’, ‘exceptional’, ‘outstanding’, ‘sophisticated’, ‘exceptionally high quality’, ‘high level’ or similar descriptors of performance across criteria. The ‘innovation’, ‘rigour’, ‘originality’, ‘clarity’, and ‘comprehensiveness’ of the work was also included. Consistency of this high performance across all criteria was also a feature. Notably, some rubrics had multiple bands within the first-class designation, with the descriptors in the lower band including ‘strong to very strong’. Rubrics occasionally referred to the degree of difficulty of the project itself, the publishability of the thesis, and suitability of the student to advance to a higher degree.

All programs used more than one examiner to grade the thesis component as a means of moderation. The vast majority (52/59) of programs used two examiners for this purpose. Examiners were commonly required to have a research higher degree (67%), be an active researcher (45%), be independent of the faculty (32%) or university (26%) and have expertise relevant to the project (32%).

In cases of a major difference in examiner grades (5–10% or a difference in overall designation), additional examiners were used. In other cases, a panel examination process, discussions and reconsideration between examiners, or input from the program convenor or supervisor was sought to resolve major discrepancies. Other processes of moderation included using a cohort or panel approach to examination or having the program convenor examine all theses.

Roles of programs

The roles of honours programs, as described by program convenors, came under four interrelated themes: development of research skills, providing a stepping stone into a research career, preparation of the health workforce, and production of research in a discipline. Each is described below.

Development of research skills

The development of research skills was cited by many convenors as the primary role of their program. These research skills were described to be above and beyond those gained as an undergraduate student. For example, ‘further developing their analytical and critiquing skills commenced during their undergraduate course’ [Respondent 50]. Some described this development of research skills as being focused towards high-performing students, for example, ‘to provide a research training to high achieving undergrads [sic]’ [Interviewee 7].

The specific skills developed could be broadly categorised into those required to review existing knowledge of a topic, conduct a research project, communicate research, and more general skills including project management, time management, problem-solving, and teamwork. Skills in reviewing existing knowledge on a topic included searching, critically analysing, and synthesising literature. Skills in conducting a research project included developing a question, designing and proposing a study, budgeting, research ethics, data collection, data analysis and specific technical skills. Finally, skills in communicating research included writing and presenting.

The development of higher-order attributes required for research was also described. These included resilience, independence, interpersonal skills, critical thinking, and professionalism. For example, one survey respondent viewed the role of their program as providing an opportunity for building ‘personal growth, independence, and resilience’ [Respondent 25].

Providing a stepping stone into a research career

These research skills were described as being something that could be built upon with further research training. For example, one convenor described the role of honours programs as being to ‘provide a foundation in research skills that could be utilised to build upon in a master’s or doctoral degree’ [Respondent 47]. Honours programs were viewed as providing a particular experience that facilitates this, for example, ‘… a research opportunity with strong supports’ [Respondent 54]. The project itself is an important part of this by ‘allowing students to experience a small research project’ [Respondent 35]’ and allowing for entry to PhD directly.

This experience, it is thought, allows students to make an informed judgement about whether research is a pathway they should pursue. For example, one convenor stated honours could ‘provide students with an opportunity to engage in an independent research project to determine whether they want to progress to a PhD or continue in a grad[uate] research role’ [Respondent 27]. In this way, honours programs were perceived to provide a stepping stone in a research pathway by providing a ‘fast-track to a PhD’ [Interviewee 2], an opportunity for staff to vet students and a mechanism to generate interest and discover capability.

Preparation of the health workforce

Another perceived role of honours programs was to prepare graduates for practice in their disciplines and the broader workforce. Honours was thought to prepare students ‘to be consumers of research’ [Respondent 31] as well as ‘prepare students with … project management skills relevant to their discipline and clinical practice’ [Respondent 20]. In some cases, meeting professional standard requirements was cited as a role of honours programs.

Further, convenors expressed that honours helps embed research skills into the clinical workforce. One convenor describing the role as ‘develop[ing] scientist-clinicians who practice in evidence-based ways’ [Respondent 28] and another as ‘building [a] cohort of clinicians with research skills and inquiry’ [Respondent 21]. Practice-based programs were described as a specific vehicle for this ‘the program is providing … our profession with midwives who are more research capable and more equipped to use evidence in practice and contribute to policy, clinical guidelines etc … These students complete a project directed by and relevant to the organisation while also working for the organisation part-time’. [Respondent 15]. Further to this, honours was described as a vehicle to ‘create a culture of research’ [Respondent 47] and normalise research by ‘engaging nurses early in research as a normal part of practice’ [Respondent 21]. This was described as something that has been difficult to achieve with one convenor stating the goal was to ‘grow a cohort who genuinely understand that research and being a researcher is a valid and important career path in occupational therapy (that outcome is much harder than it should be…)’ [Respondent 2].

In some disciplines, honours was described as providing a pathway to specialisation within a discipline by ‘exposing students to… an area of research that aligns with student professional aspirations’ [Respondent 60] and ‘allow[ing] students to specialise in a sub-discipline of exercise science’ [Respondent 60]. There were mixed perspectives on the role of honours in improving employability. Sometimes, it was described as giving students an edge, ‘to give students a better chance at employment’ [Interviewee] in a public health degree or ‘giving students the opportunity to differentiate themselves from the crowd’ [Interviewee] in a physiotherapy degree.

Production of research in a discipline

The production of research, itself, was often mentioned including the concept of expanding the field. For example, one convenor described the role to ‘encourage and support existing, develop new, and explore future areas of research in the field of food science and human nutrition’ [Respondent 14]. The discipline, itself, and the importance of growing its evidence base was referred to when describing the role of honours to actually produce research and specific outputs, for example, ‘produce useful and publishable research… we have a strong record of quality theses, which have resulted in presentations and publications’ [Respondent 54]. This is viewed as a means of building capacity in research staff for supervision and facilitating the supervisor’s research. For example ‘students sometimes contribute to projects led by the academic in our discipline, thus we progress our work through this process’ [Respondent 15].

Discussion

Research honours programs continue to evolve as a model for building and evaluating research skills in Australian health students. In this paper, the learning outcomes, pedagogical approaches, examination practices, and the purpose of the programs as perceived by their academic leads were examined. These findings may inform the design and delivery of honours programs and research training and assessment more generally for pre and post-registration health professionals.

Pedagogy and delivery

Over a decade ago, Manathunga et al. (2012) suggested a redesign of honours curricula such that research theory coursework and assessment were integrated into the research project. This was not the dominant model at the time and they asserted that this was preferable for students, was more pedagogically sound and mapped well onto post-graduate experiences. Many programs at the time were in the process of changing curricula and assessment (Kiley, Moyes, and Clayton 2009). The current paper found that the delivery mode of most programs reflects the integration of coursework that supports the research process as is aligned with assessment of those components. While this study did not examine the outcomes of the approaches employed, there is some evidence for the effectiveness of such an approach increasing the confidence and motivation of students to do research (Shaw, Holbrook, and Bourke 2013; Kool et al. 2020).

The learning outcomes were very similar across programs and could be summarised as: conducting research, independence, integrity, applying advanced skills, critical thinking, and collaboration. In line with the last major review of honours programs, convenors described in a limited fashion the formal pedagogical approaches to the delivery of programs (Kiley et al. 2009). The practical completion of a research project guided by one or more supervisor with accompanying coursework that utilises experiential learning and adult-based learning principles is the predominant approach. A social constructivist framework guides some programs with cohort relationships and student-supervisor relationships deemed important. The emphasis on the supervisor-student approach agreed with previous research that highlighted its significance (Kiley, Moyes, and Clayton 2009).

The content of the coursework included comprehensive theory on the research process, often featuring delivery by experts with modern teaching techniques, including blending learning. This expands work outlined in Halcomb et al. (2018) that examined nursing honours programs finding that only a minority to not have associated coursework. This was found to be the case as well more broadly among health programs.

Role as a stepping stone

The previously identified role of honours as a ‘stepping stone’ (Kiley, Moyes, and Clayton 2009) is an enduring one. The predominant role of honours programs is to develop the research skills that provide a foundation for post-graduate studies. This includes reviewing existing knowledge of a topic, conducting a research project, communicating research and more generic skills including, project management, problem-solving, resilience, professionalism and teamwork. This role is evident in the pedagogical approach and learning outcomes. The spectrum of research skills evident in the learning outcomes include reviewing evidence, identifying problems, formulating questions and hypotheses, designing research, planning research, meeting ethical requirements, collecting data, analysing data, communicating and disseminating research. Assessment tasks also in align with this role and the related learning outcomes, including various authentic research outputs such as presentations, proposals, literature reviews and ethics proposals with the research project and thesis at the centre.

In addition to building the foundational research skills and providing a formal pathway directly into the PhD, the conceptualisation of honours as a stepping stone includes the opportunity for students to self-evaluate their desire and capacity for research and for staff to develop working relationships with students and evaluate their aptitude.

Benchmarking standards

Academic performance in honours programs is used as a benchmark against which the ability to conduct research is assessed. The summative assessment used in these programs needs, therefore to take a consistent approach. Students are expected to conduct real-world research, and as such, the output is subject to similar to the feedback processes use in peer reviews of papers and grants in other research contexts. This feedback is provided by the supervisors and examiners. This generates diversity of opinion on the quality and substance of the research. In this way, the examination of this real-world research as undergraduate work creates uncertainty when determining a final grade (Barwick and Horstmanshof 2023).

Previous research (Halcomb et al. 2018; Barwick and Horstmanshof 2023) has raised concerns about the reliability of the standards for the major assessment piece. The current study found that moderation practices vary, but there was usually a high standard of moderation with multiple examiners being used and a level of agreement among them being required. The rubrics used to determine the level of performance of the thesis, however, differ in the percentage required to achieve each designation, including a first-class performance. A first class, typically requires consistently ‘outstanding’ or ‘exceptional’ performance across criteria and a minimum grade of 80 or 85%. There was also variation of opinion whether to consider the degree of difficulty of the topic or the publishability of the work in making this designation.

Previous research on grading practices for PhD theses indicated that examiners are influenced by implicit personalised expectations by academic background and not just the explicit criteria provided to examiners (Chetcuti, Cacciottolo, and Vella 2022). It is unclear how much this may impact honours thesis grading but a tendency to use examiners outside of the faculty and institution indicates this may be the case and may be responsible for the perceived inconsistencies in making designations.

Further to research on nursing honours programs (Halcomb et al. 2018), the current study found a similar emphasis among all health programs on a thesis or publication with a range of other assessments that contribute to the final grade. However, there is a large variation in the weighting of the thesis in determining a final designation and degree of consideration of other components such as coursework performance. This variation in the determining of a final designation reinforces calls for standardisation, where possible. Further research could also scrutinise the use of this standard in current use in policy and procedure for admission and eligibility for PhD funding by individual higher education providers.

Honours and research culture

An interesting finding was that these undergraduate research programs are perceived to be an important mechanism to instil appreciation and capability for knowledge production into the health workforce. This includes building capacity among the research workforce and clinical workforce, and building supervision capacity. Research literacy among health professionals and strong research evidence for a field is an important legitimising mechanism for the professions (Halcomb and Peters 2009). Graduates of honours programs in previous studies (Zeegers and Barron 2009) report the desire to take these skills into their clinical careers with a majority taking clinical pathways. Given this purpose, it is worth considering whether the curricula are fit to fulfil this. The effectiveness of these programs to equip health graduates with the skills to implement practice-based research remains unexamined. Moreover, the current study found learning outcomes and assessments often do not overtly include these elements.

Convenors in the current study acknowledged that the broadly applicable skills that students developed throughout their honours programs, including project management, collaboration, time management and so forth were useful in employment. However, the honours qualification was not necessarily considered desirable by employers. Previous research has found that in science and humanities, honours gave students an edge in the job market (Kiley, Moyes, and Clayton 2009), whereas a more recent finding showed this was not always the case in health professions (Barwick and Horstmanshof 2023). Interestingly, the current study found that in some disciplines honours is used as part of a specialisation pathway to build interest and participation.

Barwick and Horstmanshof (2023) found that convenors perceive that students view research pathways as distinct from clinical ones, and some clinical settings did not value performing research with a perception that research is for ‘others’ to do. Previous research has asserted that a lack of research culture partially explains low student numbers in honours programs (Halcomb et al. 2018). Disciplines that incentivise research, such as medicine and psychology, have higher participation in such programs (Barwick and Horstmanshof 2023). On the other hand, there is some evidence that, among nursing students research is a difficult topic that fails to inspire engagement from students resulting in low numbers of nursing students completing honours pathways (Halcomb and Peters 2009).

This suggests that low student numbers in many programs may be addressed by fostering the link between research and practice through clear alignment with the advanced discipline knowledge component of program delivery, which currently tends to occur tacitly (Manathunga et al. 2012; Barwick and Horstmanshof 2023) and by embedding research into professional pathways.

Drawbacks of honours programs

Honours programs are not offered universally and many programs are suffering from low student numbers and resourcing concerns that undermine their sustainability (Halcomb et al. 2018; Barwick and Horstmanshof 2023). This raises questions about whether the roles of honours programs in the development of research skills, providing a stepping stone into a research career, preparation of the health workforce, and production of research in a discipline can continue to be achieved without some adaptation, or whether these can be achieved by alternative means.

National PhD program entry and scholarship provision guidelines now focus on individuals demonstrating the capability to perform publishable research as determined by individual higher education providers regardless of the pathway taken (Australian Government 2024). Future research should examine the impact of different entry pathways, including honours, on success and timely completion of higher degree research to evaluate their ability to fulfil the role of providing the research skills to enable a research career.

It is evident from the current study that honours programs are valued beyond bring a stepping stone for a research career and that they play a role too in preparing the health workforce with research skills and in producing research for disciplines. A limitation of the current study is that it only includes the perspectives of people who are involved with an honours program and who are therefore likely to have favourable views. Disciplines and individuals who do not utlilise honours pathways may also have valuable insights into other ways of building research culture.

A previously raised related issue is that the intensive nature of the year and the pressure to achieve first-class may disincentivise the pursuit of research (Kiley, Moyes, and Clayton 2009). This may reinforce the viewpoint of some clinicians and graduates found in Barwick and Horstmanshof (2023) that research is for ‘others’ to conduct. In this way, honours may in fact be a discouraging gate-keeping mechanism and alternatives should look to avoid these potential pitfalls.

Conclusions

Health graduates are increasingly required to assume the role of knowledge producers in their disciplines. There is a push towards practice-based research and many professional accrediting bodies acknowledge that there is insufficient implementation of research into practice. In addition to serving as a traditional pathway to an academic career, honours programs are emerging as mechanisms for professionalisation through research, facilitating the integration of research skills into the health workforce alongside actual research production. Concerns remain about its use as a standard for the ability to perform research as highlighted by the finding that there is variation in grading procedure and standards across honours programs.

It is clear that the cultivation of research skills among undergraduate pre-registration clinicians can be achieved through participation in honours programs or their alternatives. Students find undergraduate research programs to be intellectually stimulating and motivating towards performing research (Shaw, Holbrook, and Bourke 2013; Kool et al. 2020). Academics find them to be an important tool for evaluating research capacity and obtaining research outputs. The current role as a stepping stone into a PhD extends into the informal assessment of capability and willingness to perform formal research. Resource constraints on delivering research honours programs mean alternative delivery models may need to be considered (Horstmanshof and Boyd 2019).

Any alternative to or adaptation of honours programs should consider the role of embedding knowledge production into undergraduate education. They may include renewed focus on practice-based research in learning outcomes and assessment given most health graduates intend to enter a clinical career and the desire to build a culture of health workers who are knowledge creators. This may further build capacity and encourage the production of research in a discipline.

Further research should investigate the effectiveness and graduate destinations of current honours programs and potential alternatives. Research training approaches should seek to preserve the strengths of honours programs while addressing those components that pose challenges. Important aspects include creating a desirable pathway into further research training, particularly with clinical foci; facilitating research output for the discipline evidence base; offering students a mechanism to self-assess their research capabilities and aspirations; and building a research culture within the workforce. The authentic learning that occurs by conducting a research project under supervision, with supportive coursework and assessment using a flexible social constructivist approach, would be complemented by benchmarked standards for research output and performance.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge and thank Katie Green for her assistance with web extraction

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Alex Barwick

Alex Barwick is a lecturer and podiatrist with interests in higher education, clinical workforce development, interprofessional health care and chronic disease. She has developed curriculum in research skills and applied health sciences and taught over a variety of subjects including interprofessional practice and high-risk foot management. Dr Barwick researches chronic foot disease, focussing on diabetes-related complications and peripheral arterial disease screening techniques as well as embedding research skills in the health workforce. She has published her research in various peer reviewed journals and presented her research nationally and internationally.

Louise Horstmanshof

Louise Horstmanshof has been researching and publishing for over 20 years in the fields of higher education, preparation of the health workforce, productive ageing, simulation and communication. She is a regular reviewer for several national and international journals. Dr Horstmanshof has led two Australian Department of Health (formerly HWA) grant projects for Southern Cross University and is a member of the steering committee for the Dementia Inclusive Ballina Inc Alliance, previously the Dementia Friendly Alliance (Northern Rivers, NSW). She has served on the Regional Executive of the United Protestant Association (UPA) North Coast Region, NSW and is a committee member of the Australian Psychological Society North Coast Branch. Dr Horstmanshof has taught at undergraduate and postgraduate levels across several Australia Universities and has a wealth of experience in curriculum development and assessment. She has a long-standing interest in building research capacity and developing research skills across the major stages of the research career trajectory. She has conceptualised, designed and developed online postgraduate units on conducting systematic reviews and preparing research proposals. She has examined theses and supervises Honours and PhD students in Health.