Participatory Action Research: A Gateway to the Professionalization of Emerging Scholars

Abstract

Graduate students and novice researchers face various challenges in their study programs or workplaces, including a research-focused curriculum and high research expectations at the expense of other areas of responsibility that would allow for training and socializing in their environment. The involvement in participatory action research (PAR) is a lever for supporting the professionalization of apprentice and novice researchers by promoting their training through the development of skills adapted to individual circumstances and by fostering their socialization in the academic environment. The results of the analysis of 63 reflective logbooks, two focus groups, and 20 individual interviews show professionalization in both areas of training and socializing. More specifically, the four professional skills that were most developed are project management, collaboration, digital, media, and information literacy, and communication. In terms of socialization, the experience of performing research differently, the implementation of horizontal governance, the varied distribution of responsibilities among participants, the work in multidisciplinary teams, and the hands-on learning of the PAR process played a decisive role. A discussion follows on the potential of PAR for the professionalization of emerging scholars, focusing on the strengths and distinctive features of their experience.

1. Introduction

1.1. Limitations of Doctoral Training in Meeting the Challenges of a Career Within and Outside Academia

While each academic discipline is associated with its own conceptions of research and the research profession [1,2,3], most of them require involvement in several areas of responsibility, including research, teaching, administration, and community service [4]. However, the curricula of graduate study programs are mainly research-oriented, with an emphasis on individual progression [5], to the detriment of other areas of responsibility. This widens the gap between the skills developed in doctoral programs and those sought by the labor market [6], whether a career in academia is being pursued or not. In this regard, master’s and doctoral students wishing to work in academia need to invest time outside of their studies to develop those skills required to complete tasks other than research [7]. It is therefore to students’ advantage to quickly grasp the limitations of their study program [8] and try to compensate by engaging in extracurricular activities, both inside and outside their institution. Beyond enhancing academic success, the participation of students in these types of activities tends to promote their socio-professional integration. To do this, they must steer away from the role of student, which has become their comfort zone over the course of their academic career, and gradually integrate the role of researcher in their respective disciplines [9].

1.2. Hidden Curriculum: Between Implicit Learning and the Reproduction of Inequalities

As Zygouris-Coe and Roberts [10] mention, this learning process reflects how a PhD program is a work experience that goes beyond mandatory classes, seminars, and dissertation writing. This is why the expression ‘hidden curriculum’ is sometimes used to describe the informal expectations of doctoral studies [11]. This notion refers to what is expected of students in terms of knowledge acquisition, but above all this speaks to the development of interpersonal skills, socialization, and professional identity [11]. By remaining hidden or informal, this aspect of doctoral education contributes to the perpetuation of social inequalities [12].

For research apprentices, the careers they envisage are increasingly varied and require the development of a range of professional skills. A study conducted by a cross-sectoral student committee of the Fonds de recherche du Québec (Quebec Research Fund) in 2018 revealed a key finding: an increasing number of graduate students are considering careers outside of academia. The report highlights the diversity of employment areas in which these graduates are finding work, which stems from students’ perception that there are few opportunities for being hired in academic positions [13]. Of the 291 participants, 39% were considering an academic career, even though only 45% felt well equipped to perform professional duties in universities after graduation. One of the solutions proposed in the report is to increase collaborative research between the academic sector and various work environments.

1.3. Performance Culture and Isolation: Obstacles to the Development of Cross-Functional Skills and Socialization

The academic world is often identified as an environment where performance pressure is significant [14] and where rising expectations related to publications are well recognized [15]. This situation affects both novice and experienced researchers, but it places the former in a particularly vulnerable position [16]. The results of interviews with 24 novice researchers who recently obtained academic positions [17] highlight a variety of coping strategies in response to this performance pressure. While some of these strategies relate to work output (doing), they can also be part of building a researcher identity (being, becoming, and belonging). To this end, learners engage in “a process of knowledge acquisition and socialization consisting of imitation and mentoring, learning and self-teaching” [18] (p. 10). This transformational journey is divided into two dimensions of professionalization based on “the desire to ‘produce professionals’ through training programs that develop ‘skills’” [19] (p. 335) and “the idea that a profession must first be understood as part of a social construction process” within a particular organization or environment [19] (p. 333).

According to Austin [20], understanding all aspects of a research career begins at the start of graduate studies. Research supervisors play a key role in enriching the doctoral experience by facilitating students’ gradual socialization into the academic environment [21,22,23]. However, the relationship between supervisors and students can present interpersonal challenges and power-related issues [24,25] that are managed very differently from one institution to another, and even from one faculty or department to another.

1.4. Participatory Action Research: An Avenue to Explore

In a study on professionalization to the profession of researcher, Déri [26] stipulates that graduate students would benefit from “acting as participants in research projects as part of [their] study program” (p. 225). Participating in another researcher’s study allows students to understand what a research process entails and provides an opportunity to reflect on their own methodological approach. However, these experiences could be even more beneficial in respect to learning if they allowed students to take part in the decision-making process of a study as co-researchers, which is not customary in most types of research projects [27]. In this sense, the involvement in participatory action research (PAR) [28] could prove to be a formative experience for both apprentice researchers and novice researchers, whether it involves discovering new practices or changing established ones. As Loiola and Tardif [29] point out, novice researchers’ first experiences in scientific enquiries are crucial and can influence the course of their careers. From an educational perspective, it allows them to participate in meaningful activities and explore new avenues and research topics, as well as experiment with alternative ways of working and collaborating. From the perspective of anticipatory professionalization to the research profession, significant benefits could ensue from more democratic modes of research and horizontal working methods where the contribution of all participants is considered essential to the completion of the research project, including students.

In short, graduate education often involves a hidden curriculum [30] that impedes the training and socialization of students. With this in mind, we wondered if experiences such as the PAR we conducted could enhance the training of apprentice researchers and the skill development of novice researchers? This article therefore aims to describe how getting involved in a PAR as an apprentice researcher or a novice researcher influences the trajectory of graduate studies (master’s/doctorate) and beyond.

2. Theoretical Framework

Government bodies (e.g., Council of Ministers of Education, Canada) and postsecondary educational institutions (e.g., Conference of Quebec University Presidents) promote the importance of high-quality training in higher education. For apprentice researchers, this involves their professionalization in the research profession, which includes the following: (1) training through the development of cross-functional skills, and (2) socializing through the internalization of academic norms. The frame of reference selected for this article is based on these two dimensions that evolve in parallel for the professionalization of emerging scholars (in training or newly hired).

2.1. Professionalization Through the Development of Cross-Functional Skills

The first dimension (training) involves promoting the development of cross-functional skills during study programs. To this end, several typologies or frames of reference have been developed by scholars or educational institutions to identify and monitor the development of the skills in question. We examined three different classifications to choose the one that best suited our approach, aiming to determine whether the involvement of apprentice researchers and novice researchers in our PAR promoted their professionalization in the research profession.

Although other models exist [31,32], we have chosen the frame of reference developed in 2019 by the Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies Department at the University of Montreal for several reasons. First, it stands out for its eight areas of development, cross-functional skills, and examples of demonstrations on which there is consensus. Then, it encourages apprentice researchers and their supervisors to reflect on the skills to be developed and the best ways to do so. Although the frame of reference was conceived by a single university, it draws on a dozen of typologies, frameworks, and platforms designed for training, self-assessment, and individual and/or professional career development in Canada and other countries. Therefore, the Cross-Functional Skills Frame of Reference for the Professional Integration of Graduate Students [33] seems to be the most appropriate for our study since it includes skills related to our research objectives, such as communication, collaboration, digital, media, and information literacy, as well as creativity and innovation. Figure 1 presents the frame of reference illustrating its eight areas of development.

In our PAR, we focused on developing certain skills during activities related to the six stages of a web application design process, as described by Peffers et al. [34]: (1) identify the problem; (2) define the solution; (3) design and develop the tool; (4) demonstrate the tool to users; (5) evaluate the prototype; and (6) communicate with relevant audiences. These digital tools were meant to support academic writing in virtual environments when graduate students work remotely from their university campuses.

2.2. Professionalization Through Socialization in an Academic Environment

The second dimension of professionalization relates to the socialization in an academic environment, which is “the internalization of the norms that prevail in a community one wishes to join” [35] (p. 2). Indeed, it is by knowing how to interpret diverse environments that one can understand their role within the group they are joining. In the case of emerging researchers, this understanding involves not only how the academic environment works, but also the behavior of their future colleagues. They must first recognize what differentiates them from others in the community and then build a social identity that facilitates their integration into the community [36]. For this identity construction to take shape, it is necessary to develop an understanding of the language and customs of each discipline [37]. According to Mantai [38], researchers’ identities are solidified by any form of validation that students receive when they participate in research projects, discuss their research, and disseminate their findings. Interactions between experienced members and beginners therefore facilitate the development of a relational identity in the workplace, enabling newcomers to fully assume their professional role [39]. This co-construction is based on representations that allow individuals to interpret their new environment to transform themselves and become full participating members [40]. However, it should not be assumed that individuals undergo a complete transformation every time they join a new group. As such, “the socialization process is dynamic, meaning that individuals influence the group while being influenced by its dynamics, since everyone brings their own wealth of experiences, perspectives, and opinions” [26] (p. 13).

From the start of their studies, apprentice researchers engage in “a social process of producing and reproducing collective structures” [41] (p. 48), which involves modeling processes. Also known as anticipatory socialization, apprentice researchers gradually become familiar with the expectations of their scientific fields throughout their academic career [42]. This is the case for master’s and, above all, doctoral students, who are exposed to the various responsibilities of a contemporary researcher during their research project, but also through the opportunities that are offered to them or that they seek out on their own initiative. Ultimately, the meaning that the apprentice researcher will give to their new identity will depend, among other things, on the motivations that led them to explore academia as a potential work environment [43]. Therefore, they will be able to make informed decisions about their professional future by assessing the degree of compatibility between the new environment and their professional aspirations. It is important to mention that socialization in the academic environment can take place both inside and outside of the institution by engaging with groups of researchers with diverse backgrounds. For example, there exist learning communities solely composed of graduate students whose discussions focus on academic norms and practices [26]. In this regard, the non-profit organization Thèsez-vous and its writing retreats, as described in Tremblay-Wragg et al. [44], represents an interesting avenue for socialization as it coordinates a myriad of activities that facilitate academic writing and brings together students from a variety of disciplines (www.thesez-vous.com [accessed on 12 May 2025]). We therefore decided to involve this organization as a partner in our PAR to better understand the professional networking opportunities available within its community. Together, we identified the following research objectives:

• Describe how participating in a PAR contributes to the training of emergent researchers (apprentice researchers and novice researchers).
• Examine how participating in a PAR influences their socialization in the academic environment.

3. Materials and Methods

The main objective of our PAR was to document the development and implementation of innovative web applications supporting academic writing to enhance the perseverance and success of graduate students. However, in this article, we focus on describing the experiences of apprentice researchers and novice researchers to examine how their involvement in a PAR can influence their training and socialization. Over the past 20 years, this type of research has gained popularity in educational settings, including action research, as it strives to “adopt a more symmetrical relationship between researchers and practitioners, with a focus on the professional development of the latter” [45] (p. 35). The methodology used in this PAR is based on the steps outlined by Guay et al. [46] that promoted collaboration between researchers and other actors from the community of interest. In this case, it should be noted that the main research team involved novice researchers who were starting off their academic career in their respective fields of expertise and that the other actors were graduate students (apprentice researchers) from master’s and doctoral programs. All of these individuals were considered to be participants, in the sense that their involvement in the PAR aimed at influencing their professionalization. To make this article easier to read, we will refer to the two groups of participants, whose characteristics will be described later, as novice researchers (NRs) and apprentice researchers (ARs). As for the steps that we followed during the PAR to contribute to the professionalization of these two groups, they included the following: (1) defining the current situation by analyzing issues related to academic writing when graduate students work remotely from their university campuses; (2) defining the desired situation by identifying the optimal academic writing experience in various virtual conditions; (3) co-designing web solutions by validating a list of digital features required by graduate students; (4) developing web applications to support academic writing in virtual environments; (5) evaluating the web applications and their impact on students’ feeling of isolation and academic success; and (6) distributing the web applications across the community of interest.

3.1. The Extended Research Team

To implement steps 2 to 6 of this PAR, we assembled a team of eight NRs and eight ARs from ten universities and eight disciplines.

Table 1. Profiles of participants.

Characteristics	Number of Participants or Description
Novice Researchers (NRs = 8)
Level of education or position at the end of the project	Doctorate: 2 Postdoctorate: 1 Professors: 3 Lecturer: 1 External researcher: 1
Affiliated universities or companies	Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Université Laval, Université d’Ottawa, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, and Université du Québec à Montréal
Disciplines	Education, Semiotics, User experiences, and Health services
Apprentice Researchers (ARs = 8)
Level of education	Master: 2 Doctorate: 5 Postdoctorate: 1
Affiliated universities	Harvard University, Université Laval, Université de Montréal, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, Université du Québec à Montréal, Université du Québec en Outaouais, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, and Université du Québec à Rimouski
Disciplines	Health services, Educative technologies, Education, Industrial relations, Arts history, Biology, and Public health

provides detailed profiles of the two groups of participants in this PAR.

The first group (NR) includes individuals who played a decision-making role in the PAR. Although some individuals in this group are still doctoral students or postdoctoral fellows, it was the scope of responsibilities they assumed throughout the project that justified their place in the first sample. These individuals were involved in the grant application, the choice of theoretical frameworks, the recruitment of participants, the development of data collection instruments, and more important decisions related to the research process. In addition, two of them held project management positions.

The second group (AR) initially consisted of twelve master’s or doctoral students, and postdoctoral fellows who were recruited to participate in this PAR. Considering the sustained participation and commitment required, as well as changes in their academic or professional trajectories, four individuals withdrew from the project. As such, three students openly withdrew before the midpoint of the research project and one student did not participate in any data collection. Thus, eight graduate students contributed to the project on an ongoing basis, and their training and socialization experiences provided rich and complementary information as a secondary sample.

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

Throughout the PAR, we collected data on the training and socialization of NRs and ARs. The data collection tools and the participation of NRs and ARs at different stages of data collection are detailed in

Table 2. Overview of the data collection strategy for the two groups of participants.

Data Collection Instruments	Number, Moment and Duration	Profiles of Participants
During the 4-year project
Reflective logbook	A total of 63 reflective logbooks at the end of team meetings	8 NR 8 AR
Midpoint of the PAR
Midpoint focus group	A total of 2 focus groups of 1 h 30 min (average duration)	2 NR 5 AR
Midpoint interview with participants who missed the focus group	A total of 7 individual interviews of 21 min 21 s (average duration)	5 NR 2 AR
End of the PAR
Final interview	A total of 13 individual interviews of 36 min 51 s (average duration)	8 NR 5 AR

below.

At each meeting with all participants (eight meetings over the first three years), the last ten minutes were set aside to fill out individual reflective logbooks [47]. Specific questions were asked of participants, mainly related to what they had learned during the meeting, their assessment of its execution, and how comfortable they felt being part of the group. Here are some examples of questions posed: What did you gain from the discussions that took place during the meeting? and How does this activity influence your view of participatory action research? Ultimately, we analyzed the content of 35 responses in the reflective logbooks. In addition, halfway through the PAR we held two simultaneous focus groups lasting 1 h and 30 min, as well as seven individual interviews lasting a total of 2 h and 18 min with participants who were unable to attend the group discussions. At the very end of the study, we conducted individual interviews with 13 participants for a total of 7 h and 35 min. The questions asked of participants related to their professionalization through training for the research profession and socialization in the academic environment. Here are a few examples of questions posed: What professional skills have you developed in the last four years by participating in this research project? and What have you learned about how the academic environment works by participating in this research project? The interviews were transcribed in their entirety. All relevant excerpts from the complete dataset were coded using a mixed coding grid based on the manifest content analysis approach proposed by Van der Maren [48], using the components identified in the aforementioned frame of reference. The research team used the qualitative analysis software NVivo 12 to facilitate data management and ensure a structured analysis of the data collected. A research assistant and the first author of this article carried out the initial coding of reflective logbooks and interview transcripts. The research team then ensured the relevance of the coding structure before the two coders proceeded with reverse coding.

4. Results

The results will be discussed from two angles for both groups of participants (NRs and ARs). First, their professionalization through training for the research profession will be detailed according to specific cross-functional skills. Next, we will address the contribution of the PAR to the socialization of participants in the academic environment.

4.1. Professionalization Through Skills Development (Training)

To demonstrate the professionalization of NRs and ARs,

Table 3. Number of coded excerpts per cross-functional skill and associated participants.

Skills Developed	Number of Excerpts (NRs)	Number of Excerpts (ARs)	Total of Excerpts (NRs + ARs)
Management	44 (8)	19 (5)	63 (13)
Collaboration	32 (7)	15 (7)	47 (14)
Digital, media, and information literacy	27 (8)	13 (7)	40 (15)
Communication	21 (7)	16 (7)	37 (14)
Professional autonomy	22 (7)	4 (1)	26 (8)
Creativity and innovation	11 (6)	15 (6)	26 (12)
Leadership	15 (8)	1 (1)	16 (9)
Integrity and responsible conduct	7 (5)	5 (4)	12 (9)
	187 (8)	80 (8)

shows the number of excerpts that were coded for each of the cross-functional skills developed, as well as the number of associated participants.

Table 3 reveals several findings that are addressed below from the perspective of cross-functional skills development for both NRs and ARs, as well as the similarities and differences between these two groups of participants.

4.1.1. Management

Management skills were mentioned more frequently by NRs than ARs (NRs: 44; ARs: 19). Project management was undoubtedly the skill most frequently mentioned by both groups of participants (NRs: 33; ARs: 10). In that respect, one AR mentioned: “Working with a large group works well when things are organized: well-prepared and timed meetings, clearly defined expectations, flexibility along the way to accommodate evolving needs” (AR02, reflective logbook). A NR also stated that: “this project will definitely help [her] with [her] project management skills for the next stages of [her] career” (NR03, reflective logbook). Financial management, including managing a research budget and remunerating human resources, were additional examples of what participants identified as contributing to the development of their management skills (NRs: 13; ARs: 6). Finally, the value of collaborative work was highlighted (NRs: 14; ARs: 4), especially when managing a large research team, particularly in a context where building relationships among team members is a shared concern.

4.1.2. Collaboration

It appears that NRs developed greater collaboration skills than ARs (NRs: 32; ARs: 15). Working in a multidisciplinary team and recognizing each person’s contributions promoted healthy collaboration. In addition, working in close collaboration with a non-profit organization, as a partner, allowed for a diversity of opinions and complementary expertise. One NR shared the following revealing opinion on this topic:

It was the first time [I had worked with] such a relaxed team and people with different points of view. My research supervisor and I pretty much always agree on everything [laughs]. There isn’t much negotiation to be done at that level. We have similar backgrounds [...]. It’s nice to see [in this PAR] that a diversity of profiles can bring about change.

(NR03, midpoint interview)

Other elements emerged from the data analysis, such as interpersonal skills that were deemed important (NRs: 14; ARs: 8) and were demonstrated through collaboration and effective communication. Among other things, participants learned to share information effectively to encourage everyone to participate by exchanging personalized emails. In relation to personal attitudes, recognition of the strengths and contributions of each group member was more pronounced among participants in the first group (NRs: 14; ARs: 1). The findings also revealed that the expertise of group members was useful to the project, whether it was coming from external experts or from doctoral students who had “a different level of reflexivity than other participants” (NR07, midpoint interview).

4.1.3. Digital, Media, and Information Literacy

The third most developed skill among PAR participants was digital, media, and information literacy (NR: 27; AR: 13). Everything related to web application development was identified by NRs (13) and ARs (8) as the part of the project that greatly contributed to the development of this particular skill. Indeed, AR01 (final interview) reported that the training provided by members of the main research team, the digital solutions design meetings, and the web applications beta testing sessions were all opportunities for professional development. Several participants mentioned that this was new to them and that, as rookies in the field of digital technology, this research project was an opportunity to learn about web applications development.

4.1.4. Communication

Regarding communication skills, it appears that these were developed by participants in both groups (NRs: 21; ARs: 16), as were formal written communication skills (NRs: 7; ARs: 6). Participants raised matters related to writing, such as learning academic writing strategies and reflecting on ways of operating that facilitates writing. It should be noted that in this research project, co-writing was highly valued and considered conducive to professional development. Participants mentioned this on several occasions in their interviews, as indicated in the following excerpt: “You showed me that it’s possible to co-write. I never understood people who did that. I thought it was a real waste of time. Then I realized that the first draft you write is already the third draft” (NR07, final interview). Another element related to this skill that emerged is listening to others and maintaining positive interactions between group members (verbally and in writing). This aspect was only addressed by the NRs. They mentioned that personal and interpersonal attitudes are very important in PAR and that it is essential to “feed the curiosity” (NR04, midpoint interview) of all participants. To a lesser extent, they brought up having developed their oral communication skills. For example, some ARs created posters to present at a scientific symposium that we organized to present preliminary research findings.

4.1.5. Professional Autonomy

As for the skill related to professional autonomy (NRs: 22; ARs: 4), two elements stand out: interpersonal skills and professional positioning. Interpersonal skills are reflected by self-awareness, the ability to take care of one’s physical and mental health, self-esteem, self-regulation, emotional intelligence, and continued professional development. Two NRs expressed some of these ideas in the following excerpts: “I definitely think it has confirmed the kind of leader I want to become” (NR06, final interview) and “Each meeting allows me to develop my perspectives, learn lessons for the next time. It’s a process that incites me to be more reflective in my practice” (NR04, reflective logbook). The second aspect concerns professional positioning and was reported by both groups of participants (NRs: 6; ARs: 3). This study enabled several participants to confirm their professional identity, as expressed by this AR:

You know, seeing projects outside of my circle, in my small research group, I find that it helps to position myself. It’s a bit like when you do research internships. Seeing something else allows to position ourselves. Where do we want to be in all of the possible research options.

(AR04, final interview)

4.1.6. Creativity and Innovation

The findings revealed that NRs and ARs both developed their creativity and capacity for innovation through the PAR (NRs: 11; ARs: 15). The most influential factor in the development of this skill was the generation and implementation of creative ideas. One AR explained during an interview that she “thinks [she] will draw a lot of inspiration from the project activities for [her] own future participatory action research” (AR01, reflective logbook). The co-design sessions and the organization of official launches of web applications are activities that also contributed to the development of this skill.

4.1.7. Leadership

The development of leadership skills is mentioned in several excerpts, mostly coming from the group of NRs (NRs: 15; ARs: 1). These participants reported that the research project enabled their independence and initiative, as well as contributed to the development of their interpersonal skills. During group activities, one participant mentioned that at times she felt the “need to show a little more leadership to motivate the conversation” (NR02, final interview). In general, the number of excerpts relating to this skill is low compared to the skills addressed above, especially for the group of ARs who were less involved in decisions.

4.1.8. Integrity and Responsible Conduct

To a lesser extent, integrity and responsible conduct in research were raised a few times among NRs and ARs (NRs: 7; ARs: 5). When discussing this skill, participants recalled the reflections they had as a team surrounding the ethical application process. Some recalled negative experiences, while others, such as this participant, reported that the process had been formative: “It gave me an insight into the things you need to think about when submitting a questionnaire as part of an application to get a certificate of ethics” (AR05, reflective logbook).

4.2. Professionalization Through Norms Internalization (Socializing)

As part of this PAR, socialization in the university environment is evident. It appears that understanding the various spheres of responsibility of the participants, working in a multidisciplinary team, learning the PAR process through experience, affirming one’s identity as a researcher, conducting research differently, and establishing horizontal governance have greatly contributed to the socialization of both the NRs and ARs. It should be noted that the last two sections below highlight challenges to the usual functioning of research teams in any academic environment.

4.2.1. Gaining a Better Understanding of the Different Areas of Responsibility in Academia

This project was an opportunity for many to distinguish between the different spheres of responsibility of the research profession (NRs: 4; ARs: 2). This excerpt illustrates this well: “When I started, I was wearing my student’s hat. I didn’t have a professor’s hat yet; I had to build that up. In terms of knowledge, it really helped me learn more about the academic environment” (AR03, final interview). In addition to the research component, informal exchanges between team members provided a rich opportunity to share experiences related to teaching responsibilities and service to the community.

4.2.2. Highlighting the Benefits of a Multidisciplinary Team

The fact that the NRs and ARs belonged to various academic disciplines and universities made it possible to compare certain standards and practices to strengthen the team’s efforts. In this regard, several advantages of working in a multidisciplinary team emerged from the data analysis (NRs: 8; ARs: 6). On the one hand, the way in which authors are prioritized in the dissemination of knowledge can vary from one discipline to another, as can be seen in the following:

In my context, it has always been clear. We are small teams, when we write something... it comes naturally to know who the authors will be, who will be 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. So, seeing how it worked in a large team, how we choose who wants to participate as an author, who wants to take the lead…

(AR04, final interview)

On the other hand, the representation of emerging researchers affiliated with all French-speaking universities in the province of Quebec (Canada) was beneficial: “I found it really interesting to have the opportunity to collaborate with members of Quebec universities, such as the University of Quebec in Montreal, the University of Montreal, HEC, and the University of Quebec in Outaouais. It really gave me a better understanding of the dynamics between the different institutions” (NR01, final interview). Ultimately, the diversity of the participants involved in the research project fostered the development of relationships and the expansion of a network between researchers from different backgrounds who would probably not have met otherwise, as can be seen in the following:

Because I liked it, being in contact with people from other universities, and also from other fields of research. Seeing that there are people you end up getting to know, that I saw again elsewhere, and then I made the connection that these were the people I had met in that context [of the PAR].

(AR04, final interview)

4.2.3. Familiarization with the PAR Process

A number of participants mentioned that they had become familiar with the research process through their involvement in this study (NRs: 27; ARs: 14). In this case, it was the ARs who had the most to say. Several of them said that it was interesting to witness things “behind the scenes” of a PAR project. In this respect, participants cited the following elements as indicators of familiarization: the need to define everyone’s roles, the concern to give everyone a voice, the contribution of diverse profiles, the ways to collect data for this type of research, the approach to managing meetings, the selection of the right participants and partners, etc. For both NRs and ARs, their vision of research has changed or, at least, has been refined. The fact that this study gave a lot of opportunities for NRs and ARs to get involved in different research activities was a source of familiarization (NRs: 11; ARs: 13). Indeed, participants reported that they understood how it is possible to mobilize people in the organization of a conference, among other things. They also gained a better understanding of how difficult it is to maintain a high level of participation in research team meetings. Finally, it seems that co-construction activities were successful and are “always the best way to involve [ARs]” (NR07, reflective logbook).

4.2.4. Assertion of a Scholarly Identity

The socialization of NRs and ARs in the academic environment allowed them to solidify or forge their identity as emergent researchers. For some students, their experience with the PAR prompted epistemological reflections, as this excerpt shows:

I identified with an epistemological socioconstructivist stance, mainly because my research supervisor adhered to that posture. For me, interpersonal relationships are extremely important for developing new knowledge, but I believe that we have also taken a critical stance in this PAR to critique hierarchy and power dynamics in academia. I really liked that, and I feel that it has definitely influenced my identity as a researcher.

(NR01, final interview)

For others, it is more difficult to figure out how their identity has changed, even though a transformation seems to have taken place:

My professional identity, academic identity, researcher identity, professor identity. I think that I have built it. [The PAR] really helped me gain more knowledge in the academic world, the research world. I would say yes, but I have a hard time really saying how it has shaped [my identity] in concrete terms”.

(AR03, final interview)

4.2.5. Doing Research Differently

This research project was an opportunity to convey various values (NRs: 20; ARs: 12) that were raised by participants in the interviews. As such, the findings revealed a vision of a more open, collaborative, and less competitive academic world, as well as a desire to stand out through different ways of working and setting goals. At the end of the PAR, one NR proudly stated that “research can be done differently!” (NR03, final interview). She goes on to mention that the realization that it is possible to conduct socially engaged research has greatly influenced her. As previously mentioned, this study was an opportunity for participants to reflect on their epistemological stance in research, but also on their preferences in terms of how they wish to work with colleagues in the future.

4.2.6. Establishing Horizontal Governance

A large number of excerpts related to the horizontal relationship (NRs: 49; ARs: 25) that we were able to establish in the governance of the PAR. Lasting four years, our research project, which included several group activities, gave participants the chance to forge ties between each other (NRs: 19; ARs: 8). One NR is pleased to share that she really feels she belongs in this “constellation” of individuals (NR04, final interview). In addition, several participants (NRs: 12; ARs: 6) reported a positive relationship between team members and highlighted the strengths of horizontal management in research:

I have a slightly different perspective on research team dynamics, because in our team, we really strive for horizontal decision-making and equal collaboration between all members. When I participate in other research projects now, I tend to recognize when steps are being taken in this direction, or when decisions are being made in a more traditional hierarchical manner in an academic setting.

(NR01, midpoint interview)

This excerpt demonstrated the participants’ awareness of new ways of conducting research that are more in line with their personal values. Overall, the participants were comfortable contributing to decisions and felt that they had their place within the group. In her reflective logbook, one AR wrote: “I felt involved and that my input and comments were valued and taken into account” (AR05, reflective logbook).

Furthermore, this PAR has prompted a re-examination of certain well-established practices in academia. In this regard, one AR questioned her involvement in various activities related to the research project and wondered whether the pretext of being “there to learn” (AR02, final interview) justified not being remunerated for all the hours associated with her participation. Despite this comment, it should be noted that the open and trusting environment that was created around this study allowed for this type of constructive criticism to emerge. In this sense, the opportunity to question existing practices had a positive impact on many of the research participants. For example, the NRs and ARs highlighted the team’s boldness in inviting the ARs to annual presentations delivered to representatives of the funding agency, as evidenced by the following excerpt: “The meetings with the Fonds de recherche du Québec—Société et culture (FRQSC) were really satisfying for me because I really like to question the established order”. (NR04, midpoint interview).

It is not surprising that the group of NRs also wanted to get involved in the research project, as they were committed to its objectives and determined to see it through to completion. This was no less true for the ARs, who were called upon from time to time, but whose involvement was nevertheless significant, as they were keen to point out in interviews (NRs: 25; ARs: 16). However, it was difficult to maintain a strong sense of belonging among all participants. At the beginning of the study, when the ARs had just been recruited, communication with them was more frequent (emails, Facebook messages, etc.). However, there was turnover in the project coordination position, which affected the frequency of exchanges and contributed to the erosion of the sense of belonging for some ARs.

Overall, involvement in this PAR allowed for the socialization of the NRs and ARs in the academic community by enabling them to discover different areas of academic responsibility, collaborate within multidisciplinary teams, and experience horizontal governance. This research process also contributed to their epistemological reflection and the assertion of their identity as researchers, encouraging them to question traditional academic practices and adopting more collaborative and critical approaches.

5. Discussion

This article has described how participatory action research (PAR) can contribute to researcher training in terms of developing cross-functional skills, while also influencing the socialization of apprentice researchers (ARs) and novice researchers (NRs) in an academic environment. It appears that a PAR project, such as the one we conducted, can be a promising avenue for developing both dimensions of professionalization and act as a complement to research training provided in graduate programs. The results of our study highlight the professionalization process in which eight NRs and eight ARs participated. The four cross-functional skills most developed by participants related to project management, collaboration, digital, media, and information literacy, and communication. As for their socialization, it was influenced by the experience of doing research differently, the establishment of horizontal governance, the varied distribution of responsibilities among participants, the multidisciplinary nature of teamwork, and the hands-on learning of the PAR process. Considering these results, two angles of discussion emerged: the potential of PAR to compensate for the lack of preparation for those wishing to join the research profession and the challenges of implementing systematic professionalization experiences within a PAR.

5.1. The Potential of PAR to Address the Lack of Preparation for a Career in Research: At the Intersection of Training and Socializing

If mandatory graduate training (courses and seminars) and support provided by research supervisors or thesis committees are not sufficient to train and socialize ARs for the research profession [6], PAR proves to be particularly complementary.

On the one hand, this research experience had a positive impact on the training of NRs and ARs, particularly with regard to the development of cross-functional skills related to coordination, communication, and teamwork, which can be considered more difficult to develop during courses and seminars where teaching and assessment methods are generally individual and carried out over a short period (maximum 15 weeks). Our results echo the study by Nghia [49], which found that participation in extracurricular activities at the graduate level contributes to the development of transferable skills.

On the other hand, our PAR experience contributed to the socialization of NRs and ARs in the academic environment. However, the results indicate that this socialization was amplified by the importance placed on a climate of trust and horizontal governance mechanisms. Far from being perfect or consistent, the importance given to implementing such favorable conditions was recognized by participants and helped them socialize through an approach summarized by the expression “doing research differently”. As Gonzalez-Laporte [28] (p. 8) points out in his article on PAR, it is a “democratic process, triggered by the imperative to solve co-identified and shared problems”. Authors such as Dupéré et al. [50] also emphasize the importance of informal moments in PAR. During the study described in this article, we made a point of allowing time at the beginning of each meeting for informal discussions on various topics such as teaching workloads, community services, and participation in committees or institutional activities. This allowed all participants to familiarize themselves with different areas of responsibility specific to the research profession and to observe distinctions between disciplines. We believe that these informal exchanges unveil parts of the hidden curriculum and, in doing so, help to reduce inequalities by allowing students to access information that is rarely addressed in courses.

The multidisciplinary nature of the group was also identified as contributing favorably to the socialization of NRs and ARs, particularly due to the interactive context of a PAR, in which collaboration is inevitable [51]. The diversity of backgrounds, expertise, and shared values among team members affiliated with different disciplines and universities allowed for the emergence of different ideas and solutions, a recognized advantage of action research [52]. These interdisciplinary experiences, as well as the entire PAR learning process, have allowed the participants in our study to assert their identity as researchers. As Gonzalez-Laporte [28] points out, action research is dynamic. As such, the socialization process is also dynamic, meaning that individuals influence the group while being influenced by it, sharing their respective experiences, perspectives, and opinions [53]. This co-construction is based on representations that allow participants to interpret their new environment to transform themselves and become fully engaged in a new community [40]. This socialization process differs from other activities typically organized for graduate students (e.g., program cohorts, committee participation, associations) in that it is bidirectional and transformative: PAR evolves based on the contributions of team members who in turn are shaped and transformed by engaging in this type of research. In the case of our participants, it is mainly their rapport to the research profession in academic environments that underwent a transformation.

In short, PAR offers an authentic professionalization opportunity that allows for the development of cross-functional skills while facilitating the internalization of norms and practices inherent to academia. Our results indicate that PAR is a training and socializing opportunity that is particularly significant for NRs (even though we expected ARs to express a greater benefit), as it allows them to (1) clarify the implicit rules and expectations of academic research; (2) learn from different types of researchers in a non-hierarchical setting; and (3) play a recognized collaborative role in a tangible research project.

5.2. Limitations and Obstacles to More Systematic Implementation of PAR Experiences to Train and Socialize Graduate Students

As with other action research or PAR projects [e.g., [52,54], most of the limitations and obstacles documented relate to the organizational and temporal conditions of implementing a complex, collaborative, and long-term study. In addition to the limitations appearing in the literature, in accordance with ([55], p.576) our research highlighted challenges related “to the transdisciplinary nature of the collaborative, academic workloads, and the difficulties of working with a student body that had different levels of experience and expertise”.

Compared to NRs whose research activities are part of their mandate as university professors or researchers, ARs were not generally compensated for participating in PAR activities, and it appears that the expectation of a multi-year commitment became incompatible with the demands of a graduate program. Some of the activities we carried out (e.g., co-design sessions) were of varied lengths (approximately two hours) and took place during working hours. These could therefore interfere with other professional or academic obligations. As others have illustrated [11,56,57], some students are at a disadvantage in terms of their ability to participate in extracurricular activities, particularly those who did not receive scholarships or external financial assistance, first-generation students, or recent immigrants to the province of Quebec. This implies that an extracurricular training and socializing experience such as getting involved in a PAR could reinforce certain inequalities by further empowering those who have the material means to participate or who recognize the advantage of participating given their prior knowledge of the academic environment. Given the length of the project (four years), four students had to withdraw because they could not afford such a commitment. Although we wanted to recognize their involvement, it was impossible to fund their participation on a systematic basis. However, it seems that remuneration would have made it possible to recruit students with more diverse profiles and maintain participation over time. This observation leads to a recommendation to fund the participation of students in extracurricular projects that provide training for the research profession and socializing opportunities in the academic environment.

A second limitation that we wish to address in the context of implementing PAR experiences concerns the resistance or adherence to a certain hierarchy between professors, students, and partners. Due to their desire to offer alternatives to traditional research approaches, action research, participatory research, partnership-based research, and community-based research have been studied from the perspective of collaboration processes and power dynamics [58,59]. Throughout the PAR process, co-responsibility and power sharing were raised on several occasions. While these discussions seem to have been appreciated by the NRs and ARs, it appears that some more traditional and hierarchical dynamics have been reproduced, particularly in public speaking, final decision-making, scientific production, and authorship (conferences and articles). Although we would have liked to see greater involvement in the governance of the research project from all those involved, the AR’s lack of experience in this area prevented them from being fully committed. However, as we agree with Leclercq and Potocki Malicet [39] that interactions between experienced members and beginners facilitate the development of identity in the workplace, we believe that such PAR activities are beneficial and enable ARs to fully assume their professional role and identity. By better recognizing the valuable and enduring contributions that a PAR can bring to academic circles [60], the development of this new scholarly identity would also be promoted for emerging scholars.

6. Conclusions

This article presented how the involvement of novice researchers (NRs) and apprentice researchers (ARs) in participatory action research (PAR) contributed to their training for the research profession and socializing in the academic environment. As such, we established that both groups of participants developed cross-functional skills and gained a better understanding of norms and practices inherent to academia. These benefits materialized, in part, due to the dynamic relationships that were established between all research team members and the openness to doing research differently by breaking traditional hierarchical ways of functioning. It appears that conducting research with and for ARs not only promotes their professionalization (training and socializing) but also benefits the NRs who support them. It is therefore essential to involve these ARs in collaborative research projects, as the experience of conducting research is in itself training for the research profession. Giving them a leading role where their skills can be developed is particularly rewarding. As for NRs, we encourage them to get involved in large-scale projects that break new grounds and not to hesitate to take on a strong leadership role with a view of professionalization to the research profession. As such, it would be interesting to conduct a similar study with researchers who adopt more traditional epistemological postures to see whether professional development would materialize in a similar or different way. Other types of research than PAR could also be explored to observe their effects on the professionalization of emerging researchers. These future scientific inquiries will act as complementary ventures to the established graduate programs for students and integration activities for new university professors.