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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a compelling and well-structured exploration of how Participatory Action Research (PAR) can serve as a transformative tool for the professionalization of emerging scholars, particularly apprentice and novice researchers. The authors provide a thorough theoretical grounding, drawing on concepts such as the hidden curriculum, anticipatory socialization, and cross-functional skill development. The study is methodologically robust, employing a mixed-methods approach that includes reflective logbooks, focus groups, and interviews with a diverse group of participants from multiple institutions and disciplines. The use of the University of Montreal’s Cross-Functional Skills Framework adds coherence and clarity to the analysis of skill development. The findings are well-articulated and supported by rich qualitative data, highlighting the development of key competencies such as project management, collaboration, digital literacy, and communication. The manuscript also effectively demonstrates how PAR fosters socialization into academic norms through horizontal governance, multidisciplinary collaboration, and identity formation.

One of the manuscript’s most significant contributions lies in its nuanced discussion of the dual dimensions of professionalization: training and socialization. The authors convincingly argue that PAR not only complements formal graduate education but also addresses its limitations by offering authentic, collaborative, and transformative learning experiences. Particularly noteworthy is the emphasis on horizontal governance and the democratization of research processes, which challenge traditional academic hierarchies and promote inclusive participation. The manuscript also addresses the epistemological shifts experienced by participants, illustrating how PAR can reshape researchers’ identities and values. However, while the discussion is rich, the paper could benefit from a more critical reflection on the limitations of PAR, especially regarding the sustainability of such initiatives and the structural barriers that may prevent broader implementation. The authors briefly mention issues such as lack of funding and unequal access, but a deeper engagement with these challenges would strengthen the manuscript’s practical implications.

In conclusion, this article makes a valuable and timely contribution to the literature on graduate education, researcher development, and participatory methodologies. It offers a persuasive case for integrating PAR into the training of emerging scholars, not only as a pedagogical tool but also as a means of fostering equity, collaboration, and critical reflection within academia. The manuscript is well-written, theoretically grounded, and empirically rich, making it suitable for publication. Future research could explore longitudinal impacts of PAR on career trajectories and investigate how institutional policies might support the systematic inclusion of such approaches in graduate programs. Overall, this study provides a model for reimagining researcher training in ways that are more inclusive, democratic, and aligned with the evolving demands of academic and non-academic careers.

Author Response

Please find enclosed our revised manuscript (igheredu-3667931), entitled “Participatory Action Research: A Gateway to the Professionalization of Emerging Scholars,” which we are submitting to Trends in Higher Education as an original contribution.

We are sincerely grateful for the constructive feedback received during the review process, as well as for the favorable response to our manuscript. Overall, the three reviewers acknowledged the article as a valuable contribution to the literature on teaching and learning in higher education. While the feedback was generally positive, Reviewers 1 and 3 raised a few minor concerns.

In response to these comments, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. The table below outlines each comment, and the corresponding adjustments made to address them.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a cohesive and comprehensive paper with a sound research methodology that provides important insights into factors affecting the professionalisation of 'apprentice researchers' as emerging scholars from masters and doctoral study programs, and postdoctoral fellowships. There is a clear and sustained grasp of contemporary literature from the field to set the scene for the paper and to justify, counter, and discuss key findings. There is an important contribution arising from this paper - for supervisors/established researchers and students/emerging scholars - about the role of transitioning into the profession and moving between identities. Additionally, this paper also builds methodological understanding about the role of PAR. 

Author Response

Please find enclosed our revised manuscript (igheredu-3667931), entitled “Participatory Action Research: A Gateway to the Professionalization of Emerging Scholars,” which we are submitting to Trends in Higher Education as an original contribution.

We are sincerely grateful for the constructive feedback received during the review process, as well as for the favorable response to our manuscript. Overall, the three reviewers acknowledged the article as a valuable contribution to the literature on teaching and learning in higher education. While the feedback was generally positive, Reviewers 1 and 3 raised a few minor concerns.

In response to these comments, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. The table below outlines each comment, and the corresponding adjustments made to address them.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting and valuable article o describing how being involved in a Participatory Action Research can influence their training and socialization.

Introduction

• Uses current, relevant literature to set the context and significance of the study
• Aim of this study is stated

Theoretical Framework

• Introduces and justifies theoretical frameworks for this study
• Discusses current and relevant literature around theoretical frameworks
• States research objectives
• Note – on line 204 on page 5, PAR is reversed (RAP)

Materials and Methods

• The objective for this research stated on page 5 lines 209 – 211: “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” is different from the research objective stated on page 3 lines 110 – 113: “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.“. Please ensure the research objective is consistent throughout.
• Project design, data collection, coding and data analysis were explained.

Results

• A sound amount of data has been included in this study
• Includes a clear and interesting thematic presentation of the results, including participant quotes

Discussion

• Sound and interesting discussion of findings in the context of current literature.
• Limitations have bee acknowledged

Conclusion

• Findings clearly summarised
• Recommendations for novice and apprentice researchers’ professional practice included
• Please include recommendations for future research in this field

Author Response

Please find enclosed our revised manuscript (igheredu-3667931), entitled “Participatory Action Research: A Gateway to the Professionalization of Emerging Scholars,” which we are submitting to Trends in Higher Education as an original contribution.

We are sincerely grateful for the constructive feedback received during the review process, as well as for the favorable response to our manuscript. Overall, the three reviewers acknowledged the article as a valuable contribution to the literature on teaching and learning in higher education. While the feedback was generally positive, Reviewers 1 and 3 raised a few minor concerns.

In response to these comments, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. The table below outlines each comment, and the corresponding adjustments made to address them.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx