MMD018: Doctoral Research Foundations: From Orientation to Contribution

Module code: MMD018

Module provider: Henley Business School

Credits: 20

Level: NA

When you’ll be taught: Semester 1

Module convenor: Professor Yelena Kalyuzhnova, email: y.kalyuzhnova@henley.ac.uk

Pre-requisite module(s):

Co-requisite module(s):

Pre-requisite or Co-requisite module(s):

Module(s) excluded:

Placement information: NA

Academic year: 2026/7

Available to visiting students: No

Talis reading list: Yes

Last updated: 9 June 2026

Overview

Module aims and purpose

This module introduces the skills required to undertake doctoral-level research within a PhD programme. It offers a practical pathway from early ideas about framing meaningful and ethically sound research questions to constructing defensible literature review protocols and methodological designs. 

Students learn to frame reviewable questions, select and justify literature review types, preregister transparent literature review protocols, run advanced database and grey-literature searches, document screening/appraisal to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards. Bibliometric mapping, synthesis strategies, and contribution framing help students transform fragmented evidence into a coherent research narrative with clear theoretical and practical relevance.  

The module also introduces key aspects of research design, alongside essentials of quantitative and qualitative methdologies, reproducibility, and ethical data management. Students will develop effective researcher habits, i.e., supervision routine, research integrity and ethics, while engaging with leading Henley Business School researchers on what makes academic work of a publishable quality.  

By the end of the module, students produce a doctoral development plan and a contribution-focused synthesis brief positioning their doctoral study for progression and potential publication, and deliver a summative presentation outlining their emerging research design and contribution.

Module learning outcomes

By the end of the module, it is expected that students will be able to: 

1. Design and justify a fit-for-purpose literature review for their topic, including a preregistered protocol using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards, inclusion/exclusion logic, bias-management plan, and an advanced, reproducible search strategy across appropriate databases and grey literature. 
2. Map and interpret the structure of a literature review sample field using appropriate bibliometric perspectives (e.g., co-citation/coupling, keyword co-occurrence, co-authorship) to identify clusters, bridges, gaps, and emerging patterns in the literature.  
3. Critically evaluate research horizons and the interplay between theoretical foundations and methodological choices, demonstrating originality in developing an appropriate and coherent research design. 
4. Develop a synthesis that moves beyond description to explain patterns and rival explanations, articulate a credible contribution with stated boundary conditions and implications for research ethics, and position the work for publication (journal fit, ethics of citation) and doctoral progression. 

Module content

The module provides an integrated introduction to academic research, covering the key stages of designing and developing a rigorous study at a doctoral level. 
 
The content of the module includes: 

• Foundations of research culture, integrity, and supervision practices
• Framing research problems, questions, and theoretical positioning
• Literature review approaches, protocols, and synthesis for contribution
• Research philosophy, methodology, and ethics
• Quantitative, qualitative, experimental, design science, etc.
• Data management, transparency, and reproducibility in research
• Communicating research, contribution, and impact for doctoral progression 

Structure

Teaching and learning methods

Teaching is delivered through a blend of interactive lectures and small-group seminars. Core inputs (concepts, exemplars, tool demos) are immediately followed by guided practice. Peer review is built in throughout the module, and, specifically, into the end-module symposium with discussants to model the reviewer’s voice. Students receive formative developmental feedback on portfolio components. Learning is supported by templates and checklists; all sessions are designed with accessibility in mind and recorded where appropriate. The approach emphasises transparency, reproducibility, and research integrity, and culminates in a pass/fail portfolio aligned to doctoral progression. 

Study hours

At least 0 hours of scheduled teaching and learning activities will be delivered in person, with the remaining hours for scheduled and self-scheduled teaching and learning activities delivered either in person or online. You will receive further details about how these hours will be delivered before the start of the module.

Please note the independent study hours above are notional numbers of hours; each student will approach studying in different ways. We would advise you to reflect on your learning and the number of hours you are allocating to these tasks.

Semester 1 The hours in this column may include hours during the Christmas holiday period.

Semester 2 The hours in this column may include hours during the Easter holiday period.

Summer The hours in this column will take place during the summer holidays and may be at the start and/or end of the module.

Assessment

Requirements for a pass

This module is marked on a pass/fail basis. Students must pass each item of assessment to pass the module.

Summative assessment

Penalties for late submission of summative assessment

The following penalties for work submitted late will normally apply:

Assessments with numerical marks

• where the piece of work is submitted up to 30 calendar days after the original deadline (or any formally agreed extension to the deadline): 10% of the total marks available for that piece of work will be deducted from the mark;
• where the piece of work is submitted more than 30 calendar days after the original deadline (or any formally agreed extension to the deadline): a mark of zero will be recorded.

Assessments marked Pass/Fail

• where the piece of work is submitted within 30 calendar days of the deadline (or any formally agreed extension of the deadline): no penalty will be applied;
• where the piece of work is submitted more than 30 calendar days after the original deadline (or any formally agreed extension of the deadline): a grade of Fail will be awarded.

Groupwork

• Where the work submitted late is a piece of groupwork submitted on behalf of the whole group, the penalty will apply to all members of the group. Individual contributions to groupwork submitted separately by each member will be subject to a late penalty only for the individual contributions that are late.

The University policy statement on penalties for late submission for Postgraduate Flexible programmes can be found at:

https://www.reading.ac.uk/cqsd/-/media/project/functions/cqsd/documents/qap/penaltiesforlatesubmissionpgflexible.pdf?la=en&hash=8A89870FCA07250F482BFA8CD308588F

You are strongly advised to ensure that coursework is submitted by the relevant deadline. You should note that it is advisable to submit work in an unfinished state rather than to fail to submit any work.

Formative assessment

Formative assessment is any task or activity which creates feedback (or feedforward) for you about your learning, but which does not contribute towards your overall module mark.

1. Doctoral Development Plan (DDP) & Reflection (pass/fail)

What to submit: a supervised DDP (milestones, supervision schedule, training needs, risks/mitigations) and a 300–500-word reflective note on first-year priorities.
Indicative deadline: Semester 1, end of Week 6.

2. Synthesis & Contribution Brief (pass/fail)

What to submit: Complete the provided Synthesis & Contribution Brief template.
Indicative deadline: Semester 1, end of Week 9.

Integrity and permitted tools: Students must disclose any AI/automation used for planning or organisation; generated text or analyses may not substitute for students’ own synthesis, appraisal, or interpretation. All search/screening decisions must be human-validated and logged. Henley Business School (HBS) academic integrity policies apply.

Reassessment

Additional costs