Students at a medical university describe four distinct ways of understanding research

A phenomenographic study of 20 students at a medical university has identified four qualitatively distinct ways of understanding research: “Research is a spark of curiosity,” “Research is exploring a knowledge gap,” “Research is examining and providing new knowledge,” and “Research is a continuous practice.” The categories were arranged in order of increasing conceptual complexity and formed part of an outcome space that also linked students’ own engagement with research, their perceptions of research-active faculty, and the nature of the teaching and learning activities they encountered.

The study, published in BMC Medical Education by Madelen Lek, Terese Stenfors and Per J. Palmgren, set out to explore what students understand as research and how the teaching–research nexus is enacted in their educational context. The authors describe the nexus as the idea that research-active faculty enhance student learning by introducing current knowledge and inquiry-based practices into the classroom. In medical and health professions education, they note, this integration is particularly critical because research literacy and evidence-based practice form core professional competencies. Yet qualitative insights into students’ own perceptions of the nexus have been lacking, which is the gap the study addresses.

Methodologically, the researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 students drawn from five academic programmes at one medical university. Twelve participants were enrolled in first-cycle health professions degrees, and eight were enrolled in international master’s programmes in non-clinical disciplines. The interview material was analyzed following Dahlgren and Fallsberg’s seven steps of phenomenographic analysis, an approach designed to map qualitatively different conceptions of a phenomenon rather than to measure how frequently those conceptions occur.

The resulting four categories trace an expanding awareness of what research can be. At the simplest level, research appears as a spark of curiosity, something that awakens interest. The second category frames research as exploring a knowledge gap, while the third presents it as examining and providing new knowledge. The most complex conception describes research as a continuous practice, an ongoing activity rather than a one-off project. Together these categories illustrate a variation in students’ understandings that ranges from passive exposure to active, reflective engagement in research-informed learning. Within this outcome space, the four categories represent different levels of complexity in students’ conceptions, not fixed stages that every learner must pass through in sequence.

Faculty members emerge as pivotal figures in this account. The authors describe them as scholarly role models who shape students’ academic identity and reinforce the dynamic nature of the teaching–research nexus. The study’s conclusion is that aligning pedagogical strategies with students’ current understanding of research can facilitate their transition from passive recipients to active participants in research. In practical terms, the findings suggest that students’ understanding of research cannot be considered separately from the educators who teach them or from the classroom activities they experience; research-informed learning is presented as a relationship among learners, faculty and teaching practices.

Several limitations bound these findings. The study was qualitative and involved only 20 students from five programmes at a single medical university, so its results are limited to that sample and institutional setting. Phenomenographic analysis identifies patterns in students’ experiences and conceptions; it does not show that all students hold each of the four categories, nor that the categories form a universal developmental sequence. The research also reports perceptions rather than experimentally demonstrating that research-active teachers cause better learning outcomes. Finally, the published version is an early-access article, shared to provide faster access to peer-reviewed, accepted research; it is citable and carries a permanent DOI, but this version is subject to further edits and will be replaced by the final Version of Record. Readers should therefore treat the reported categories and conclusions as a qualitative map of student experience at one institution rather than a generalizable measure of how all medical students conceive of research.

Subject of Research: Student conceptions of research and the teaching–research nexus in medical education

Article Title: Unpacking the teaching–research nexus: a phenomenographic analysis of student experiences in a medical university

Article References: Lek, M., Stenfors, T., & Palmgren, P. J. (2026). Unpacking the teaching–research nexus: a phenomenographic analysis of student experiences in a medical university. BMC Medical Education, 26(1), Article 1690. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10653-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12909-026-10653-5

Keywords: medical education, phenomenography, teaching–research nexus, student conceptions, research literacy, qualitative interviews, health professions education, evidence-based practice, BMC Medical Education, Unpacking, teaching, research