Concerns about the well-being and mental health of postgraduate students have been increasing for a number of years. One study found that postgraduate students are six times as likely to experience depression and anxiety as the general population (Evans et al., 2018), and another found that 30–50% of postgraduates in the United Kingdom met the thresholds for depression or anxiety (Carr et al., 2022). These increased concerns may be due to changes in society and academia, under-reporting in earlier studies, an increase in mental health awareness, or a combination of these factors (Boynton, 2020; Dougall et al., 2021; Mind, 2021).

A feeling of isolation is another problem, especially for students who are marginalised due to gender, race, sexuality, disability or being a first-generation and/or international student (Gardner, 2008; Mattocks and Briscoe-Palmer, 2016). Those who are marginalised report lower feelings of belonging, feel alone in their experiences and are often unable to reflect, process, and share what they are going through (Harris, 2017; Banahene and Down, 2023). There is a clear relationship between mental health, loneliness and key events, such as new programmes of study (Evans et al., 2018). The programme we describe here addresses these situations rather than longer-term, formal diagnoses of mental health, where this approach would need to be part of a much wider set of interventions.

One approach to improving wellbeing and reducing feelings of isolation is to embed an approach called reflective practice within postgraduate programmes. Reflective practice is a way to learn from real life experiences. For example, students would be encouraged to think about their day-to-day encounters, consider how these worked, and what lessons they could take away. This article describes our experiences of running a bespoke course in reflective practice at the South Coast Biosciences (SoCoBio) Doctoral Training Partnership in the UK. This partnership includes postgraduate students at four universities – Southampton, Kent, Sussex and Portsmouth – and the National Institute for Agricultural Biotechnology.

Our approach builds on the work of the Women In Supramolecular Chemistry network (WISC; Leigh et al., 2022). This project involved a collaboration between researchers in the chemical and social sciences, and drew on extensive experience of working therapeutically and addressing marginalisation in science (Egambaram et al., 2022; Leigh and Bailey, 2013). In particular, it facilitated individuals to be more consciously aware of their embodied experiences (i.e., the thoughts, feelings, sensations, images and emotions they experienced in different scenarios), and to then feed these experiences into effective reflection (Evans-Winters, 2019; Kujawa-Holbrook and Montagno, 2009; Leigh and Brown, 2021). This included ‘owning’ experiences rather than projecting them onto others.

Learning to reflect is counter-intuitively hard and, in science subjects, achievement is often assumed to be directly related to coursework and exam grades rather than developing an effective practice or reflexivity (Ixer, 1999; Leigh, 2016; Stronach et al., 2007; Tremmel, 1993). When considering team dynamics and interpersonal relationships, this type of reflective practice emphasises the importance of understanding how people interact, how different people trigger different reactions, and encourages a conscious awareness of this. It is then possible to use that knowledge and insight to choose how to respond or act, rather than react, in an honest and authentic way. We built on and developed a bespoke creative reflexivity course under the umbrella of a UK government funded Doctoral Training Partnership, aimed specifically at bioscientists.

The South Coast Biosciences Doctoral Training Partnership (SoCoBio DTP) has been funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). SoCoBio students hold a PhD studentship at one of five different UK institutions (the Universities of Southampton, Kent, Sussex and Portsmouth, as well as National Institute for Agricultural Biotechnology (NIAB) at East Malling). The first cohort of SoCoBio DTP students were recruited to their programme in early 2020 meaning that the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns and restrictions in the UK prevented in-person induction events, and greatly restricted lab work at the start of their PhDs. This cohort, and the next three cohorts, have experienced a variety of challenging and rapidly changing working conditions in addition to the usual demands of postgraduate training.

Given this challenging and unusual start combined with the national statistics on postgraduate wellbeing, the SoCoBio management board were keen to learn more about the wellbeing of students on the programme so they could support them appropriately. All students are asked about their general wellbeing, mental health, the types of challenges they face, and how these impact their work in a yearly survey (Supplementary file 1). Over half the survey participants (54% (2021), 62% (2022) and 65% (2023)) reported experiencing mental health or general wellbeing difficulties each year. In 2021, it was notable that over one in three of the students reported difficulties attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, whilst by 2022 this was reduced to less than one in five. Of those experiencing challenges, around 35% reported this had affected their ability to carry out their work. These figures, although concerning, suggest that the wellbeing of students enrolled in the SoCoBio DTP is similar to that of UK postgraduate students in general (ONS, 2021).

In the annual survey, our students reported that the challenges impacting their wellbeing were wide-ranging. Whilst some were of a personal nature, challenges faced in the context of their PhD environment could be broadly categorised into: technical problems (experimental design, reproducibility, learning new techniques etc.); concerns about achievement or generating results; the jump from undergraduate to postgraduate study; negotiating and managing supervisor relationships; work-life balance; and a general feeling of not belonging or fitting into research culture. They were encouraged to discuss any challenges with their supervisor, but we also recognised the potential benefit (to both students and supervisors) of an additional forum for students to build a sense of community, discuss wellbeing, and learn to deal constructively with common challenges. We wanted to find an approach that would support and nurture the development of students, give them space and time to address their concerns, and support diversity and inclusivity within the programme.

Addressing wellbeing and belonging for postgraduate students is a powerful tool to mitigate against increased attrition rates, and increase diversity in science: this is important for individual students, their supervisors, Universities, and (in the context of government funded research) the taxpayer. Given the national data on postgraduate wellbeing and the compounding fact that our doctoral training Partnership was initiated in parallel with an international pandemic, we wanted to ensure that we took care of the next generation of UK trained bioscientists. Reflexivity in Research was developed as a six-month online programme (six sessions) for students in the second year of their PhD.

The pilot and evaluation were given ethical approval to use anonymised data from participating students by the University of Kent. Eight participants (four women and four men, all UK home students, representing ~a third of the 2020 cohort) volunteered to participate and were randomly divided into two groups. The students co-created a logo, providing the programme with an identity (Figure 1); and all participants were sent a care package of gifts marked with the programme logo that they could use in their daily lives. These gifts acted as a reminder of their participation and fostered feelings of connection and belonging (UKRI, 2023).

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

The Reflexivity in Research programme encouraged individuals to reflect on their professional identity and inter-personal relationships under the guidance of a trained academic facilitator (Kara, 2022). Creative and reflective approaches were designed to facilitate emotional engagement and allow participants to access authentic stories, and as such needed to be facilitated with care: thus, the facilitators were integral to the programme. They organised meetings, set tasks prior to each session, and facilitated discussion. The facilitators were all experienced academics who had personal experience of a scientific doctoral programme and an interest in promoting postgraduate wellbeing.

Initially all facilitators were from the University of Kent. Facilitators were not directly involved in the doctoral training of their participants and although PhD supervisors can be trained as facilitators, they should not lead a group with students that they supervise. Each facilitator attended a programme of sessions on reflexivity and creative research techniques with a reflexivity expert and trained therapist. This ensured that they were aware of how to hold the boundaries of the programme, and their role to support students and signpost them to more specialist therapeutic services where appropriate. The latter point is important as although none of the facilitators were trained counsellors or therapists, work of this kind can easily border onto therapeutic processes.

As part of this training, facilitators explored the same questions and prompts so that they could explore their own emotional responses and stories and choose what they wished to share. The importance of peer support was also built into the programme and facilitators regularly met with a dedicated expert supporter of the programme to share their experiences and provide support for each other. This was particularly important for protecting the academics’ mental health as well as providing useful ways to optimise the programme.

The content of the meetings was not focused on academic attainment and progress, and as such was separate from research group meetings and academic adviser or tutorial meetings (Kara, 2015). It was important that the reflective sessions occurred in as safe an environment as possible to encourage emotional participation and openness. Students were encouraged to find a quiet, private space and were assured that all discussions were confidential and that any notes taken during the sessions would be securely stored and protected. Each meeting had a prompt or question to address, with students asked to reflect in advance and bring something which they would like to share and discuss. Topics included: What qualities are needed to be successful and when did you notice these in yourself? and How do you respond to stress or pressure? In all cases students were encouraged to write, mark-make, draw, or find an image or object to represent how these situations made them feel (Box 1). The programme was evaluated using pre- and post- online surveys, analysis of transcribed recordings of the meetings, and reflective notes made by the facilitators. The students and facilitators also co-created the end evaluation questions. The key factors for implementing a successful programme of Reflexivity in Research in the biosciences are outlined in Box 2.

The information gained from these two-way interactions between academic facilitators and PhD students throughout the programme is now allowing the DTP management board to develop support and training structures for both students and supervisors. Indeed, the students undertaking the programme believed that teaching supervisors about the reflexivity programme would be beneficial. This is being undertaken as part of a wider drive in the UK to improve supervisor training (UKRI, 2023; Wellcome Trust, 2023). Additionally, inviting students to participate in this programme as part of their core PhD training ensures that the skills required for personal reflection and adaptation are embedded from the initial stages of their postgraduate degree. Therefore, it can provide them with a lifelong toolkit specifically designed to support scientific work. That said, we recognise that some of the problems students are facing in academia cannot be fixed using this approach and require greater institutional and societal commitment. Marginalised students face systemic barriers which can include a lack of representation in their peers or supervisors and lack of access to opportunities and networks (Mattocks and Briscoe-Palmer, 2016; UKRI, 2023; Cech, 2022). Dismantling these barriers will require structural and societal change, so while this programme can support students with the situation they are in, it cannot be used as a sticking plaster to support a flawed model.

Following the six reflexivity sessions, the recordings of the meetings were transcribed, and a reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken (Braun and Clarke, 2021). The analysis was undertaken by hand (James, 2013), and themes or areas of interest were identified by each facilitator (MacLure, 2003). These were then discussed by the research team and the student participants to define the five themes discussed below. (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Moving forwards, we will embed reflexivity into the SoCoBio Doctoral Training Programme. New facilitators have been trained, allowing for increased capacity for students and balance of academic workloads. Currently, these new facilitators are all from the University of Kent, but from 2024 this will be expanded to other institutions in the partnership. So far, all facilitators have been white female academics, but we are actively encouraging colleagues from all genders and backgrounds to volunteer. Historically, female academics have tended to take on more pastoral roles (Rosser, 2004) but a diversified approach will improve equality within the programme, providing role models who will share their diverse experiences to inspire our next generation of bioscientists.

• ‘As an academic it can be daunting to tread the boundary between academic supervision and supportive friend during challenging circumstances. Reflexivity training has helped me understand and build my confidence in the role(s) academics can play to support students (in addition to guiding them to formal mental-health support) whilst still defining boundaries and forming strong mentoring relationships with the students.’ Dr Jenny Tullet, PhD supervisor and trained Reflexivity facilitator.

The evaluation provided us with a deeper and more accurate understanding of the challenges faced by our students, and provides a basis of knowledge with which to devise strategies to build into the DTP programme to support them in future. The programme described will now run every year with a cohort of second-year students, supplemented with top-up sessions at other points during the DTP training schedule (e.g., during the induction event for new starters, and the annual conference). These sessions will advertise and provide understanding of the Reflexivity in Research programme throughout PhD training. We will continue to use student feedback, and will add biannual top-up sessions (for graduates of the programme) to encourage reflexivity as a life-long practice, and will allow students reflective time throughout their PhD. Additionally, this feedback will be used to direct DTP administrative processes and other wellbeing initiatives to create tools and processes that engage and direct students facing challenges. For instance, participating students suggested incorporating elements of reflexivity into our supervisor training sessions as a way of allowing supervisors to understand the benefits of this approach and encourage them to support students in dedicating time to these activities. Together, we hope that these strategies will promote feelings of acceptance, belonging, and positive wellbeing within our postgraduate cohorts.

We are also working to share good practice beyond our own DTP and have taken reflexivity-based events to conferences, including the British Society of Research into Ageing annual scientific meeting in 2022. The independent success of our programme and the reflexivity work of the WISC network in chemistry (Caltagirone et al., 2021; Leigh et al., 2022) suggests that this activity would translate well to other disciplines within the natural sciences. It would fit well with funders’ commitments to increase diversity and improve the mental health and wellbeing of postgraduate researchers (UKRI, 2023; Wellcome Trust, 2023) as it has been designed to address issues – such as feeling isolated and a lack of belonging – that impact marginalised students to a greater extent. Our vision is to embed reflexivity in postgraduate research programmes, both nationally and internationally, and Box 3 contains advice on how to set up a reflexivity programme in the biosciences.

No new data were generated for this article.

1. Book

   1. Ayres ZJ

   (2022) Managing Your Mental Health during Your PhD

   Springer.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14194-2

   • Google Scholar
2. Website

   1. Banahene L
   2. Down J

   (2023) The Heart of the Matter: Student Loneliness and Belonging

   Accessed December 7, 2023.

   https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2023/02/10/the-heart-of-the-matter-student-loneliness-and-belonging
3. 1. Bothello J
   2. Roulet TJ

   (2019) The imposter syndrome, or the mis‐representation of self in academic life

   Journal of Management Studies 56:854–861.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12344

   • Google Scholar
4. Book

   1. Boynton P

   (2020) Being Well in Academia

   Routledge.

   https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429197512

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Braun V
   2. Clarke V

   (2021) One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?

   Qualitative Research in Psychology 18:328–352.

   https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Caltagirone C
   2. Draper ER
   3. Hardie MJ
   4. Haynes CJE
   5. Hiscock JR
   6. Jolliffe KA
   7. Kieffer M
   8. McConnell AJ
   9. Leigh JS

   (2021) An area‐specific, international community‐led approach to understanding and addressing equality, diversity, and inclusion issues within supramolecular chemistry

   Angewandte Chemie International Edition 60:11572–11579.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202015297

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Carr E
   2. Davis K
   3. Bergin-Cartwright G
   4. Lavelle G
   5. Leightley D
   6. Oetzmann C
   7. Polling C
   8. Stevelink SAM
   9. Wickersham A
   10. Razavi R
   11. Hotopf M

   (2022) Mental health among UK university staff and postgraduate students in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic

   Occupational and Environmental Medicine 79:259–267.

   https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2021-107667

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Cech EA

   (2022) The intersectional privilege of white able-bodied heterosexual men in STEM

   Science Advances 8:eabo1558.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo1558

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Chrousos GP
   2. Mentis A-FA

   (2020) Imposter syndrome threatens diversity

   Science 367:749–750.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba8039

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. Book

    1. Clark A
    2. Sousa B

    (2018)

    How to Be a Happy Academic

    Sage.

    • Google Scholar
11. Book

    1. Dougall I
    2. Weick M
    3. Vasiljevic M

    (2021) Inside UK Universities: Staff mental health and wellbeing during the coronavirus pandemic.

    Durham University.

    https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/23axu

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Egambaram O
    2. Hilton K
    3. Leigh J
    4. Richardson R
    5. Sarju J
    6. Slater A
    7. Turner B

    (2022) The future of laboratory chemistry learning and teaching must be accessible

    Journal of Chemical Education 99:3814–3821.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00328

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Eshtiaghi N
    2. Robertson S
    3. Warren-Myers G

    (2012) Good practice groundwork: Managing initial meetings with higher degree research students

    Education for Chemical Engineers 7:e196–e202.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2012.08.003

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Evans TM
    2. Bira L
    3. Gastelum JB
    4. Weiss LT
    5. Vanderford NL

    (2018) Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education

    Nature Biotechnology 36:282–284.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4089

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. Book

    1. Evans-Winters VE

    (2019) Black Feminism in Qualitative Inquiry

    Routledge.

    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351046077

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Gardner SK

    (2008) “What’s too much and what’s too little?”: The process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education

    The Journal of Higher Education 79:326–350.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772101

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Gill P
    2. Burnard P

    (2008) The student-supervisor relationship in the PhD/Doctoral process

    British Journal of Nursing 17:668–671.

    https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2008.17.10.29484

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. Book

    1. Gill R

    (2009)

    Reaking the Silence: The Hidden Injuries of Neo-Liberal Academia. in Secrecy and Silence in the Research Process: Feminist Reflections

    Routledge.

    • Google Scholar
19. Website

    1. Harris L

    (2017) Exploring the Effect of Disability Microaggressions on Sense of Belonging and Participation in College Classrooms

    Utah State University. Accessed December 7, 2023.

    https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/6712
20. 1. Ixer G

    (1999) There’s no such thing as reflection

    British Journal of Social Work 29:513–527.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/29.4.513

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. James A

    (2013) Seeking the analytic imagination: Reflections on the process of interpreting qualitative data

    Qualitative Research 13:562–577.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112446108

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Johansson C
    2. Yerrabati S

    (2017) A review of the literature on professional doctorate supervisory styles

    Management in Education 31:166–171.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020617734821

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Joireman JA
    2. Iii LP
    3. Hammersla J

    (2002) Empathy and the self-absorption paradox: Support for the distinction between self-rumination and self-reflection

    Self and Identity 1:53–65.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/152988602317232803

    • Google Scholar
24. Book

    1. Kara H

    (2015)

    Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide

    Policy Press.

    • Google Scholar
25. Book

    1. Kara H

    (2022)

    Qualitative Research for Quantitative Researchers

    London: SAGE Publications.

    • Google Scholar
26. Book

    1. Kujawa-Holbrook SA
    2. Montagno KB

    (2009) Injustice and the Care of Souls: Taking Oppression Seriously in Pastoral Care

    Fortress Press.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv15wxn6m

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Leigh J
    2. Bailey R

    (2013) Reflection, reflective practice and embodied reflective practice

    Body, Movement and Dance in Psychotherapy 8:160–171.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/17432979.2013.797498

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Leigh J

    (2016) An embodied perspective on judgements of written reflective practice for professional development in Higher Education

    Reflective Practice 17:72–85.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2015.1123688

    • Google Scholar
29. Book

    1. Leigh J
    2. Brown N

    (2021)

    Embodied Inquiry: Research Methods

    Bloomsbury.

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Leigh JS
    2. Hiscock JR
    3. Koops S
    4. McConnell AJ
    5. Haynes CJE
    6. Caltagirone C
    7. Kieffer M
    8. Draper ER
    9. Slater AG
    10. Hutchins KM
    11. Watkins D
    12. Busschaert N
    13. von Krbek LKS
    14. Jolliffe KA
    15. Hardie MJ

    (2022) Managing research throughout COVID-19: Lived experiences of supramolecular chemists

    Chem 8:299–311.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chempr.2022.01.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Löfström E
    2. Pyhältö K

    (2017) Ethics in the supervisory relationship: supervisors’ and doctoral students’ dilemmas in the natural and behavioural sciences

    Studies in Higher Education 42:232–247.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1045475

    • Google Scholar
32. Book

    1. MacLure M

    (2003)

    Discourse in Educational and Social Research

    Open University Press.

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Mattocks K
    2. Briscoe-Palmer S

    (2016) Diversity, inclusion, and doctoral study: challenges facing minority PhD students in the United Kingdom

    European Political Science 15:476–492.

    https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-016-0071-x

    • Google Scholar
34. Book

    1. Mind

    (2021)

    Coronavirus: The Consequences of Coronavirus for Mental Health

    Mind.

    • Google Scholar
35. Website

    1. ONS

    (2021) Personal well-being in the UK April 2021 to March 2022

    Accessed December 7, 2023.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/bulletins/measuringnationalwellbeing/april2021tomarch2022
36. 1. Rolle T
    2. Vue Z
    3. Murray SA
    4. Shareef SA
    5. Shuler HD
    6. Beasley HK
    7. Marshall AG
    8. Hinton A

    (2021) Toxic stress and burnout: John Henryism and social dominance in the laboratory and STEM workforce

    Pathogens and Disease 79:ftab041.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/femspd/ftab041

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. Book

    1. Rosser SV

    (2004) The Science Glass Ceiling: Academic Women Scientists and the Struggle to Succeed

    Routledge.

    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203354612

    • Google Scholar
38. Website

    1. Royal Society of Chemistry

    (2021) A Sense of Belonging in the Chemical Sciences

    Accessed December 7, 2023.

    https://www.rsc.org/policy-evidence-campaigns/inclusion-diversity/surveys-reports-campaigns/belonging-in-the-chemical-sciences
39. 1. Sambrook S
    2. Stewart J
    3. Roberts C

    (2008) Doctoral supervision... A view from above, below and the middle!

    Journal of Further and Higher Education 32:71–84.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/03098770701781473

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Stronach I
    2. Garratt D
    3. Pearce C
    4. Piper H

    (2007) Reflexivity, the picturing of selves, the forging of method

    Qualitative Inquiry 13:179–203.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406295476

    • Google Scholar
41. Book

    1. Taylor Y
    2. Lahad K

    (2018) Feeling academic in the neoliberal University

    In: Taylor Ed E, Lahad K, editors. Imposter Syndrome as a Public Feeling. in: Feeling Academic in the Neoliberal University: Feminist Fights, Flights and Failures. Springer. pp. 191–219.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64224-6

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Tremmel R

    (1993) Zen and the art of reflective practice in teacher education

    Harvard Educational Review 63:434–459.

    https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.63.4.m42704n778561176

    • Google Scholar
43. Website

    1. UKRI

    (2023) New Deal for Postgraduate Research: Analysis of responses to Call for Input

    Accessed December 7, 2023.

    https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/UKRI-020423-New-Deal-for-Postgraduate-Research-Analysis-of-responses-to-Call-for-Input.pdf
44. Website

    1. Wellcome Trust

    (2023) Research culture: let’s reimagine how we work together

    Accessed December 7, 2023.

    https://wellcome.org/what-we-do/our-work/research-culture

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "Using reflective practice with PhD students to build personal and professional resilience" to eLife for consideration as a Feature Article. Your article has been reviewed by three peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by two members of the eLife Features Team (Hazel Walker and Peter Rodgers). The following individuals involved in review of your submission have agreed to reveal their identity: Louise Banahene and Joanna Royle; the third reviewer prefers to remain anonymous.

The reviewers and editors have discussed the reviews and we have drafted this decision letter to help you prepare a revised submission.

Summary

This useful paper presents a valuable case study on the creation of a bespoke reflective practice initiative to support the personal development of postgraduate researchers at a cross-institutional Doctoral Training Partnership. It offers helpful models for practice to other institutions and research groups seeking to embed reflective practice, with highly transferable advice that could be used with other cohorts and programme designs. Strengths include grounding 'Reflexivity in Research' in an evidence base about the needs of the cohort; getting researchers involved in co-design from the start; care taken around who connects to who (separating out facilitators from candidates whose doctoral journey they are involved in); facilitator training and peer support, and evaluation built in at the point of design. However, there are a number of concerns that need to be addressed, as outlined below.

Essential revisions

1. Assuming that the data are available, it would be helpful to include information on the diversity of the cohort available (e.g. gender, UK vs non-UK, number of students from marginalized groups). This is relevant given that the rationale references the extent to which marginalized students are more likely to be affected by belonging or mental health.

2. The manuscript rightly references the impact of belonging and mental health on experiences of postgraduate study. This could be strengthened by outlining the inter-relationship between mental health, loneliness and key events, such as new programmes of study. This would help to clarify the relevance of the intervention. Without this there is a danger that the reader may conflate the term mental health, with longer-term, formal diagnoses, where this approach would need to be a part of a much wider set of interventions.

3. In addition, whilst there is acknowledgment that the intervention cannot address all the barriers a student may experience there would be benefit in referencing the structural barriers that may exist for some students (including those from marginalised communities). There is a need to address these through structural change alongside interventions for students. This addition will also help to ensure that readers are clear that this is not an intervention that is reinforcing a deficit model.

4. Please include a Methods section at the end of the article that covers data collection, data analysis and interpretation, and ethical considerations (eg, did the research require institutional approval?). Please also include a copy of the annual survey as an additional file.

Also, when the text states that students reported wide ranging challenges, it is not clear if this information was generated through interview/focus group/open-ended survey questions: please clarify

5. Please be cautious about the implications of using the word 'resilient' in the article title. In academic literacies and researcher development disciplines resilience is not infrequently associated with toxic positivity and this may lead to the paper being unfairly harshly judged by readers.

6. Reference is made to the programme "allowing the DTP…to target… supervisor training". There is nothing else in the paper that mentions supervisor training. Supervisor training is a major element of, for example, the recently published UKRI New Deal, so if it is not going to be explored in detail, it might be best to drop it.

7. Various parts of the article would benefit from further discussion (and citation) of previous work, as outlined below:

7.1. All contextual and methodological claims in the article should be supported by relevant references. Two examples are the 'Good Practice for Reflexivity', and the claim that "female academics have tended to take on more pastoral roles"

7.2. When the authors write that they "drew on extensive experience of working therapeutically and addressing marginalisation in science" and "facilitated individuals to be more consciously aware of their embodied experiences", they discuss/cite only their own work: please consider discussing/citing the work of other groups if possible.

7.3. The paper does not sufficiently engage with the existing literature on reflective practice and the ethics of care in HE.

7.4. While there are some methods references, the paper would be improved by further engagement with the literature on co-creative research methods, ethnography, qualitative thematic analysis etc.

Summary

This useful paper presents a valuable case study on the creation of a bespoke reflective practice initiative to support the personal development of postgraduate researchers at a cross-institutional Doctoral Training Partnership. It offers helpful models for practice to other institutions and research groups seeking to embed reflective practice, with highly transferable advice that could be used with other cohorts and programme designs. Strengths include grounding 'Reflexivity in Research' in an evidence base about the needs of the cohort; getting researchers involved in co-design from the start; care taken around who connects to who (separating out facilitators from candidates whose doctoral journey they are involved in); facilitator training and peer support, and evaluation built in at the point of design. However, there are a number of concerns that need to be addressed, as outlined below.

Thank you for the positive response to our manuscript. We value your thoughtful feedback and have endeavored to address your concerns below.

Essential revisions

1. Assuming that the data are available, it would be helpful to include information on the diversity of the cohort available (e.g. gender, UK vs non-UK, number of students from marginalized groups). This is relevant given that the rationale references the extent to which marginalized students are more likely to be affected by belonging or mental health.

We have now added further information to the manuscript on gender balance and nationality. We did not ask the students about marginalization, and do not have ethical approval to divulge any further information in this format.

“8 participants (4 women and 4 men, all UK home students, representing ~a third of the 2020 cohort) volunteered to participate and were randomly divided into two groups.”

2. The manuscript rightly references the impact of belonging and mental health on experiences of postgraduate study. This could be strengthened by outlining the inter-relationship between mental health, loneliness and key events, such as new programmes of study. This would help to clarify the relevance of the intervention. Without this there is a danger that the reader may conflate the term mental health, with longer-term, formal diagnoses, where this approach would need to be a part of a much wider set of interventions.

This is an important point. We have added the following statement, including an additional reference, to paragraph 2:

“There is a clear relationship between mental health, loneliness and key events, such as new programmes of study (Evans et al., 2018). The programme we describe here addresses these situations rather than longer-term, formal diagnoses of mental health, where this approach would need to be part of a much wider set of interventions.”

3. In addition, whilst there is acknowledgment that the intervention cannot address all the barriers a student may experience there would be benefit in referencing the structural barriers that may exist for some students (including those from marginalised communities). There is a need to address these through structural change alongside interventions for students. This addition will also help to ensure that readers are clear that this is not an intervention that is reinforcing a deficit model.

We have added the following text and references:

“Marginalised students face systemic barriers such including a lack of representation in their peers or supervisors and lack of access to opportunities and networks (Mattocks et al., 2016 and Post 2023 and Cech 2022). These will require structural and societal change so, while this programme can support students within the situation they are in, it cannot be used as a sticking plaster to support a flawed model.

4. Please include a Methods section at the end of the article that covers data collection, data analysis and interpretation, and ethical considerations (eg, did the research require institutional approval?). Please also include a copy of the annual survey as an additional file.

Also, when the text states that students reported wide ranging challenges, it is not clear if this information was generated through interview/focus group/open-ended survey questions: please clarify

We agree that this information would be helpful to the reader. In the paper we stated the ethical approval provided:

“The pilot and evaluation were given ethical approval to use anonymized data from participating students by The University of Kent.

We also discussed the types of questions asked in the yearly survey:

“All students are asked about their general wellbeing, mental health, the types of challenges they face, and how these impact their work in a yearly survey. Over half the survey participants (54% (2021), 62% (2022) and 65% (2023)) reported experiencing mental health or general wellbeing difficulties each year. In 2021 it was notable that over one in three of the students reporting difficulties attributed to the COVID19 pandemic, whilst by 2022 this was reduced to less than one in five. Of those experiencing challenges, around 35% reported this had affected their ability to carry out their work. These figures, although concerning, suggest that the wellbeing of students enrolled in the SoCoBio DTP is similar to that of UK post-graduate students in general (ONS.gov.uk, 2021)”.

The reviewer has correctly surmised that the challenges that we refer to were identified from our annual survey. However, we realise that we could be clearer on this point and have amended the wording as follows:

“In the annual survey our students reported that the challenges impacting their wellbeing were wide ranging.”

we are also now providing a copy of the annual survey for the years reported in Supplementary file 1 and refer to this in the text.

“All students are asked about their general wellbeing, mental health, the types of challenges they face, and how these impact their work in a yearly survey (Supplementary file 1)”.

5. Please be cautious about the implications of using the word 'resilient' in the article title. In academic literacies and researcher development disciplines resilience is not infrequently associated with toxic positivity and this may lead to the paper being unfairly harshly judged by readers.

Thank you for raising this point, in the original version of the manuscript we had meant the phrase in a positive sense but see that it can easily be misconstrued. To address this we have changed the title to: “Using reflective practice to support Bioscience PhD students”; and removed all use of the word “resilience” in the manuscript. The only exception to this was in a quote from a student who described the programme as “making them more resilient”, and we did not wish to change their words.

6. Reference is made to the programme "allowing the DTP…to target… supervisor training". There is nothing else in the paper that mentions supervisor training. Supervisor training is a major element of, for example, the recently published UKRI New Deal, so if it is not going to be explored in detail, it might be best to drop it.

The Reflexivity in Research programme was designed to encourage individuals to reflect and think about who they are as a scientist and become more aware of their professional and inter-personal relationships. This is helping the DTP management to better understand it’s cohort’s needs. In fact, at the end of the programme the students told us that they thought integrating reflexivity and knowledge of the programme into staff training would be beneficial to them. To clarify further we have re-worked the section on this to read:

“The information gained from these two-way interactions between academic facilitators and PhD students throughout the programme is now allowing the DTP management board to develop support and training structures for both students and supervisors. Indeed the students undertaking the programme believed that teaching supervisors about the reflexivity programme would be beneficial. This is being undertaken as part of a wider drive in the UK to improve supervisor training (UKRI, 2023; WellcomeTrust, 2023).”

7. Various parts of the article would benefit from further discussion (and citation) of previous work, as outlined below:

7.1. All contextual and methodological claims in the article should be supported by relevant references. Two examples are the 'Good Practice for Reflexivity', and the claim that "female academics have tended to take on more pastoral roles"

7.2. When the authors write that they "drew on extensive experience of working therapeutically and addressing marginalisation in science" and "facilitated individuals to be more consciously aware of their embodied experiences", they discuss/cite only their own work: please consider discussing/citing the work of other groups if possible.

7.3. The paper does not sufficiently engage with the existing literature on reflective practice and the ethics of care in HE.

7.4. While there are some methods references, the paper would be improved by further engagement with the literature on co-creative research methods, ethnography, qualitative thematic analysis etc.

We apologise for neglecting this in the original manuscript. We were drawing on our own professional and personal experiences of reflexivity as well as trying to limit the word count. The literature on reflexivity, ethnography, qualitative thematic analysis, and co-creative research methods in STEM disciplines is limited. However, where possible we have now added the following references to support our statements on some of these topics in order to place it in a wider context:

• Good practice for reflexivity: We felt that this was well covered with the 3 references used (Ixer, 1999; Leigh, 2016 and Tremmel, 1993) that cover our work in Chemistry as well as how reflexivity is used effectively in social work and teacher education. But have now added Stronach et al., 2007 as a more general introduction to the subject. To further address the ethics of care in Higher Education including methods of working and co-creative approaches we have added the following.

• Pastoral roles of female academics: We had added in reference to Rosser 2004.

• Marginalisation in science: In this revision, in response to point 3, we added additional references Mattocks et al., 2016 and Post 2023 and Cech 2022 and some further discussion on this topic.

“Marginalised students face systemic barriers such including a lack of representation in their peers or supervisors and lack of access to opportunities and networks (Mattocks et al., 2016 and Post 2023 and Cech 2022). These will require structural and societal change so, while this programme can support students within the situation they are in, it cannot be used as a sticking plaster to support a flawed model.

• Additional references referring to embodied experiences have been added:

“In particular, it facilitated individuals to be more consciously aware of their embodied experiences (i.e., from the thoughts, feelings, sensations, images and emotions they experienced in different scenarios), and to then feed these experiences into effective reflection (Evans-Winters, 2019; Kujawa-Holbrook and Montagno, 2009; Leigh J, 2021).”

Author details

1. Jennifer Tullet

   Jennifer Tullet is in the Division of Natural Sciences, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   j.m.a.tullet@kent.ac.uk

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2037-526X

2. Jennifer Leigh

   Jennifer Leigh is in the School of Sociology, Social Policy, and Social Research, Division for the study of Law, Society, and Social Justice, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3672-1462

3. Brandon Coke

   Brandon Coke is in the School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0847-6885

4. David Fisher

   David Fisher is in Crop Science and Production Systems, National Institute of Agricultural Botany, East Malling, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7947-3366

5. Johanna Haszczyn

   Johanna Haszczyn is in the School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7012-7125

6. Steven Houghton

   Steven Houghton is in the School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9568-3769

7. Johanna Fish

   Johanna Fish is in the School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5683-9946

8. Laura Freeman

   Laura Freeman is in the Division of Natural Sciences, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1674-8112

9. Isabella Garcia

   Isabella Garcia is in the Division of Natural Sciences, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0009-0008-8208-8355

10. Stefan Penman

    Stefan Penman is in the School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Investigation, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

11. Emma Hargreaves

    Emma Hargreaves is in the Division of Natural Sciences, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7887-2018

• 2,214

  views

• 168

  downloads

• 1

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.