IDADA: towards a multimethod methodological framework for PhD by publication underpinned by critical realism

The paper situates the study within the evolving knowledge economy and growing doctoral education landscape, where independent, original research and contribution to knowledge remain core expectations. It highlights tensions doctoral students face in choosing research philosophy and methodology, with many defaulting to positivism or interpretivism and associated quantitative/qualitative or mixed-methods approaches. Responding to Liezel Frick’s call to better support PhD by publication, the paper focuses on two aspects: (1) the PhD by publication model (form/function) and (2) the adoption of critical realism as a research philosophy to enable deeper explanatory research. The purpose is to address doctoral students’ limited uptake of critical realism and to introduce a practical methodological framework—IDADA (Identify, Define, Analyse, Develop, Apply)—to guide PhD by publication. The study examines academic regulations across 101 universities (UK, Ireland, South Africa, Australia) and conducts a scoping/narrative review of critical realism in doctoral studies to reveal demi-regularities and propose a practical framework for solution-centric, rigorous doctoral research by publication.

The paper undertakes a narrative/scoping review to assess the presence and use of critical realism in doctoral research discourse. Searches were conducted primarily in Web of Science (WoS) and Google Scholar (GS), with a controlled check in Scopus, using combinations of keywords aligned to scoping study protocols. From initial results and reference chaining, 29 papers were screened, yielding 20 that directly engaged critical realism in doctoral contexts. Findings indicate critical realism is sparse across leading doctoral studies journals: for example, in the International Journal of Social Research Methodology, about 230 doctoral-related papers included only 22 on realism and just 8 on critical realism; Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education returned 1 relevant paper out of ~49; International Journal for Researcher Development had 3 out of 66; Studies in Higher Education had 3 out of 807; and Higher Education Research and Development had 5 out of 434. The review foregrounds critical realism as a philosophy of science (meta-theory) focused on stratified ontology, generative mechanisms, and explanation over prediction, but notes limited methodological “how-to” guidance for doctoral researchers. Complementing the literature review, the paper synthesizes evolving practices around PhD by publication (e.g., typical number of papers, artefact types, elapsed time windows), concerns about rigour and acceptance, and non-coherence in nomenclature and formats, drawing together these strands as demi-regularities that inform the proposed IDADA framework.

The research employs a critical realism–underpinned, multimethod approach oriented to exploration and explanation. It is structured around four pillars (aligned to the research onion): (1) Philosophy: critical realism (Bhaskar), promoting stratified ontology (real, actual, empirical), generative mechanisms, and explanatory focus; (2) Approach: multimethod (plurality of suitable qualitative and quantitative methods without necessarily integrating them as in mixed-methods), theory-laden but not theory-determined; (3) Strategy: exploratory enquiry via narrative/discourse analysis and argumentation to triangulate insights; (4) Methods: documentary analysis and scoping/narrative literature review supported by Python-based NLP, along with scenario work and elements of autoethnography. Data sources: (a) documentary data—academic regulations, policies, and guidance on PhD by publication from 101 universities (84 UK, 7 Australia, 8 South Africa, 2 Ireland), collected via institutional websites and extended searches using variant terms for “PhD by publication/prior publication”; (b) literature data—WoS and GS searches (with Scopus control) for critical realism in doctoral studies, followed by screening and reference chaining. Analytic techniques include narrative and critical discourse analysis, interpretive reading, and content-oriented reasoning without mere counting, supported by NLP to aid enquiry. Logical reasoning/argumentation and a scenario case (IT assets/digital technologies) illustrate application. The methodology is reusable for doctoral students: iterative, non-linear, and grounded in literature, consistent with critical realism’s dispositional ontology and retroduction/abduction for explaining demi-regularities and generative mechanisms. The study also outlines how quantitative analysis can align with critical realism (e.g., extraction of demi-regularities, latent factors, PLS-SEM) when interpreted explanatorily and contextually (transfactual effects).

• Critical realism is sparse in doctoral studies despite its maturity as a research philosophy: across journals surveyed via Google Scholar/WoS, only a very small fraction of doctoral-related papers explicitly employ critical realism (e.g., IJSRM: ~230 doctoral papers, 22 realism, 8 critical realism; SGPE: ~49 papers, 1 relevant; IJRD: 66 papers, 3 relevant; Studies in Higher Education: 807 papers, 3 relevant; HERD: 434 papers, 5 relevant). A Scopus control search (TITLE-ABS-KEY) yielded only 2 articles.
• Documentary analysis of 101 universities (84 UK, 7 Australia, 8 South Africa, 2 Ireland) shows non-coherence in nomenclature and form of PhD by publication (e.g., “PhD by publication,” “PhD by published works,” “PhD by prior publication,” etc.) and variation in format, length, eligibility, and pedagogy. Some institutions offer the route to the general student body (#56), some only to staff (#16), others to staff/alumni/associates.
• Despite variability in form, institutional regulations tend to be clear and rigorous in admissions and examination criteria; thus, concerns about academic level and rigour should be mitigated by institutional processes.
• Typical PhD by publication portfolios range from 3–5 papers (sometimes 2–4), with instances up to 6–10 or even 15, and may include journal articles, book chapters, and sometimes refereed conference papers. Integrative components (commentary/exegesis) are standard to articulate coherence and contribution.
• The paper identifies demi-regularities across literature and policy: pluralism in methods, emphasis on explanatory power over prediction, theory as framing (not determining), contextualisation (time/space), and multifinality (multiple plausible causal mechanisms) as key to critical realism in doctoral work.
• Introduces the IDADA framework (Identify, Define, Analyse, Develop, Apply) as a non-linear, multimethod, critical realism–based methodology to guide PhD by publication, enabling publication at each phase, coherence across papers (golden thread), and focus on uncovering generative mechanisms and emergence.
• Scenario application (digital technologies/IT assets) illustrates how IDADA operationalises critical realism to re-interrogate well-studied phenomena, develop conceptual artefacts/ontologies, and validate in defined domains of use.

The study asked how critical realism can facilitate PhD by publication and what practical methodological framework can support doctoral students. Findings show that while institutional rigour for PhD by publication is strong, methodological guidance—especially for critical realism—has been limited, and critical realism remains underutilised in doctoral studies. By synthesising demi-regularities from literature and policy and articulating critical realism’s explanatory stance (stratified ontology, generative mechanisms, retroduction/abduction, multifinality), the paper proposes IDADA as a practical, non-linear framework. IDADA addresses the need for structured yet flexible guidance in PhD by publication by: (1) legitimising multimethod pluralism aligned to the research problem; (2) focusing on explanation rather than mere description; (3) integrating theory as a heuristic (theory-laden) without being theory-determined; (4) emphasising contextualisation and domain-of-use for validation and coherence; and (5) encouraging publication throughout phases to build a coherent thesis by publication. Thus, the work responds to concerns about form, function, and rigour in PhD by publication and advances a usable pathway for doctoral candidates and supervisors to engage critical realism meaningfully.

The paper contributes a practical, critical realism–based, multimethod framework—IDADA (Identify, Define, Analyse, Develop, Apply)—to support PhD by publication. It demonstrates, via documentary analysis of 101 universities and a scoping/narrative review, that critical realism is underrepresented in doctoral research and that PhD by publication practices are heterogeneous. IDADA offers structured flexibility for doctoral candidates: pluralism in methods, a non-linear process oriented to explanatory depth (generative mechanisms, emergence), continual literature engagement, theory-laden (not theory-determined) positioning, and iterative validation within defined domains of use. The study calls on supervisors and institutions to enable doctoral students’ philosophical “free range,” emphasising practical adequacy and coherence (golden thread) across publications. Future research directions include refining and adapting IDADA across disciplines, and conducting longitudinal studies on the role and impact of critical realism in PhD by publication (particularly in information systems and cross-domain contexts), alongside deeper methodological linkages between critical realism and quantitative analysis.

Primary limitations include the choice of search terms and reliance on Web of Science and Google Scholar as main databases for the scoping review, with Scopus used as a control. While purposeful backward/forward citation tracking mitigated this, coverage and indexing constraints may have affected retrieval. The selection of publication outlets guided by the search strategy could bias representation, though identified journals are prominent venues in doctoral studies research. The IDADA framework, proposed from synthesis and reflexive analysis, invites further refinement, testing, and adaptation across contexts and disciplines.