Content area
Aim
To map the research project component of nursing hybrid Master degrees in Australia and New Zealand, as documented in university websites.
BackgroundMaster degrees are completed by many nurses internationally. These degrees take many formats, one of which combines coursework and research. Little is known about the components, structures and intended outcomes of the research project component of these hybrid Master degrees.
MethodsWebsites of members of the Council of Deans of Nursing and Midwifery of Australia and New Zealand were systematically searched for details of the research project components of hybrid Master degrees. All content was downloaded and hyperlinks searched for information about the research component. A preset template was used to guide the extraction of the website content related to the structure and components of the research pathways. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to generate the findings.
ResultsTwenty-seven university websites contained content of hybrid nursing Master degrees. The volume and format of the website information varied greatly. There was variation in the proportion of the research component in the degree (range 8 %-50 %; median 33.3 %), the type of research undertaken (primary, secondary or both), the final output (thesis, report or manuscript) and its size (range 2000–25,000 words). Learning outcomes (n = 178), where included, varied in focus and content.
ConclusionFindings indicate the research pathway components of hybrid nursing master degrees across Australasia vary widely. Information provided on many university websites was insufficient for nurses to confidently choose a program that would align with their career goals.
Nursing education is evolving to keep pace with the dynamic demands of the healthcare sector ( Beauchesne et al., 2020; Duffield et al., 2021). In recent decades there has been a trend for nursing Master programs to focus primarily on strengthening clinical competencies and advancing theoretical knowledge, forming a vital part of nursing career progression ( Madi et al., 2019). However, an alternative pathway exists in the form of hybrid nursing Master degrees, which blend coursework with a research project component, offering a different route that reflects the multifaceted nature of contemporary nursing roles. The research project pathway refers to students undertaking research activity or a research project rather than just a theoretical study of research methods. This hybrid model caters to the evolving career expectations of the healthcare industry and nurses seeking to balance clinical practice with research-oriented skills.
Despite the presence of hybrid nursing Master programs in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom and across Europe, there is limited documentation on the structure, objectives and outcomes of the research project component of the degrees. This paper examines the characteristics, outputs and outcomes of the research project component in hybrid nursing Master degrees that are offered by universities in Australia and New Zealand. Through an analysis of university websites, this study identifies commonalities and distinctions in the research project component across programs, aiming to facilitate dialogue about the international and regional expectations for Master-prepared nurses.
2 BackgroundNursing Master degrees are foundational in developing advanced clinical and professional skills, where they are often regarded as essential for career progression ( Beauchesne et al., 2020; Duffield et al., 2021; Harley, 2023). In Australia and New Zealand hybrid nursing Master degrees, which combine coursework with research activity, equip students not only with clinical skills but also with research competencies necessary for diverse roles in clinical, teaching and research settings ( Australian Qualifications Framework Council, 2013; New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 2016).
Internationally, these programs are regarded as highly relevant to career prospects, as many registered nurses view them either as the culmination of their academic journey or as preparation for potential entry into graduate research pathways. This has led to diverse student populations with varying professional aspirations, presenting unique challenges and opportunities for nursing education ( Abu-Qamar et al., 2020). However, information about these programs remains fragmented and inconsistent, often complicating prospective students’ decision-making processes ( Smith et al., 2018).
Regulatory frameworks further underscore the complexities of nursing Master programs in Australia and New Zealand. In New Zealand, for example, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (2016) administers a rigorous approval process to ensure program quality. In Australia, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency TEQSA (2025) has overall jurisdiction and ensures compliance with the Australian Qualifications Framework (2013). However, individual universities are responsible for accrediting their own nursing Master programs, other than those leading to initial registration or endorsement as Nurse Practitioner. It is important to note that these regulatory frameworks specify educational academic standards associated with the level of a Master degree and general capabilities expected from study at this level. While nursing Master degrees may include a research project pathway, this is not required by the regulatory bodies. Hence, these bodies provide no guidance on the scale and scope of these pathways, making variations both possible and likely. Moreover, there are no local or national standards governing the publicly available information provided by universities about their programs, unlike those operating in some other countries.
Demand for nurses skilled in integrating research with clinical practice continues to grow, particularly as employers increasingly seek candidates who can drive evidence-based improvements in patient care ( Beauchesne et al., 2020; Harley, 2023). Given the international mobility of nurses, especially between Australia and New Zealand, institutions and employers alike are prioritising Master-qualified nurses for advanced practice, research and leadership roles ( Duffield et al., 2021). Examining the structure and objectives of the research project component of hybrid nursing Master programs in this region provides crucial insights into their contributions to healthcare and workforce development across the Pacific.
Understanding the integration of research activity within these programs is critical. It aligns with employers’ expectations for nurses equipped with evidence-based practice competencies who are prepared for advanced practice or leadership roles. Notably, a literature search reveals a paucity of studies on hybrid nursing Master programs, particularly on how research components are structured and the specific competencies expected of graduates. This knowledge gap highlights the need to investigate hybrid nursing Master of Nursing degrees, particularly as nurses increasingly work across international borders and as academic preparation influences global professional standards and expectations ( Abu-Qamar et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2018).
2.1 AimThe aim of this study was to map the research project component of taught nursing Master degrees (hybrid degrees) in Australia and New Zealand, as documented on institutional websites. Specifically, we sought to explore the number of hybrid degrees available, the expressed aim and learning outcomes and the scale of the research pathway component. Additionally, we examined the entry requirements, the type of research undertaken by students, the structure of the component and the size and format of the final output.
3 Methods3.1 Study design
This study used a content analysis approach to examine the information provided on university website pages about their hybrid Master of Nursing degrees. Accessibility and usefulness of university websites as a resource for students to access programs has been investigated ( Campoverde-Molina et al., 2023; Diwanji, 2023) and there is research on university website design ( Arasid et al., 2018). Studies have used organisational websites for research investigating specific program content (see for example Cheng et al., 2023). As there was no agreed pre-published framework to use where university websites are a data source to answer an inquiry about program content, we developed a six-step framework for websites research (WEBRX) to ensure the validity of our study ( Fig. 1). The study is reported in accordance with both the Checklist for the use and reporting of document analysis in health professions education research (CARDA) ( Cleland et al., 2023) and the STROBE checklist for observational studies ( von Elm et al., 2008).
3.2 Website eligibilityAll institutions that were members (n = 42) of the Council of Deans of Nursing and Midwifery of Australia and New Zealand (CDNM) were eligible for inclusion. CDNM is the peak organisation representing Deans or Heads of schools, departments or disciplines in Australian and New Zealand institutions offering undergraduate and postgraduate programs in nursing and midwifery ( Council of Deans of Nursing and Midwifery (CDNM), 2023). The membership list on the CDNM website was accessed and downloaded in late 2022. Only those institutions with specific coursework Master programs designed to provide registered nurses with advanced knowledge and skills were eligible for inclusion, including those focused on a specific clinical specialty (such as mental health nursing). Programs with generic or broader titles such as Master of Health Science were only included if they contained nursing-specific subjects or streams. Programs excluded were graduate entry pre-registration programs and programs solely designed to lead to endorsement/registration as a Nurse Practitioner or prescriber.
3.3 Search strategyThe websites of all member institutions were searched by BC, RC and CM, between November 2022 and June 2023 to identify eligible nursing programs. The search was made either following links to postgraduate programs from the institution’s homepage, or through the School/Department of Nursing pages, as appropriate for each institution. Program content was examined to determine whether it contained a research project component, defined as a pathway, stream, or individual subject. Pathways or subjects titled “research”, “thesis” or “dissertation” were included; pathways or subjects titled “project” were only included if the available information identified them as research-based projects. Subjects that were clearly coursework (such as research methods subjects) were not included unless identified as comprising the first stage of the research pathway. Links were searched and their content downloaded where they contained information specific to the research component of the hybrid Master degree. Links that were designed to provide students with general information such as a university’s statute or academic conduct expectations were not downloaded.
3.4 Data collectionAll information publicly available on the websites, whether in electronic or pdf format, was downloaded and data subsequently extracted by BC, RC and CM into a preset template in MS Excel which included website address. Where a university had several documents, these were filed in a folder for the named university. Variables in the template included: University name; Website address; Number of credit points for the entire Master program and for the research component; Structure of the research pathway and individual subjects; Type of research undertaken; Entry requirements; Outputs including format and length of the final research outputs; Intended learning outcomes; Assessment tasks; Learning and teaching modalities; Supervisory arrangements; and Examination of final output.
3.5 AnalysisAnalysis was undertaken by two authors (BC & KN) and discussed among the team to achieve consensus. This was designed to reduce the risk of bias and researcher positionality influencing the data analysis. All collected documents were publicly available and thus regarded as existing and there was no evidence of any part of the documents being redacted. No search was made for information beyond what could be retrieved from the websites.
Textual data relating to the pathway or individual subjects were subjected to summative content analysis ( Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) by BC. Descriptive statistics such as medians and frequencies, depending on variable type, were generated by BC and KN. Subject intended learning outcomes (ILOs) were examined from multiple perspectives including: i) the number of discrete ILOs; ii) type, classified as outcome (a skill or knowledge set that would be acquired), output (a completed activity) or a standard (minimum requirements); and iii) assessment of whether there was a focus on nursing or health. The content and focus of the ILOs relating to components of research projects and the research skill aims were examined. Finally, the ILOs were assessed against Bloom’s revised taxonomy ( Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001) as indicated by the opening statements of the ILO. These were mapped against the type of research to be undertaken. Bloom’s taxonomy ( Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001) was the only published framework used in the content analysis. As some ILOs had several components each could be classified more than once.
Ethical approval and informed consent were not required for this study because the data obtained are publicly available. Individual universities have not been identified in the report given the exploratory nature of the study and the need to provide third party protection to the universities.
4 ResultsIn late 2022, the CDNM website listed 42 member institutions: 37 in Australia and five in New Zealand. All five New Zealand and 30 of the 37 Australian institutions offered Master degrees that met the inclusion criteria for initial examination of their website. Of these, 22 (73.3 %) Australian programs and all New Zealand programs included a research project component. Thus, the final sample for analysis was 27.
Information provided on the websites varied considerably in length and content. Word count estimates ranged from 118 words to 4000 + words. Few websites contained all the fields listed on the data extraction framework. Ten university websites did not have dates on the downloaded documents. Of the 17 that included dates, the most recent date of the documents was recorded: 2020 (n = 2), 2022 (n = 7) and 2023 (n = 8).
In five Australian programs the research project component was a core (required) part of the Master program; in all others it was optional. Four programs included multiple research pathways: two had two pathways that were clearly differentiated and defined; one had three options that were described only by their various sizes; the fourth included three subjects that could be studied in combination, but the options for doing so were unclear. The pathways were analysed separately where feasible; hence n > 27 in some instances, but due to missing data the denominator is lower for some fields. Three universities had no link to the research pathway or subject information.
4.1 Size and type of the research componentThe size of the research project component ranged from 8 % to 50 % of the total Master program, with a median of 33.3 % ( Fig. 2). The type of research to be undertaken was not explicitly stated in most pathways. Five pathways either stated or implied, by reference to ethical approval, that empirical (primary) research was expected; a further ten were inferred to require empirical research from examination of the subject ILOs. Four pathways indicated either empirical research or a structured literature review was possible. One pathway was specifically structured for undertaking a systematic review. One pathway identified the project as being quality improvement research and one as a literature review, without specifying the type.
4.2 Why undertake the research component?Three universities indicated specific career options for graduates of the research component, stating that the pathway was recommended for those wishing to become nurse academics or nurse researchers; that it would allow them to “move into research roles and even lead applied clinical research”; and that it would enable the development of research capabilities “congruent with …. advanced clinicians, managers, or educators”. One website referred more broadly to the development of research skills to enable graduates to “contribute and improve advanced nursing practice and leadership”. Another website described the research project pathway as enabling skill development, specifically critical thinking and writing.
Twelve universities mentioned the possibility of progressing to doctoral studies on completion of the program. In three websites, this was included at the level of overall Master program information, with no indication of whether the research pathway was required for this progression. The remaining nine websites indicated that this was a requirement; one university offering two pathways indicated that only the larger (thesis) stream conferred eligibility. Three university websites stated that successful completion of the research pathway could lead to eligibility for doctoral studies at that specific university; one of these indicated the required thesis mark (70 %).
4.3 Entry requirementsPrerequisites to enter the research pathway are shown in Table 1. Most either stated no prerequisites or required only completion of either specific or non-specific subjects. Eight (approx. 30 %) indicated a specific grade, in subjects and/or across the first part of the Master program, was required to achieve entry into the pathway.
4.4 Structure of the research componentThe number of subjects comprising the research pathway ranged from one (n = 9) to four (n = 5). Nine pathways included two subjects and three had three subjects. Five pathways indicated the first subject of two or three was a preparatory subject, with combined formal teaching and supervision. For two of the four-subject pathways, the arrangement appeared to be purely administrative, as all subjects had the same description and intended learning outcomes and no assessment tasks other than the final thesis. A further two universities mentioned only the final report or thesis as assessment items. All others that provided subject-level information indicated scaffolding of learning, with different learning outcomes for each subject (where multiple subjects were provided) and/or a range of formative and/or summative assessment tasks.
Intended learning outcomes (ILOs) were provided for subjects in 21 research pathways, 20 in Australia and one in New Zealand; eight linked them to the graduate attributes. There was considerable variation in the number of ILOs per pathway (range 4–21; median 7). Of the 178 ILOs in the dataset, 122 (68.5 %) were classed as outcomes, 29 (16.3 %) as outputs and 27 (15.2 %) as standards. Outputs included requirements such as submitting an ethics application or an article for publication. Standards related to meeting specified expectations. Seven sets of ILOs included all types; six included outcomes only; five included outcomes and outputs or standards; one included outputs and standards only; and one included outputs only.
There was considerable variability in the length of the ILOs in the dataset, with some being brief statements covering one focus (e.g., “Be able to analyse, interpret and present research findings”) while others addressed multiple foci (e.g., “Demonstrate high level cognitive, technical, creative and communication skills in planning research and communicating research knowledge with an awareness of ethics, society and culture”). Table 2 presents summary data of the content areas, research activity components, targeted skillsets and the findings of the Bloom’s taxonomy analysis related to the ILO and how these vary amongst the different research types for the 21 pathways that reported ILOs. The data are presented as the number and percentage of pathways that included one or more ILOs of each category. This table illustrates that there were considerable differences in the content and skill focus of the ILOs. This variation is partly reduced within product types. All ILO sets captured an aspect of using the literature, but the lens to this differed from searching, to general appraisal and critical appraisal. Presenting research work featured in all but one ILO set and this took various forms including reports, article writing and dissemination strategies. The Bloom’s taxonomy findings illustrate that all ILO sets included a focus on creativity and that the lower levels of the taxonomy (understand and apply) were rarely used.
The number of assessment tasks in the entire research pathway ranged from one to 15. The range of tasks, other than the final report, is shown in Table 3. Each task has been included once, though in some pathways the same task was repeated in more than one semester (e.g., quizzes, progress plans). Completion of a research proposal, protocol or plan was the most common written assessment, appearing in 10 pathways and as summative in nine of those. Presentations, either oral (n = 9) or poster (n = 1) were also common tasks and mostly summative. No assessment information was provided for 10 pathways.
4.5 SupervisionThere was little information on supervisory arrangements in the research project pathways. Research supervision was mentioned in relation to 19 of the pathways; most used the terms “a supervisor” and “supervisor(s)” at various points in the documentation and none referred to an actual number. None mentioned group supervision, although one mentioned student participation in group writing circles. Frequency of contact with supervisors was mentioned by eight and ranged from weekly to fortnightly to monthly; one indicated the frequency was to be negotiated. One referred only to “regular contact”. Thirteen pathways in 11 universities made some reference to the role of supervisors, either obliquely (such as “students will be supported”) or explicitly. The most commonly used term was guidance (n = 7), followed by support (n = 6). Other terms were collaborative (n = 2 universities, 3 pathways); negotiate (n = 2); mentor (n = 1); provide direction (n = 1); provide feedback (n = 1).
Nine pathways referred to learning and teaching modalities other than supervision. The most common modality was lectures or workshops during the preparatory subject (n = 4). One pathway included weekly tutorials, seminars or online activities in both subjects; the remainder mentioned group tutorials, online materials or tasks, group writing circles, recorded lectures and occasional seminars.
4.6 Output of the research componentThe final output of the research project pathway, variously termed report, thesis or dissertation is shown in Table 4. The term “thesis” has been used to denote both theses and dissertations, as the format of these tend to be standardised and widely understood. Ten pathways made no mention, either explicitly or by implication, of the length of the report or thesis. Where length was specified, this varied considerably, ranging from 2000 to 25000 words. Project reports were generally shorter than theses. Three stated that the output could be in the form of one or more manuscripts for publication as an alternative to a traditional thesis, while a further four required the preparation of a manuscript; one of these required the manuscript to have been submitted to a journal.
The examination of the final thesis or project was mentioned by only two universities; one referred to internal and external examination and the other implied that the examination process was independent of the supervisor(s). Neither mentioned the number of examiners.
5 DiscussionTo our knowledge, this study is the first to analyse university websites to examine the characteristics of the research project pathway component of hybrid nursing Master degrees in Australia and New Zealand. The findings reveal significant differences between the two countries studied, as well as variability in program structures and outcomes. It is unclear how the characteristics of the research project pathway component of hybrid nursing Master degrees in Australia and New Zealand may be similar to or different from other international contexts (e.g., in Europe, North America or in Asia) and we found no other comparative international study reported.
In obtaining the sample for this research, we found that while all New Zealand universities included a research project component in their nursing Master programs, less than 75 % of Australian programs offered similar pathways, with only five institutions making the research project mandatory. This finding contrasts with earlier studies that described the inclusion of a research thesis as a standard feature in Master degrees across disciplines ( Atkins and Redley, 1998) and reflects changing perspectives on the value of undertaking research projects at Master level ( Cardwell et al., 2024; Drennan and Clarke, 2009; Drennan and Hyde, 2008; Harley, 2023).
5.1 Variability in program structures and research componentsThe analysis revealed significant variability in the structure, content and outcomes of research components in hybrid nursing Master programs. While some university websites provided clear objectives and detailed support mechanisms for students, others offered limited or unclear information, potentially leaving prospective students unable to make fully informed decisions. This inconsistency extended to details about entry requirements, assessment tasks and research outputs, which could affect students' readiness for graduate research programs. The lack of clarity in program details may hinder career progression and doctoral program eligibility, particularly when institutional requirements are not transparently articulated.
Variability in program structures could also pose professional challenges, as a lack of clarity about the career pathways facilitated by the research project pathways within these degrees may have an impact on both students’ professional trajectories and the nursing profession's ability to attract and develop research-skilled staff. This capability is a significant asset to advancing clinical practice and the broader field of nursing ( Ferreira et al., 2024).
Educational qualification frameworks emphasise the need for standardisation in advanced nursing education to ensure consistent learning outcomes and pathways ( Australian Qualifications Framework Council, 2013 ; New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 2016). However, this analysis highlights gaps in uniformity across hybrid nursing Master programs and underscores the need for a more cohesive approach to program design and delivery and website content.
5.2 Implications for career developmentHybrid nursing Master programs are often marketed as opportunities to advance clinical practice, management, education, or research careers ( Berthelsen and Hølge-Hazelton, 2017; Relster et al., 2023). However, the limited information on university websites linking research pathways to career opportunities diminishes their utility for prospective students. For example, very few universities provided explicit guidance on how research pathways align with professional goals, such as pursuing academic or clinical leadership roles. Furthermore, the lack of examples of potential research projects or the practical implications of research components may reduce the attractiveness of these programs for students considering undertaking research pathways within their Master degrees.
5.3 Challenges in information accessibilityUniversity websites, typically the first point of contact for prospective students, play a crucial role in decision-making. However, the study found that website content varied significantly in terms of the depth and accessibility of information about research project pathways in hybrid nursing Master degrees. Some sites included extensive descriptions of research pathway benefits, while others offered little guidance beyond general course details. For students contemplating research pathways, insufficient information on project types, learning outcomes and pathways to doctoral studies can lead to uncertainty. The content of university websites is typically determined by the institution, leaving individual nursing schools or departments limited influence over what information is prioritised or displayed. Schools with minimal online content may need to advocate for greater visibility of program-specific details to better guide prospective students. Moreover, students aiming to specialise in areas such as advanced clinical practice or academic research may struggle to find programs aligned with their objectives due to the fragmentation of information across different subjects and links. Enhancing the clarity and accessibility of program information could help bridge this gap. Enhanced website quality not only aids students in decision-making but can also reduce the volume of inquiries, easing the workload on academic and administrative staff.
5.4 Implications for data analysis of website documentsThe creation and use of the six-step framework for websites research (WEBRX) enabled the use of a structured process throughout the inquiry. Overall, we found the framework practical to use and noted its similarities to other structured inquiry processes. After creating and using the framework we have no recommendations to change any of the six steps.
The limitations of websites as data have been reported elsewhere, namely issues of inconsistency, accessibility and the absence of critical contextual information ( Cheng et al., 2023; Saichaie and Morphew, 2014; Yerlikaya and Durdu, 2017). Nevertheless, we consider that there was sufficient informational strength gained from the website document analysis to answer the research inquiry. Further, the findings provided some guidance for future developments in publicly available website information that universities might consider as they identify the features of their research project pathway within hybrid nursing Master degree programs.
5.5 LimitationsA website analysis is valuable for understanding the publicly available information about university programs and has the advantage of enabling inclusion of all relevant programs, which is unlikely to be achieved by other research methods. The main limitation, as noted above, is that the information provided therein may be incomplete, outdated, or lack sufficient depth, making it difficult to gain an accurate and comprehensive understanding of program structures. Caution is needed when using websites as the sole basis for evaluating programs or making decisions. The study findings may have limited relevance beyond the Australian and New Zealand context, as other countries are subject to different regulatory frameworks. There is opportunity to study this topic in other geographical contexts.
5.6 Recommendations and implications for the nursing professionFour main recommendations arise from this study. First, it would be useful to clarify the role and purpose of hybrid nursing Master degrees, providing a shared understanding of the skill set acquired and the value these qualifications bring to the profession. Second, standardising research project components across institutions would enhance the uniformity and quality of these programs, improving students’ readiness for graduate research programs. Third, universities should prioritise enhancing website content to offer clear and comprehensive information about research pathways, including career benefits, project examples and alignment with professional goals. Explicitly linking research pathways to career and academic opportunities would make these programs more appealing to prospective students, while greater transparency regarding pathways to graduate research programs, both within and between institutions, would enable students to make more informed decisions. Finally, further research is needed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of hybrid programs, including their impact on nursing careers, student experiences and comparative effectiveness in achieving educational objectives.
6 ConclusionHybrid nursing Master degrees in Australia and New Zealand show great potential to enhance nursing education by integrating research activity with coursework. However, the current variability in program design and information delivery via university websites highlights the need for greater consistency and transparency. Addressing these challenges can empower prospective students, streamline career pathways and ultimately strengthen the nursing profession.
Ethics approvalWas not required for this study
CRediT authorship contribution statementRachael Duncan: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. Rachel Cardwell: Writing – original draft, Investigation, Conceptualization. Cheryle Moss: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Investigation, Conceptualization. Gulzar Malik: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. Katherine Nelson: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal analysis. Beverley Copnell: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.
FundingThis study was funded by an internal seeding grant from the School of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University.
Declaration of Competing InterestThe authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
| Prerequisites | Australia | New Zealand | Total |
| | | | |
| None stated | 6 (27.3 %) | 2 (40.0 %) | 8 (29.6 %) |
| Completion research methods subjects, no minimum grade specified | 9 (40.9 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 9 (33.3 %) |
| Completion specific number of subjects, no minimum grade specified | 2 (9.1 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 2 (7.4 %) |
| Minimum grade required in research methods subject(s) (range 70–80 %) | 4 (18.2 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 4 (14.8 %) |
| Minimum grade required in 1st part of degree program (70 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 2 (40.0 %) | 2 (7.4 %) |
| Minimum grade required in research methods subjects AND 1st part of degree (range 65–70 %) | 1 (4.5 %) | 1 (20.0 %) | 2 (7.4 %) |
| Total number of pathways | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | 4 (28.57%) | 3 (75.00%) | 1 (50.00%) | 0 (0.0%) | 8 (38.09%) |
| | |||||
| | 9 (64.3%) | 3 (75.0%) | 1 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 13 (61.9%) |
| | 13 (92.9%) | 3 (75.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | 19 (90.5%) |
| | 11 (78.6%) | 2 (50.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | 16 (76.2%) |
| | 11 (78.6%) | 4 (100.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | 18 (85.7%) |
| | 6 (42.9%) | 2 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 8 (38.1%) |
| | 11 (78.6%) | 2 (50.0%) | 1 (50.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | 15 (71.4%) |
| | 8 (57.1%) | 3 (75.0%) | 1 (50.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | 13 (61.9%) |
| | 10 (71.4%) | 3 (75.0%) | 1 (50.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | 15 (71.4%) |
| | 7 (50.0%) | 2 (50.0%) | 1 (50.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | 11 (52.4%) |
| | |||||
| | 11 (78.6%) | 3 (75.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | 17 (81.0%) |
| | 3 (21.4%) | 2 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | 6 (28.6%) |
| | 12 (85.7%) | 2 (50.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | 17 (81.0%) |
| | 5 (35.7%) | 2 (50.0%) | 1 (50.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | 9 (42.9%) |
| | 4 (28.6%) | 2 (50.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 9 (42.9%) |
| | 10 (71.4%) | 1 (25.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 11 (52.4%) |
| | 13 (92.9%) | 4 (100.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | 20 (95.2%) |
| | 4 (28.6%) | 1 (25.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | 8 (38.1%) |
| | |||||
| | 12 (85.7%) | 4 (100.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | 19 (90.5%) |
| | 11 (78.6%) | 3 (75.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | 17 (81.0%) |
| | 9 (64.3%) | 4 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 13 (61.9%) |
| | 12 (85.7%) | 4 (100.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | 19 (90.5%) |
| | 3 (21.4%) | 1 (25.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | 5 (23.8%) |
| | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Task | Formative
n % | Summative
n % | Total
N % |
| Proposal /plan / protocol | 1 (4.8 %) | 9 (25.7 %) | 10 (17.9 %) |
| Oral presentation | 1 (4.8 %) | 9 (25.7 %) | 10 (17.9 %) |
| Draft chapters | 3 (14.3 %) | 3 (8.6 %) | 6 (10.7 %) |
| Ethics submission/ approval (or equivalent if approval not required) | 4 (19.1 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 4 (7.1 %) |
| Progress report | 1 (4.8 %) | 3 (8.6 %) | 4 (7.1 %) |
| Literature review | 1 (4.8 %) | 2 (5.7 %) | 3 (5.4 %) |
| Documented supervision meetings | 2 (9.5 %) | 1 (2.9 %) | 3 (5.4 %) |
| Written assignments (preparation subject) | 0 (0.0 %) | 3 (8.6 %) | 3 (5.4 %) |
| Learning contract | 0 (0.0 %) | 2 (5.7 %) | 2 (3.6 %) |
| Semester plan | 2 (9.5 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 2 (3.6 %) |
| Supervision agreement | 2 (9.5 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 2 (3.6 %) |
| Quizzes | 1 (4.8 %) | 1 (2.9 %) | 2 (3.6 %) |
| Nomination of supervisors and topic | 1 (4.8 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 1 (1.8 %) |
| Research integrity module | 1 (4.8 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 1 (1.8 %) |
| Systematic Review protocol outline | 1 (4.8 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 1 (1.8 %) |
| Argument/significance | 0 (0.0 %) | 1 (2.9 %) | 1 (1.8 %) |
| Poster | 0 (0.0 %) | 1 (2.9 %) | 1 (1.8 %) |
| Total number of tasks | | | |
| Output description | Australia
n % | NZ
n % |
| Not stated | 2 (8.3 %) | 2 (40.0 %) |
| Report, length unspecified | 3 (12.5 %) | 2 (40.0 %) |
| Thesis, length unspecified | 4 (16.7 %) | 1 (20.0 %) |
| Report 2000 words | 1 (4.2 %) | 0 (0.0 %) |
| Report 6–10,000 words | 3 (12.5 %) | 0 (0.0 %) |
| Thesis 10–15,000 words | 1 (4.2 %) | 0 (0.0 %) |
| Thesis 15–25,000 words | 3 (12.5 %) | 0 (0.0 %) |
| Report (length unspecified) or manuscript | 1 (4.2 %) | 0 (0.0 %) |
| Thesis (length unspecified) or drafted manuscripts | 1 (4.2 %) | 0 (0.0 %) |
| Thesis 15–20,000 words or manuscript | 1 (4.2 %) | 0 (0.0 %) |
| Report (length unspecified) plus manuscript | 1 (4.2 %) | 0 (0.0 %) |
| Manuscript for publication | 1 (4.2 %) | 0 (0.0 %) |
| Journal article 5000 words | 1 (4.2 %) | 0 (0.0 %) |
| Submitted journal article | 1 (4.2 %) | 0 (0.0 %) |
| Total number of pathways | | |
©2025. The Authors