01/12/2025
When I saw a post recently about the “three stages” of a PhD, it stirred a deeper reflection in me - because my own journey didn’t unfold neatly within Year 1, Year 2, Year 3. Mine stretched across many years, multiple disciplines, shifting identities, and the full complexity of lived experience.
But the emotional arc?
That part was familiar.
Frame 1: “I’m going to change the world.”
I remember those early years: bright-eyed, fuelled by conviction, carrying big questions and even bigger purpose. I believed knowledge could transform lives, that research could heal, and that ideas carried power. I stepped into scholarship with naïve courage… and with the kind of courage that was absolutely necessary. It was a season of possibility, where the intellectual fire burned hottest.
Frame 2: “What exactly is my research again?”
Then came the years where the ground shifted under my feet.
Theory challenged me. Methods stretched me. The more I learned, the more I realised the vastness of what I didn’t know. I questioned my direction, my assumptions, and at times, my identity as a researcher. I revised, rewrote, reimagined.
I discovered the quiet truth that learning isn’t linear, it’s a spiral.
You return to the same questions at deeper levels, thinking you’re lost, when in fact you’re becoming.
Frame 3: “What is the world?”
Eventually, that profound intellectual humbling arrives.
You begin to see the limits of every framework, the messiness of lived reality, the complexity of human meaning. You realise your research isn’t just about producing knowledge; it’s about understanding yourself within the knowledge. It’s about asking better questions, not chasing perfect answers.
For me, that stage didn’t end with the thesis.
It stayed with me, shaping the years that followed.
Looking back now, I see with clarity:
The PhD was never the destination. It was the apprenticeship.
A training ground for learning how to learn.
For unlearning.
For reframing.
For beginning again with more depth and more honesty.
And somewhere along that journey, I quietly internalised another assumption:
that publication was supposed to be the ultimate marker of scholarly success, the academic “it.” The rhythm of “publish or perish” created an unspoken expectation about what impact should look like.
But here I stand: several years post-PhD, just beyond the emerging researcher phase…
with one publication from before the doctorate
and several unpublished manuscripts afterwards - not discarded, but intentionally repurposed.
Used for teaching.
For curriculum design.
For conceptual scaffolding.
For building new pedagogic pathways in Traditional Health Sciences Education.
At first, I wondered if this made me unconventional.
Now, I understand:
Knowledge doesn’t only change the world when it appears in a journal.
Sometimes it changes the world when it reaches the right people, the right classroom, the right community, the right moment.
Impact is not always reflected in citation metrics.
Sometimes it lives in the transformation of a discipline still emerging.
In the shaping of a field imagining itself anew.
In the intellectual futures we are building, often in uncharted terrain.
So perhaps I am changing the world -
Just not the one academia traditionally measures.
But the world of Traditional Health Sciences Education -
one framework, one conversation, one paradigm shift, one culturally grounded insight at a time.
And maybe that, too, is scholarship.
Maybe that, too, is legacy.