Guide research students to think like scientists

Many students enter research expecting instructions and clear answers. But scientific thinking develops through responsibility, reflection and integrity. Here, we’ll discuss practical ways supervisors can help early stage biomedical researchers grow into independent scientists.

When students expect instructions

When students first enter a research laboratory, many expect science to function like a recipe: follow the protocol, obtain the result, move on to the next step. This is understandable – much of their previous education rewarded correct answers and efficient execution of instructions. If the method is followed correctly, the outcome should match the expected answer. Research, however, rarely works this way.

• Look for research opportunities in everyday teaching
• Test match or T20? Helping PhD students navigate the multi-format reality of PhD research
• Has your relationship with your PhD lost its spark?

Experiments fail. Data behave unpredictably. Protocols need interpretation. And the most interesting scientific questions often appear only after something unexpected happens.

For supervisors working with early-stage researchers, this creates a familiar challenge: how to help students move from following instructions to thinking like scientists. My experience supervising biomedical students has taught me that the most effective way to support this transition is not simply teaching techniques. It is helping students develop responsibility for the research process itself.

Start with the question, not the protocol

Students often focus on procedures because clear instructions feel safe, and a protocol provides certainty in an unfamiliar environment. However, obeying protocols without understanding can easily lead to passive researchers. Before beginning an experiment, I ask students to pause and consider three simple questions:

• What scientific question does this experiment address?
• What result do you expect?
• What might the result mean if it is different from your expectation?

These conversations shift attention away from simply completing tasks. Instead, students begin to see experiments as tools for investigating a question.

This habit is particularly important in biomedical research, where experiments are rarely perfectly predictable. Students who understand the purpose behind an experiment are much better prepared to interpret unexpected outcomes and adjust their thinking. Over time, this simple practice encourages curiosity, ownership and scientific reasoning. 

Make academic integrity part of daily practice

Academic integrity is often introduced through formal ethics training. Yet its real meaning becomes clear only in everyday research practice. In our laboratory, integrity is reinforced through routine habits: maintaining clear and detailed laboratory notebooks; discussing raw data openly during lab meetings; explaining how conclusions are drawn from observations.

These discussions remind students that scientific credibility does not come from polished figures alone. It is built on transparent documentation, careful interpretation and honest reporting of results.

Students quickly learn that a well-documented experiment that did not produce the expected result is far more valuable than a perfect-looking figure that cannot be explained. When integrity becomes part of daily laboratory culture, students begin to see it not as a rule imposed by supervisors but as a professional responsibility.

Encourage independent interpretation

One of the most important transitions in research training occurs when students begin to interpret their own results. Early stage researchers often look to their supervisor for the “correct” answer. While guidance is essential, constantly providing interpretations can unintentionally limit students’ development. Instead, invite students to analyse their results before offering suggestions. Simple questions can encourage this process:

• What do you think this result might indicate?
• What possible explanations could exist?
• What experiment might help distinguish between these explanations?

At first, students may hesitate, and their ideas may be incomplete or uncertain. But these conversations gradually build confidence in analytical thinking. Scientific thinking develops not through memorising answers but through learning how to ask better questions.

Treat mistakes as part of training

Mistakes in the laboratory are inevitable, particularly for students who are still learning experimental techniques. New researchers may miscalculate reagent concentrations, misinterpret results or repeat experiments that do not behave as expected. 

How supervisors respond to these situations can shape the entire learning environment. If we treat mistakes as failures, students become cautious and reluctant to take initiative. If we analyse mistakes as part of the research process, they become valuable learning opportunities. 

In our discussions, we try to focus less on identifying who made a mistake and more on understanding what the experiment teaches us about the system we are studying. This perspective helps students recognise that scientific progress rarely follows a straight line. Reflection and adaptation are essential parts of the process.

Guiding students along the path of research

The Kazakh philosopher Abai once reflected on how people spend their lives pursuing different paths in search of meaning, including the pursuit of knowledge. In research supervision, this idea resonates strongly. Students do not become scientists simply by completing experiments. They grow through a gradual process of learning to question assumptions, interpret evidence and take responsibility for their work. 

The role of the supervisor is not to control every step of this journey, but to guide students as they develop these habits. When responsibility replaces dependency and integrity becomes routine, students begin to see themselves as emerging members of the scientific community. And that transformation may be the most important outcome of research supervision: path over ego. Process over perfection. Responsibility over instruction.

Kamilya Kokabi is assistant professor in the department of biomedical sciences at Nazarbayev University.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.