“Am I doing my PhD right?” What to do when your research feels all over the place

Are you doing your PhD right?

You’re halfway through coding and suddenly freeze.

Am I actually identifying themes… or just making this up?

You’re revising your literature review and a new wave of doubt hits.

Have I been critical enough?

Should I have said more about that theory?

Is this structured properly?

That low-level, persistent fear that you’re getting it wrong is one of the most common doctoral experiences. It doesn’t mean you’re incapable. It doesn’t mean you’re getting anything wrong.

It means you’re doing work that has no clear template.

And that’s unsettling.

Where the “I’m doing it wrong” voice comes from

A PhD removes something most of us relied on for years: clear evaluation.

Before this, there were marks. Percentages. Rubrics. Clear signals that you were on track.

Doctoral work does not function like that.

You’re told to be original, but not reckless. Critical, but not dismissive. Methodologically rigorous, but flexible. Independent, but guided.

Those tensions create grey space. And grey space breeds doubt.

Add to that the fact that qualitative research in particular involves interpretation. You are making analytical decisions. You are shaping meaning. There is rarely one obvious “correct” answer.

So your brain tries to compensate.

It looks for certainty. When it cannot find it, it assumes error.

What this doubt does to your behaviour

This fear rarely stays abstract. It changes how you work.

You reread the same paragraph repeatedly, trying to make it “more critical” without knowing what that means.

You delay sending drafts because they don’t feel finished enough.

You tweak codes endlessly because you worry your theme names are not quite right.

You scroll academic Twitter or LinkedIn and convince yourself everyone else’s project looks clearer, sharper, more coherent.

Over time, the project that once felt interesting starts to feel threatening.

Not because it is wrong. Because you are constantly measuring it against an invisible, undefined standard.

The uncomfortable truth: there is no universal “right way”

There are disciplinary conventions. There are methodological standards. There are expectations around clarity and coherence.

But there is no single correct blueprint for a PhD.

Your examiner is not looking for replication of someone else’s structure. They are looking for:

• Clear research questions.

• A coherent methodological approach.

• Transparent reasoning.

• Well-grounded interpretation.

That is not the same as perfection.

Often, what you are interpreting as “wrong” is simply unfinished thinking. And unfinished thinking is part of research.

Shift the standard from “right” to “coherent”

Instead of asking, “Am I doing this right?”, try asking, “Can someone follow my logic?”.

If you explain why you chose interviews rather than surveys, and that choice aligns with your epistemological position, that is coherent.

If your themes are grounded in the data and you show how you developed them, that is coherent.

If your literature review organises debates thematically and explains where your study sits within them, that is coherent.

Different scholars might make different choices. That does not make yours incorrect.

What matters is that your reasoning is visible.

When you genuinely make a wrong turn

Sometimes you will pursue an analytical path that does not hold up. Sometimes a theme collapses. A theoretical framing feels forced. A section needs restructuring.

That is not evidence you are bad at research. It is evidence you are doing research.

Doctoral work involves iteration. You move forward, test ideas, realise something does not quite work, and adjust.

The fear says: I’ve ruined it.

Reality says: You’ve refined it.

A small grounding exercise

When the doubt is loud, pause and write down three concrete things that have moved your PhD forward recently.

Not dramatic milestones. Specific shifts.

You clarified a research question. You tightened a paragraph. You understood a difficult article on the second read. You identified why a theme did not quite fit.

These are signs of developing expertise.

You are not flailing. You are thinking.

You are allowed to be uncertain

Doctoral research requires you to operate without full certainty for long periods of time.

That does not mean you are on course to fail. It means you are working at the edge of your current knowledge.

The voice saying “You’re doing this wrong” is often just discomfort with ambiguity.

Instead of silencing it, respond with evidence. Look at the logic of your work. Look at the progress you have made. Seek feedback when needed.

You do not need absolute certainty to be on the right track. You need thoughtful, defensible reasoning.

You are doing something complex, interpretive and intellectually demanding.

And that is supposed to feel messy before it feels clear.

Want clearer structure and fewer spirals?

If this constant “Am I doing this right?” loop feels familiar, it usually means one thing: you need more clarity, not more effort.

That’s exactly what my PhD Survival Guides are designed to give you.

Each guide breaks down a specific stage of the doctorate - literature review, methodology, analysis, discussion, writing up - into clear, defensible decisions so you can stop second-guessing every move.

Instead of wondering whether you’re doing it “right,” you’ll know why you’re doing it that way.

You can explore the full Survival Guide collection here and find the one that fits where you are right now