[ModernMech]

The work you were given in your undergraduate and master’s was not research, it was homework. The task was critical reflection, which is repeatable and achievable for students; whereas research is expensive, one off, and generally out of reach for undergrads, and requires intensive oversight by an experienced researcher.

The waste of time would be for a professor to train you up to be a researcher before you’ve proven you are ready, hence the homework assignments.

[ifh-hn]

If that's the case then and researching is way above masters level then how is it you get on a PhD? Genuine question. If everything I've done to date is a pale imitation of the real thing how can I make a fair assessment as to whether I want to pursue a PhD?

[ModernMech]

You don’t really, and why a lot of people become researchers only to discover they hate it. But that’s true with all things.

I think the way to know if you want to be a researcher is more along the lines of: do you like finding the answers to questions no k e has thought to ask let alone answered? If so then it doesn’t really matter the training you’ve or the amount t of the field you’ve experienced, you can focus on that bit as your guiding force.

[aragilar]

No, it's not about whether masters or PhD, it's whether you did something new (the novelty aspect). It sounds to me that you did a coursework masters of some kind, which gave some basic literature analysis projects. This is like the first month of any research project, and is so you understand the context of the project. The actual work is doing the novel thing, and dealing with the repeated failures.

My suggestion is do a summer research project, and see if you enjoy it. If no-one will take you on, reflect on why that is (and to me that's a strong reason not to do it).