Book review: Building a Culture of Research in TESOL-Collaborations and Communities

Heriot-Watt University (HWU) is a global university with five academic Schools connected across five campuses. To foster a vibrant and inclusive research culture across the global research community, HWU has invested time and resource to strategically improve research culture, building on current strengths, while addressing cultural challenges faced by the research community. We have engaged all members of the community through a lengthy consultation and co-design process to co-produce a global action plan. The global community has a forward looking, unconstrained and ambitious future vision of what an ideal research culture at HWU should look like, and there are gaps between that vision and the diagnostic of perceptions of the ‘as-is’ culture. The action plan will drive forward an active strategy for supporting the research community. This paper gives an overview of the action plan development process using Lippitt and Knoster’s Model of Complex Change as a framework, sharing the key themes that emerged from consultations, plans for moving ahead, reflections on the successes and challenges, with a focus on how to foster research culture and connect a global university.

Plain English summaryThere is some evidence that there is a mismatch between what patients and health professionals want to see researched and the research that is actually done. The James Lind Alliance (JLA) research Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) were created to address this mismatch. Between 2007 and 2014, JLA partnerships of patients, carers and health professionals agreed on important treatment research questions (priorities) in a range of health conditions, such as Type 1 diabetes, eczema and stroke. We were interested in how much these JLA PSP priorities were similar to treatments undergoing evaluation and research over the same time span. We identified the treatments described in all the JLA PSP research priority lists and compared these to the treatments described in a group of research studies (randomly selected) registered publically. The priorities identified by JLA PSPs emphasised the importance of non-drug treatment research, compared to the research actually being done over the same time period, which mostly involved evaluations of drugs. These findings suggest that the research community should make greater efforts to address issues of importance to users of research, such as patients and healthcare professionals. Background Comparisons of treatment research priorities identified by patients and clinicians with research actually being done by researchers are very rare. One of the best known of these comparisons (Tallon et al. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer 355:2037–40, 2000) revealed important mismatches in priorities in the assessment of treatments for osteoarthritis of the knee: researchers preferenced drug trials, patients and clinicians prioritised non-drug treatments. These findings were an important stimulus in creating the James Lind Alliance (JLA). The JLA supports research Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) of patients, carers and clinicians, who are actively involved in all aspects of the process, to develop shared treatment research priorities. We have compared the types of treatments (interventions) prioritised for evaluation by JLA PSPs with those being studied in samples of clinical trials being done over the same period. Objective We used treatment research priorities generated by JLA PSPs to assess whether, on average, treatments prioritised by patients and clinicians differ importantly from those being studied by researchers. Methods We identified treatments mentioned in prioritised research questions generated by the first 14 JLA PSPs. We compared these treatments with those assessed in random samples of commercial and non-commercial clinical trials recruiting in the UK over the same period, which we identified using WHO’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Results We found marked differences between the proportions of different types of treatments proposed by patients, carers and clinicians and those currently being evaluated by researchers. In JLA PSPs, drugs accounted for only 18 % (23/126) of the treatments mentioned in priorities; in registered non-commercial trials, drugs accounted for 37 % (397/1069) of the treatments mentioned; and in registered commercial trials, drugs accounted for 86 % (689/798) of the treatments mentioned. Discussion Our findings confirm the mismatch first described by Tallon et al. 15 years ago. On average, drug trials are being preferenced by researchers, and non-drug treatments are preferred by patients, carers and clinicians. This general finding should be reflected in more specific assessments of the extent to which research is addressing priorities identified by the patient and clinician end users of research. It also suggests that the research culture is slow to change in regard to how important and relevant treatment research questions are identified and prioritised.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40900-015-0003-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s40900-015-0003-x.].

The emergence of vibrant research communities of computer scientists in Kenya and Uganda has occurred in the context of neoliberal privatization, commercialization, and transnational capital flows from donors and corporations. We explore how this funding environment configures research culture and research practices, which are conceptualized as two main components of a research community. Data come from a three-year longitudinal study utilizing interview, ethnographic and survey data collected in Nairobi and Kampala. We document how administrators shape research culture by building academic programs and training growing numbers of PhDs, and analyze how this is linked to complicated interactions between political economy, the epistemic nature of computer science and sociocultural factors like entrepreneurial leadership of key actors and distinctive cultures of innovation. In a donor-driven funding environment, research practice involves scientists constructing their own localized research priorities by adopting distinctive professional identities and creatively structuring projects. The neoliberal political economic context thus clearly influenced research communities, but did not debilitate computing research capacity nor leave researchers without any agency to carry out research programs. The cases illustrate how sites of knowledge production in Africa can gain some measure of research autonomy, some degree of global competency in a central arena of scientific and technological activity, and some expression of their regional cultural priorities and aspirations. Furthermore, the cases suggest that social analysts must balance structure with culture, place and agency in their approaches to understanding how funding and political economy shape scientific knowledge.

Background: The current performance of UK research can be presented as highly successful, but evidence has emerged about issues with working culture in research and the impact this may have on people and their work. Wellcome commissioned market research agency Shift Learning to investigate current perceptions and experiences of research culture among the research community. Methods: This article presents key findings from two phases of this project: 94 qualitative interviews and a quantitative e-survey with 4267 usable responses. Interview invitations were sent out to UK-based research staff at various career stages. The survey was open to international respondents, but the majority of responses came from the UK. Respondents came predominantly from academia and the sample was intentionally skewed towards biological and biomedical sciences. Results: While participants considered the quality of research outputs to have generally remained high, many felt that issues impacting research culture were becoming more apparent and there was real concern about the future of research professions and the high personal cost for individuals. Factors identified as disruptive to research culture included chasing impact, increased competition, proliferation of metrics, job insecurity and rigid career pathways. Poor research culture manifested in workplace behaviours and practices, including problems with management and leadership and unhealthy power dynamics, such as patronage, bullying and harassment, discrimination and exploitation. These conditions were linked to a range of negative impacts on the researchers and the research outputs. Conclusions: The research ecosystem is characterised by increased levels of competition, lack of job security and insufficient career flexibility. A key takeaway is that the conditions in which research takes place are not inclusive and lack sufficient support mechanisms, which is negatively affecting researchers’ wellbeing, and work-life balance. Such research culture was perceived as unsustainable.

Currently facing the issue of empirical research in education is about being faced with a reality decades and a number of open questions. It is these issues that focuses the attention of the author. This is because it is impossible to develop a rigorously scientific discourse on the recent past empirical research in education in Italy because of lack of analytical studies for reconstruction of the processes so far developed. And also because we are in the midst of a transition, characterized to speeches by the presence of a culture able to problematize the history of education. The author follows the suggestion made effective by Rorty and tries to promote the conversation as a method for keeping an open dialogue within the research community is the condition necessary to fertilize the culture of research.

There is increasing awareness about the necessity of measuring and assess the production of scientific knowledge to understand the importance of the contributions and the quality of scientific results. Only the course of time has given rise to an implicit consensus about this issue, with general ideas that affect to all the scientific communities, but reached by agreement within each speciality. In this work we address these questions, which will lead us to expose the difficulties of obtaining an efficient indicator of quality by paying attention only to a narrow group of measures. This is especially evident when we examine the distance between... (Ver mas) knowledge areas, with different research cultures and hence, different methods of assessing the quality of their work. Thus, we will argue that the assessment of the scientific quality must be carried out from an integral point of view by taking into account its multifactorial nature.

Watch VIDEO. Science plays a pivotal role in the advancement of democratic societies, and there is a growing consensus advocating for its recognition as both a common good and a fundamental human right. To effectively fulfil this role, science necessitates the trust of society, the support of policy makers, and robust international collaboration, enabling the mobility of researchers and the free flow of knowledge. To encourage this, our responsibilities as researchers extend beyond the realm of academic publishing. They encompass science outreach, education, diplomacy, policy advocacy, entrepreneurship, and collaborations aimed at addressing global challenges or progress towards more equitable societies. However, this is hampered by current research assessment practices and the academic reward system, which perpetuate a 'publish or perish' research culture that confines the scope of science to academic publishing, fosters privilege-based biases, and prioritises quantity over quality, as well as prestige over integrity. During this talk, I will share my personal journey as an early career researcher from the Global South, now affiliated with one of the most innovative research labs worldwide. My research journey, which was enabled by securing highly competitive funding since early stages of my career, provided me with first-hand insight into the biases and repercussions of current research assessment practices on the trajectories of researchers. Further validating this perspective is a ground-breaking study I co-led with colleagues from the Global Young Academy, exploring research assessment for career advancement on a global scale. This study shows that research institutions worldwide heavily rely on bibliometrics to evaluate career progression, irrespective of the academic discipline. However, while more established institutions appear to be walking away from these practices, these are becoming more popular in emerging research institutions from low-middle income countries. These findings highlight the need for transformational global (inclusive) initiatives. I am privileged to be part of one such initiative – The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA). CoARA brings together a community of researchers and research enablers dedicated to reforming this perilous research culture. CoARA’s guiding principles centre on acknowledging the diversity of contributions and careers in science, shifting research evaluation towards qualitative aspects where research ethics and integrity are at the core, and recognizing that excellence is context-dependent, varying for each candidate, role, and projects. A standout feature of CoARA is its unwavering commitment to early career researchers, placing them at the heart of its principles, governance, structures, and interventions. Thus, ensuring that future generation of scientific leaders is well-equipped to navigate and transform the landscape of research assessment and scientific culture.

Culture is increasingly cited as being in need of change if the UK construction industry is to improve its efficiency and productivity. The paper argues that the concept of culture is amenable to radically different treatments and that the research community must recognize the consequences of this choice if it is to make a useful contribution to bringing about the desired change. The dominant research paradigm in construction management is examined and compared to an alternative approach. The consequences attendant upon the choice between these two are explored with reference to four phenomena: a study of quality in the construction industry, Japanese innovation in management, Deming's concept of total quality management and the situation of the site engineer. It is concluded that the dominant rationalist paradigm tacitly endorses existing attitudes and that if researchers are to have a role in changing the culture of the industry, then the culture of research must change also.

Biomedical science has undergone a significant transformation in the last 75 years, shifting from discipline-based approaches to collaborative, multidisciplinary research teams. This evolution is evident in medical, dental, pharmacy, nursing, and allied health education. The convergence of biological and digital revolutions has reshaped clinical healthcare practices, fostering a more interconnected and holistic approach. This collaborative paradigm emphasizes a synergistic relationship between scientific disciplines, enhancing our understanding of health and disease.Critical factors in establishing a healthy research environment include the active involvement of faculty and administration, playing a pivotal role in nurturing a research culture by mentoring students. Additionally, the organization of workshops and seminars, coupled with access to digital libraries and research engines, facilitates students and researchers in conducting and writing research papers. Collaboration between different institutes is crucial, as it not only initiates but also contributes to the progress of the overall research culture. Ultimately, this sets an exemplary precedent for integrating research into various medical and dental institutions1. According to a study conducted in Nigeria, Medical and dental researchers in Nigeria perceive gender inequality embedded in research institutions, driven by societal, cultural, and religious patriarchal values. This results in low numbers of female trainees, decreased research output by female researchers compared to males, and a scarcity of women in senior managerial roles, similar trends are observed in Pakistan too. Substantial efforts are needed to establish a supportive environment for female researchers, involving the development, monitoring, and enforcement of norms fostering gender equality. There is a critical need to cultivate a pool of gender experts in medical and dental research institutions capable of designing and promoting effective measures for gender equality 2. Additional challenges encompass inadequate knowledge in paper writing, including data collection and research methodology, along with insufficient funds and support from faculty and administration 3. The fundamental challenge in Pakistan lies in the insufficient provision of research grant incentives for young researchers, coupled with the lack of enticing perks for those pursuing a career in research. Additionally, there is a pressing need to align our medical curriculum with research objectives. Surveys conducted indicate a pervasive lack of awareness in Pakistan concerning the significance and benefits of engaging in research activities. Addressing these issues is crucial for fostering a culture of research and innovation in the country 4. The future of medical and dental research is poised to undergo a significant transformation through digitization and the integration of artificial intelligence. This shift aligns with the demands of modern times, serving not only to invigorate existing research models but also to unlock the innovative potential within the realms of medical and dental research. This digitalization, coupled with the power of artificial intelligence, is expected to propel a paradigm shift in the approach to medical and dental research. In essence, the convergence of digitalization and artificial intelligence is not just a technological upgrade but a catalyst for a broader shift in the very nature of medical and dental research. As we embrace these technological advancements, the research community can anticipate a future where the boundaries of exploration are expanded, and the potential for groundbreaking discoveries is heightened, ultimately leading to a more profound and impactful era in medical and dental research 5. The Rehman College of Dentistry (RCD) took the lead in promoting a research culture by introducing courses like the Certificate in Health Research (CHR) for both undergraduate and postgraduates. These courses aim to instill critical thinking, reasoning skills, and a positive mindset towards research right from the beginning of their medical careers. In 2022, Rehman College of Dentistry took the initiative to organize the inaugural National Research Day, followed by the International Conference in Health Research in 2023, known as ICHR’23. During these events, a multitude of workshops and seminars were conducted, playing a crucial role in fostering a culture of research and scientific thinking. These activities also served as guiding beacons for other institutes in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), inspiring them to adopt a similar approach. In the future, the integration of diverse scientific perspectives is anticipated to generate new ideas and advancements in health education and research. Consequently, this is expected to result in enhanced outcomes for patients and contribute to the overall improvement of society. It involves a collaborative culture where thoughtful minds come together to ascend the steps of research and professionalism.

—which literally means science democracy—is a popular phrase among the Chinese research community. The exact meaningdemands anexplanation.Why?Science, frequently used in combination with the word research, pertains to the investigation of unknowns, or simply, to seek truth. Any breakthrough in science is always accomplished by one or a handful of individuals, who represent a negligible minority in the research community. Consequently, pioneering scientists need to educate and convince the community at large to accept the new findings.Democracy, on the other hand, refers to a compromised solution of resolving split opinions: thewill of the simplemajority is respected over that of the minority.Democracy is most frequently invoked in the political realm. Science and democracy are very different concepts and observe strikingly dissimilar protocols. Prior tomy return toChina, I hadnever noticed a single occasion of placing these twowords next to each other.The situation is starkly different in China.This phrase is frequently invoked in newspapers, research conferences, grant review processes, and science policymeetings.The phrase refers to the practice of ‘one person one vote’ in the selection of honorific prizes and grant applications.On the surface, the practice appears to be fair: each scientist is supposed to vote on the basis of his/her judgment on the scholarship of the prize nominees and grant applicants. In reality, however, the outcome is often surprising, with prizes and grants skipping clearlymore deserving individuals.How can this happen?The answer is straightforward: a sizable fraction of the selection committee members have chosen not to vote on the basis of scholarship, but on other considerations that the Chinese scientists know all too well. The consequence of this practice is a research culture of uniquely Chinese characteristic— an all-out lobbying effort is often orchestrated by the nominee/applicant and his/her institution. Sadly, the outcome often correlates positively with the veracity of the lobbying effort. Ironically, democracy is practiced in these ever-recurring incidences, but has undoubtedly failed to produce a result that respects the spirit of science. Those who knowingly voted against the lines of scholarship have violated his/her sacred duty of being a referee, but more seriously, may have committed scientific misconduct. This form of science democracy is nothing but contrary to the spirit of science and runs the risk of becoming a synonym for irresponsible behavior. Unfortunately, such practice is widely tolerated in China. Some people argue that, despite the immediate unfairness, the more deserving scientists can always get funding, either later or from elsewhere. Others claim that, although the selected awardees are not the best, they are competitive enough. Neither of these rationales is in line with the spirit of science. An evenmore bizarre notion suggests that the funding system in the USA is also inundated with non-science considerations. Such blatantly erroneous statements, often from individuals who superficially understand theUS system, enjoy empathy from quite a crowd, including some researchers and government officials. In the USA, the NIH Study Sections determine the fate of grant applications and are operated by a healthymix of scientific authority and democracy—where merit-based opinions always prevail. Notably, with comparable scholarship and grantsmanship, junior investigators are usually favoredover established scientists during panel discussion. A heated debate always erupts on any borderline application, with reviewers, discussants, and other participants speaking their beliefs. Scientific authority— scientific leaders in their chosen research fields—usually guides the discussion through forceful merit-based arguments. A consensus opinion is reached and a narrow score range is suggested. Any member who wishes to vote outside the suggested score range must publicly declare his/her intention of doing so. Consequently, reviewers are rarely, if ever, surprised by the winning applications. Needless to say, any form of lobbying effort by grant applicant is strictly forbidden and may result in outright disqualification if reported. Perhaps this practice exemplifies scientific democracy. Interestingly, elite research institutions such as Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) rely more heavily on scientific authority, rather than democracy, tomake award decisions. How can China improve its research culture?Most often the blame is placed on the policy and the system. Yes, improving the system is important, but an excellent system in China is usually defeated by all kinds of unspoken, under-table deals and agreements. Thus, no matter what the rules stipulate, conscientious self-discipline by reviewersmust be exercised. In the spirit of science, scientific leaders must speak out at all relevant occasions, advocating a merit-based evaluation system and promoting the interests of young scientists. Unless our scientific authority upholds ahigh level of integrity, the culturewon’t change for better. The tall order of improving China’s research culture is a prerequisite for China’s dream of becoming a world power in scientific discovery and technological innovation. Thepressure is squarely onChina’s scientific leaders to spearhead ahealthy research culture through advocating a trulymeritbased evaluation system.

PDF

At the higher education level, teachers are more effective as role-models. Given the independent nature of higher education, the impact of role-models is far reaching rather they either make or break the future academics and practices of their students. Higher education commission (HEC) of Pakistan is making all its efforts out to popularize ‘research-culture’ in every higher educational institution (HEI) of the country with a view to transforming into a knowledge economy, which is indispensable for the survival of our higher education at the global level of competition. Research culture can only become common place if the propagandists i.e. the teachers themselves are preparing and updating themselves to be effective role-models for the learners. HEC has introduced several ‘faculty development programs’ with the same objective of creating research environment through research-oriented faculties in HEIs of the country. On one hand teachers must learn research tools and techniques and on the other hand communicate their expertise in the seminars, conferences, and workshops for the students and colleagues thereby creating an echo of research culture across the seats of learning in the breadth and depth of the state. The knowledge and expertise of teachers in research methodologies is fundamental to the objective of becoming research role-model for the students and fellow teachers. All higher education teachers must do this individually and group-wise with utmost attention and by sparing their precious time so that results could be expected with precision and accuracy. If teachers can create the image of researcher-teachers among their pupil, there is natural reaction of following role-models in the same direction. Students can then be provided facilities and guidance in how to proceed and capitalize on research opportunities in their respective departments, institutions, national and international levels. As said earlier, teachers as research-models have to demonstrate themselves through different modes of behavior with their students and colleagues. The most dominant behavior is the expression of command over research methodology with focus on the updated knowledge and practices relevant to their field of study and research. The second and equally critical behavior is the readiness of teachers 24/7 to help students and fellow-teachers in any kind of research assignment or inquiry about understanding and/or application of research tools and techniques. The expertise of teacher in research, matters a lot however after this what makes the difference is the teacher’s explicit behavior like cooperation and attention while dealing with student-scholars in handling their research interests and practices. The research role-models have images in the research community and a say in research-related decision-making processes of the institute /department, which is valued and respected thereby motivating the students to be effectively committed. For higher education in Pakistan, research is the only future therefore all stakeholders in this sector, particularly teachers have no option but to whole-heatedly concentrate on nourishing their research knowledge and skills with an intention to contribute towards research culture in the country and help new generation becoming effective part of the global village and knowledge economy at the national and international levels simultaneously.

Preprints in perioperative medicine: immediacy for the greater good

A cultura da pesquisa em Secretariado é recente e tem sido amplamente fomentada e incentivada na esfera acadêmica e nos eventos acadêmicos e profissionais da área. Por isso, este estudo tem como objetivo analisar a produção científica dos bacharéis em Secretariado Executivo pela Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) no período de 2010 a 2015. Trata-se de uma pesquisa descritiva, bibliográfica, com abordagem quantitativa e qualitativa, utilizando para análise dos dados uma análise de conteúdo do item “Produções” do Currículo Lattes dos graduados pela UFC desde a fundação do curso, em 1995, até o ano de 2015. Dentre os principais resultados obtidos, a pesquisa apontou a necessidade de se diversificar os tipos de contribuição científica, pois a maior parte das pesquisas concentrou-se na apresentação de trabalhos; diversificar as temáticas pesquisadas, pois a maior parte concentrou-se na prática da profissão. Constatou-se também um aumento expressivo na produção científica nos anos de 2013 e 2014. Este trabalho suscitou a importância de se disseminar uma nova mentalidade acerca dos estudos secretariais, estimulando a produção de conhecimentos novos na área.