Nurturing a positive research culture within your organization.

Positive research cultures provide the environment for scientists to explore ideas, grow as individuals, develop team science and create a positive impact on those around them. While positive research cultures need to grow from the kindness and integrity of team members, organization policy can either help or hinder this organic positive behavior. A focus on policies to enhance positive research culture can benefit even high-functioning organizations, by expanding and extending the benefits. Here we focus on key actionable areas to create and reinforce a positive research culture in your organization. We discuss the role of aligning staff recognition to the organization's missions, the influence of the organization unit and career structure on the research culture, the pyramid of building respectful interactions, the value of openness and transparency and the overarching goal of equality, diversity and inclusivity within the organization.

Designing interview questions to find the right candidate.

Asking the right questions during a job interview helps you find the best person for your team. A well-crafted question will allow the applicants to shed light on their skills and their passion for science. Just as importantly, good interview questions can let you know about the applicants' support expectations and needs, and their approach to lab citizenship and research culture. Here we crowd-sourced the #ImmunologyFutures community for their go-to job interview questions, to help you find the right candidate for your position.

Understanding the value of a doctorate for allied health professionals in practice in the UK: a survey.

BACKGROUND: The need to transform the United Kingdom's (UK) delivery of health and care services to better meet population needs and expectations is well-established, as is the critical importance of research and innovation to drive those transformations. Allied health professionals (AHPs) represent a significant proportion of the healthcare workforce. Developing and expanding their skills and capabilities is fundamental to delivering new ways of working. However, career opportunities combining research and practice remain limited. This study explored the perceived utility and value of a doctorate to post-doctoral AHPs and how they experience bringing their research-related capabilities into practice environments. METHODS: With a broadly interpretivist design, a qualitatively oriented cross-sectional survey, with closed and open questions, was developed to enable frequency reporting while focusing on the significance and meaning participants attributed to the topic. Participants were recruited via professional networks and communities of practice. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse closed question responses, while combined framework and thematic analysis was applied to open question responses. RESULTS: Responses were received from 71 post-doctoral AHPs located across all four UK nations. Findings are discussed under four primary themes of utilisation of the doctorate; value of the doctorate; impact on career, and impact on self and support. Reference is also made at appropriate points to descriptive statistics summarising closed question responses. CONCLUSION: The findings clearly articulate variability of experiences amongst post-doctoral AHPs. Some were able to influence team and organisational research cultures, support the development of others and drive service improvement. The challenges, barriers and obstacles encountered by others reflect those that have been acknowledged for many years. Acknowledging them is important, but the conversation must move forward and generate positive action to ensure greater consistency in harnessing the benefits and value-added these practitioners bring. If system-wide transformation is the aim, it is inefficient to leave navigating challenges to individual creativity and tenacity or forward-thinking leaders and organisations. There is an urgent need for system-wide responses to more effectively, consistently and equitably enable career pathways combining research and practice for what is a substantial proportion of the UK healthcare workforce.

Research-related knowledge, understanding and practice in public mental health: the voices of social workers and occupational therapists.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have explored facilitators and barriers to research conducted by allied health professionals in general medical settings. Since the mental health system is acknowledged to be significantly under-funded and more poorly functioning than general medical services, it is unclear whether the published facilitators and barriers also apply to mental health settings. This study sought to explore the research-related knowledge, understanding and practices of allied mental health clinicians based in a large public mental health service. METHODS: A mixed methods study recruited 59 occupational therapists and social workers working in a dedicated metropolitan public mental health service in Melbourne, Australia. Quantitative survey results are reported elsewhere. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 survey responder volunteers. Thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative survey and interview data. RESULTS: Four main themes were identified: research must connect with clinical practice; fragments of knowledge; research in practice; and research is not part of my professional identity. The third theme, research in practice, comprised four subthemes: no time for research in clinical roles, missing communication, lack of ownership, and what I need to do research. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that research and research-related activities were not considered part of the mental health social workers and occupational therapists' professional identities. Dealing with this issue may be instrumental to the realization of these clinicians' professional peak-body associations' code of practice and to government mandated practice standards. We provided several strategies to encourage both clinicians and services to view research-related activities as an everyday part of clinical roles. This is especially important if we think of allied health evidence-based practice requiring a reasonable level of research-related skills and/or competencies to appraise, practice, evaluate and adapt their evidence-based practice.

Early career researchers in health policy and systems research: insights from freelancers in a non-profit organization in the Philippines.

BACKGROUND: The freelance economy has seen rapid growth worldwide in recent years and the Philippines is not an exception. Freelance workers are becoming increasingly common in healthcare and research. Early career researchers carry out most of scientific research and can play a critical role in advancing public health by bringing new perspectives and diversity to the field. Existing literature has mostly focused on the experiences of early career researchers in an institutional academic setting. This study aimed to understand the experiences of freelance early career researchers in the health policy and systems space in the Philippines. METHODS: This qualitative study collected data from 18 to 22 March 2022 through virtual interview and focus group discussions. Themes and codes were created based on the topic guide developed. New themes and codes were generated as they emerged. Two researchers coded the data using both a priori and emergent codes. Any coding conflicts were resolved through discussions until intercoder agreement was reached. Interpretation and conclusions from the data were developed by 2 researchers with consideration for its context and relationship between themes. RESULTS: Fifteen current and former freelance researchers participated in the study. Most are female, under 35 years old, and with an undergraduate degree as the highest educational attainment. The findings highlight insights and challenges faced by early career researchers in aspects of: (1) work arrangement, (2) tasks, (3) expectations from senior researchers, (4) development in the health policy and systems field, (5) relationship with peers, and (6) motivations for continuing to work as a freelance health policy and systems researcher. CONCLUSION: This study reveals the challenges freelance early career researchers face, highlighting the need for enhanced support and recognition amidst rapidly evolving workforce demands and complex health dilemmas. Recommendations include structured mentorship, professional development, innovative funding models, and the establishment of a supportive network. Advocacy for policies ensuring freelancer inclusion in the economy and policy-making is crucial. Future research should investigate their experiences further, including their roles, transitions, and the impacts of funding trends, to foster their development and integration into public health research and policy.

Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies.

Research Integrity (RI) is high on the agenda of both institutions and science policy. The European Union as well as national ministries of science have launched ambitious initiatives to combat misconduct and breaches of research integrity. Often, such initiatives entail attempts to regulate scientific behavior through guidelines that institutions and academic communities can use to more easily identify and deal with cases of misconduct. Rather than framing misconduct as a result of an information deficit, we instead conceptualize Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) as attempts by researchers to reconcile epistemic and social forms of uncertainty in knowledge production. Drawing on previous literature, we define epistemic uncertainty as the inherent intellectual unpredictability of scientific inquiry, while social uncertainty arises from the human-made conditions for scientific work. Our core argument-developed on the basis of 30 focus group interviews with researchers across different fields and European countries-is that breaches of research integrity can be understood as attempts to loosen overly tight coupling between the two forms of uncertainty. Our analytical approach is not meant to relativize or excuse misconduct, but rather to offer a more fine-grained perspective on what exactly it is that researchers want to accomplish by engaging in it. Based on the analysis, we conclude by proposing some concrete ways in which institutions and academic communities could try to reconcile epistemic and social uncertainties on a more collective level, thereby reducing incentives for researchers to engage in misconduct.

The faculty-to-faculty mentorship experience: a survey on challenges and recommendations for improvements.

Faculty at research institutions play a central role in advancing knowledge and careers, as well as promoting the well-being of students and colleagues in research environments. Mentorship from experienced peers has been touted as critical for enabling these myriad roles to allow faculty development, career progression, and satisfaction. However, there is little information available on who supports faculty and best ways to structure a faculty mentorship programme for early- and mid-career academics. In the interest of advocating for increased and enhanced faculty mentoring and mentoring programmes, we surveyed faculty around the world to gather data on whether and how they receive mentoring. We received responses from 457 early- and mid-career faculty and found that a substantial portion of respondents either reported having no mentor or a lack of a formal mentoring scheme. Qualitative responses on the quality of mentorship revealed that the most common complaints regarding mentorship included lack of mentor availability, unsatisfactory commitment to mentorship, and non-specific or non-actionable advice. On these suggestions, we identify a need for training for faculty mentors as well as strategies for individual mentors, departments, and institutions for funding and design of more intentional and supportive mentorship programmes for early- and mid-career faculty.

Development of a research capacity and culture tool for people with lived experience of mental health challenges.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated research capacity and culture in people with lived experience of mental health challenges by developing a quantitative tool that measures capacity to engage in research. METHOD: A cross-sectional, correlational methodology was employed, which comprised of three phases: lived experience consultations for item development (n = 15), item refinement (n = 20) and tool piloting. Items were adapted from, and extended, an existing research capacity and culture tool for healthcare workers. People (N = 112) with lived experience as mental health consumers, carers, peer workers and/or advocates aged 18-75 years took part in the tool piloting survey. RESULTS: Overall, participants rated their individual research capacity and culture skills as moderate (mean = 5.41, standard deviation = 2.04). The most commonly reported barriers to research engagement related to lack of knowledge, familiarity or experience with the research process. The most commonly reported enablers were altruistic, such as using their experiences to improve services and help others. Research capacity and culture significantly correlated with current research activities (rs = 0.25-0.41; ps < 0.05), but not with being a research participant (r = 0.09; p > 0.05), suggesting that building research capacity of people with lived experience requires them to be active members of research teams. CONCLUSION: The Lived Experience research capacity and culture tool developed in this study revealed that people with lived experience of mental health challenges are intrinsically motivated to engage in research to improve consumer outcomes. The tool may be useful to assess self, research team and organisational preparedness to conduct genuinely co-designed research, and to assess changes in lived experience research capacities and culture over time.

Allied health professionals' research capacity: open to interpretation?

Allied health professional research capacity and culture has been the focus of growing research interest of late. The recent study by Comer et al. represents the largest survey of allied health research capacity and culture to date. We congratulate the authors on this work and would like to raise some discussion points in relation to their study.The authors have interpreted their research capacity and culture survey results using cut-off values to indicate a degree of adequacy in relation to perceived research success and/or skill level. To our knowledge, the constructs of the research capacity and culture tool have not been validated to an extent that would enable such an inference to be made.Comer et al. describe perceived individual research success and/or skill as adequate, but the rating of skills in areas necessary for the conduct of original research, such as writing research protocols, ethics submissions, securing funding, and writing for publication range from median scores one to three, which is considered 'less than adequate' on the interpretation scale used by the authors.The survey results for the individual and organisational domains reported in Comer et al. are comparable to other similar studies. However, they uniquely conclude research success and/or skill to be adequate in both domains, which is contrary to the interpretation of the other studies.The interpretation of allied health professional research success and skill offered by Cromer et al. differs from studies with similar results and is contrary to previous reports of insufficient research capacity in terms of research trained and active practitioners within these professions in the UK.

Nursing, midwifery, and allied health professions research capacities and cultures: a survey of staff within a university and acute healthcare organisation.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing focus on the development of research capacity and culture in Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP). However, better understanding of the existing research success and skills, motivators, barriers, and development needs of NMAHP professionals is required to inform this development. This study sought to identify such factors within a university and an acute healthcare organisation. METHODS: An online survey, incorporating the Research Capacity and Culture tool, was administered to NMAHP professionals and students at a university and an acute healthcare organisation in the United Kingdom. Ratings of success/skill levels of teams and individuals were compared between professional groups using Mann-Whitney U tests. Motivators, barriers, and development needs were reported using descriptive statistics. Descriptive thematic analysis was used for open-ended text responses. RESULTS: A total of 416 responses were received (N&M n = 223, AHP n = 133, Other n = 60). N&M respondents were more positive than their AHP counterparts about the success/skill levels of their teams. There were no significant differences between N&M and AHP in their ratings of individual successes/skills. Finding and critically reviewing relevant literature were identified as specific individual strengths; with weaknesses in securing research funding, submitting ethics applications, writing for publication, and advising less experienced researchers. The main motivators for research were to develop skills, increased job satisfaction, and career advancement; whilst barriers included lack of time for research and other work roles taking priority. Key support needs identified included mentorship (for teams and individuals) and in-service training. Open-ended questions generated main themes of 'Employment & staffing', 'Professional services support', 'Clinical & academic management', 'Training & development', 'Partnerships' and 'Operating principles'. Two cross-cutting themes described issues common to multiple main themes: 'Adequate working time for research' and 'Participating in research as an individual learning journey'. CONCLUSIONS: Rich information was generated to inform the development of strategies to enhance research capacity and culture in NMAHP. Much of this can be generic but some nuances may be required to address some specific differences between professional groups, particularly related to perceived team success/skills and priorities identified for support and development.

'Language has been granted too much power'.1,p.1 Challenging the power of words with time and flexibility in the precommencement stage of research involving those with cognitive impairment.

Meaningful and inclusive involvement of all people affected by research in the design, management and dissemination of that research requires skills, time, flexibility and resources. There continue to be research practices that create implicit and explicit exclusion of some members of the public who may be 'seldom heard' or 'frequently ignored'. Our focus is particularly on the involvement of people living with cognitive impairment, including people with one of the many forms of dementia and people with learning disabilities. We reflect especially on issues relating to the precommencement stage of research. We suggest that despite pockets of creative good practice, research culture remains a distinct habitus that continues to privilege cognition and articulacy in numerous ways. We argue that in perpetuating this system, some researchers and the institutions that govern research are committing a form of bureaucratic violence. We call for a reimagining of the models of research governance, funding and processes to incorporate the time and flexibility that are essential for meaningful involved research, particularly at the precommencement stage. Only then will academic health and social science research that is truly collaborative, engaged, accessible and inclusive be commonplace. PUBLIC AND PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: This viewpoint article was written by a research network of academics with substantial experience in undertaking and researching patient and public involvement and codesign work with representatives of the public and patients right across the health system. Our work guided the focus of this viewpoint as we reflected on our experiences.

Allied health professionals' perceptions of research in the United Kingdom national health service: a survey of research capacity and culture.

BACKGROUND: With growing recognition of the importance of research in allied healthcare, the new Health Education England (HEE) research strategy articulates a need to transform Allied Health Professional (AHP) identities, culture and roles. An understanding of current AHP research capacity and culture is first required. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey targeted AHPs working in NHS health and social care settings across the United Kingdom. The validated Research Capacity and Culture tool was modified and distributed through research and professional networks. Aggregate median scores for perceived research success were categorised as adequate, more than, or less than adequate. RESULTS: Of 3344 participants, 3145 identified as HEE-defined AHPs. Individual- and organisation-level research success was perceived as adequate (median scores 4 (IQR 2 to 6); 4 (IQR 2 to 7) respectively). Team-level research success was rated less than adequate (median score 2 (IQR 1-5)). CONCLUSIONS: In the UK, AHPs working in NHS health and social care perceive individual and organisational level research skill/success to be adequate. In contrast, inadequacies in research skill/support at team level were exposed, which may hinder successful integration of allied health research into everyday health and social care practice. Recommendations are made with reference to the HEE AHP research strategy.

Exploring research capacity and culture of allied health professionals: a mixed methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Despite the myriad benefits of research to patients, professionals, and organisations, fewer than 0.1% of the Allied Health Professions workforce are employed in clinical academic roles. Identified barriers include a lack of role modelling, management support, funding, and availability of clinical academic roles. Research capacity building is critical to improving Allied Health Professional research capability. The aim of this evaluation was to explore the current research capacity and culture of Allied Health Professionals to inform future tailored research capacity building strategies at a local level. METHODS: A mixed methods evaluation of research capacity and culture was conducted within the Allied Health Professions department of a large National Health Service Foundation Trust using an online research capacity and culture questionnaire, followed by focus groups. Staff were recruited using a purposive method with the questionnaire and subsequent focus groups completed between July and September 2020. Data from the questionnaire was analysed using simple descriptive statistics and after inductive coding, focus group data was analysed thematically. RESULTS: 93 out of 278 staff completed the questionnaire and 60 staff members attended seven focus groups. The research capacity and culture survey reported the department's key strength as promoting clinical practice based on evidence (median=8, range=6-9). A key reported weakness of the department was insufficient resources to support staff research training (med=4, 3-6). Respondents considered themselves most skilled in finding relevant literature (med=6, 5-8) and least skilled at securing research funding (med=1, 1-2). Greater than half of the respondents (n=50) reported not currently being involved with research. Five themes were identified from the focus groups: empowerment; building research infrastructure; fostering research skills; access for all; and positive research culture. CONCLUSIONS: Allied Health Professionals recognise the benefits of research at teams and departmental level, but marginally at an individual level. Local research capacity building strategies should aim to address the role, responsibilities and barriers to Allied Health Profession research development at an individual level. To ensure all staff can engage, research infrastructure and empowerment are essential.

Research capacity and culture in an Australian metropolitan public mental health service: scoping the skills and experience of social workers and occupational therapists.

BACKGROUND: Investment in a clinical research culture appears to be associated with benefits for consumers, staff, and overall organisational performance. The validated 55-item Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) tool was developed specifically to gauge the research capacity and culture of health professionals and workplace settings within which they work. Results of some individual studies suggest that professional discipline and workplace setting may impact RCC results however it has never been used in a dedicated public mental health setting. Therefore, this study will explore the research capacity and culture of allied mental health clinicians (Part 1). Another aim is to explore potential connections between workplace settings, locations and disciplines based on published RCC-based data to help signpost potential impediments to service improvements (Part 2). METHODS: Part 1: An RCC-based online survey canvased Australian Social Workers and Occupational Therapists (n = 59) based in a metropolitan public mental health service. Non-parametric analyses explored links between research-related experience and participant characteristics. Part 2: Comparative analyses explored the potential influence of workplace settings and professional disciplines on published RCC results. RESULTS: Part 1: Overall, the research capacity and experiences of mental health Social Workers and Occupational Therapists seemed modest. Discipline was statistically associated with level of research-activity experience, weighted towards occupational therapy; demographic characteristics were not. Only two items in the RCC were rated high; many more items were rated low. Part 2: Published studies exploration found no link between RCC ratings and workplace location, setting, or professional discipline. Sampling biases and use of modified, non-validated RCC versions likely impacted the results. CONCLUSIONS: Allied mental health clinicians may not be sufficiently experienced, knowledgeable, or confident with a range of research-related activities given the emphasis on workforce research capability in policy and practice nowadays. This may be commonplace across health-based organisations. We recommend the systematic implementation of research training programs in (mental) health services, and a 'whole-of-service levels' approach be used i.e., transform policy, culture and leadership as well as provide practical resources with individual training. Potential benefits include a positive impact on organisation functioning, clinicians' confidence and practice, and improved consumer outcomes.

Embedded researchers in Australia: Survey of profile and experience across medical, nursing and midwifery and allied health disciplines.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study explores embedded researcher's age, qualifications, research environment and experience in healthcare and academic organisations in Australia and makes comparisons across three core professional disciplines of nursing and midwifery, medicine and allied health. BACKGROUND: The embedded researcher model, where a researcher is embedded as a core member of the clinical team, offers promise to support the implementation of research evidence into practice. Currently, there is a lack of clarity about how the model has been adopted across the three largest professional disciplines in Australian health care. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was designed and reported, using the STROBE Statement. METHODS: A purposive sample of embedded researchers was invited to participate in an exploratory online survey. Embedded researchers worked, or had worked, for a minimum of 30% of their time, in a healthcare organisation doing research or building research capacity. Participant responses were extracted from the survey and imported into SPSS for analysis. RESULTS: Perspectives of 100 Australian embedded researchers were compared across nursing and midwifery (36%, n = 37), allied health (35%, n = 36) and medicine (26%, n = 27). Professional differences are reported in respondents' qualifications and experience, employment conditions and their research cultures and environments. Comparatively, most nursing and midwifery embedded researchers were older, more clinically experienced than allied health respondents, who were more research qualified. Medical-embedded researchers are typically older, more clinically experienced and focussed on producing personally relevant clinical research. Nursing and midwifery embedded researchers reported doing clinical research within their teams, as well as research capacity building, management and clinical practice roles. CONCLUSIONS: Embedded researchers describe different career trajectories across the three largest professional disciplines in Australian health care. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Embedded researchers from different professional disciplines enact their work differently. It appears that when they engage in research capacity building via a range of management and networking roles, embedded researchers contribute to their organisation's research culture and receive greater recognition for their achievements.

Global Catastrophic Risk and the Drivers of Scientist Attitudes Towards Policy.

An anthropogenic global catastrophic risk is a human-induced risk that threatens sustained and wide-scale loss of life and damage to civilisation across the globe. In order to understand how new research on governance mechanisms for emerging technologies might assuage such risks, it is important to ask how perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes towards the governance of global catastrophic risk within the research community shape the conduct of potentially risky research. The aim of this study is to deepen our understanding of emerging technology research culture as it relates to global catastrophic risks, and to shed new light on how new research governance mechanisms might be developed. We analyse in-depth interviews with leading AI and biotech researchers both from universities and the private sector. We develop new insights in terms of four salient themes. First, 'engineering mindset', which highlights the premium placed by many interviewees on pursuing interesting research about the physical world for its own sake. Second, 'self-government', which looks at how self-regulation of technological development currently occurs. Third, 'pure incentives', focussing on how career and other incentives shapes research. Fourth, 'norms and persuasion', which examines the role of moral considerations in guiding the research choices of scientists. We end by considering the implications of these findings for future research on governance of anthropogenic global catastrophic risk.

The usability and applicability of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks for research in the context of a national health service.

BACKGROUND: Translating research findings into service improvements for patients and/or policy changes is a key challenge for health service organizations. The Health Service Executive (HSE) in Ireland launched the Action Plan for Health Research 2019-2029, as reported by Terrés (HSE, Dublin, 2019), one of the goals of which is to maximize the impact of the research that takes place within the service to achieve improvements in patient care, services, or policy change. The purpose of this research is to review the literature on knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) and to assess the suitability of the TMFs for HSE use, selecting one or more for this purpose. The aim is to produce guidance for HSE researchers and other health services staff, validate the usability of the framework(s) with researchers, and review and implement the guidance. It was hoped that identifying a suitable methodology would provide the means to increase the uptake and application of research findings, and reduce research wastage. This paper reports on the first part of the study: the review, assessment, and selection of knowledge translation TMFs for a national health service. METHODS: An interdisciplinary working group of academic experts in implementation science, research wastage, and knowledge translation, along with key representatives from research funders (Health Research Board) and HSE personnel with expertise in quality improvement and research management, undertook a three-stage review and selection process to identify a knowledge translation TMF that would be suitable and usable for HSE purposes. The process included a literature review, consensus exercise, and a final consensus workshop. The review group adopted the Theory Comparison and Selection Tool (T-CaST) developed by Birken et al. (Implement Sci 13: 143, 2018) to review knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks. RESULTS: From 247 knowledge translation TMFs initially identified, the first stage of the review identified 18 that met the criteria of validity, applicability, relevance, usability, and ability to be operationalized in the local context. A further review by a subgroup of the working group reduced this number to 11. A whole-group review selected six of these to be reviewed at a facilitated consensus workshop, which identified three that were suitable and applicable for HSE use. These were able to be mapped onto the four components of the HSE knowledge translation process: knowledge creation, knowledge into action, transfer and exchange of knowledge, and implementation and sustainability. CONCLUSION: The multiplicity of knowledge translation TMFs presents a challenge for health service researchers in making decisions about the appropriate methods for disseminating their research. Building a culture that uses research knowledge and evidence is important for organizations seeking to maximize the benefits from research. Supporting researchers with guidance on how to disseminate and translate their research can increase the uptake and application of research findings. The use of robust selection criteria enabled the HSE to select relevant TMFs and develop a process for increasing the dissemination and translation of research knowledge. The guidance developed to inform and educate researchers and knowledge users is expected to increase organizational capacity to promote a culture of research knowledge and evidence use within the HSE.

Medical Educators' Perceptions of Research Culture in a Faculty of Health Sciences: A South African Study.

Phenomenon: In South Africa, as with many other developing countries, a call has been made for institutions of higher learning to participate in more research and set the pace for societal transformation. At the Faculty of Health Sciences (FoHS), University of the Free State (UFS), numerous strategic efforts are focused on supporting and stimulating research. An essential prerequisite for the success of these vital efforts is to be aware of the research culture within the academic faculties. A peculiarity of medical colleges in South Africa is that medical faculties are in partnership with the government through the academic training hospitals; hence, staff appointment occurs through a joint structure with both the provincial Department of Health and the National Health Laboratory Services. So far, no known study has investigated research culture in this context (joint staff appointment). Approach: This study included elements of case study evaluation and improvement-oriented evaluation. We distributed to 242 educators a structured questionnaire to obtain perceptions of aspects of research, research processes, and existing research culture in the FoHS, UFS. Suggestions on how to improve the research culture also were obtained. The structured questionnaire was self-administered, consisted of closed and open-ended questions grouped into five main sections, and was distributed electronically and manually (hard copy) to participants. Findings: One-hundred-eleven questionnaires were returned (46% response rate). Motivation to do research varied by school and included career advancement (77%, School of Allied Health Professions); change the situation (80%, Academic support); develop individual skillset (67%, School of Nursing) and improve patient care (62%, School of Medicine). Perceived factors affecting research culture included limited funding and allocated time for research, minimal leadership support for research, and absence of research-related support structures as well as minimal teamwork/collaboration. Frustration was the most reported (negative) emotion (25%). Participants suggested that encouraging teamwork among staff, reducing workload to allow time for research, establishing a mentorship program, providing training on deficient skills, and more support from leadership would improve research culture. Insights: This present study reveals some of the factors that impact negatively on research, research culture, and productivity in a medical college in a resource-limited setting. While the benefits of joint staff appointment cannot be overemphasized, our findings highlight that the complex interplay between employers/stakeholders result in poorly executed joint appointment scheme/models (i.e., competitive approach) and creates numerous challenges that negatively impact research productivity and research culture. Recommendations suggested herein can be implemented by the FoHS and other medical colleges in similar contexts to improve research productivity and foster an enabling research culture.

Creating a practice-related culture for research: A qualitative study of engaging clinical nurses in utilization of developmental and research-based knowledge in hospital settings.

AIM: To describe academic nurses' experiences engaging clinical nurses in utilizing and implementing developmental and research-based knowledge in hospital settings. METHODS: This study used a descriptive qualitative design. Fourteen academic nurses at Masters or PhD level from three different regions of Denmark participated in the study, relating their successful experiences engaging clinical nurses in utilizing and implementing developmental and research-based knowledge. Data were collected in February 2020 through qualitative semi-structured interviews and analysed using a qualitative manifest content analysis. RESULTS: The main theme revealed was that academic nurses were 'Working towards creating a practice-related culture for research' to engage clinical nurses. This was supported by three subthemes: 'Focusing on evidence-based practice knowledge', 'Facilitating knowledge through a pedagogical approach' and 'Aiming for future changes'. CONCLUSIONS: The academic nurses experienced their engagement of clinical nurses and the subsequent change of practice in patient care and nurses' workflows in the department settings, as successful due to the academic nurses' pedagogical actions to educate clinical nurses and due to the academic nurses' practice-related approach to research and implementation.

Expanding Research Integrity: A Cultural-Practice Perspective.

Research integrity (RI) is usually discussed in terms of responsibilities that individual researchers bear towards the scientific work they conduct, as well as responsibilities that institutions have to enable those individual researchers to do so. In addition to these two bearers of responsibility, a third category often surfaces, which is variably referred to as culture and practice. These notions merit further development beyond a residual category that is to contain everything that is not covered by attributions to individuals and institutions. This paper discusses how thinking in RI can take benefit from more specific ideas on practice and culture. We start by articulating elements of practice and culture, and explore how values central to RI are related to these elements. These insights help identify additional points of intervention for fostering responsible conduct. This helps to build "cultures and practices of research integrity", as it makes clear that specific times and places are connected to specific practices and cultures and should have a place in the debate on Research Integrity. With this conceptual framework, practitioners as well as theorists can avoid using the notions as residual categories that de facto amount to vague, additional burdens of responsibility for the individual.