Research culture is the set of shared, taken- for-granted implicit assumptions that members of a HEI hold about research and determines how they perceive, think about, and behave with the respect to research activities
Edgar Schein “Organizational culture and leadership”
The given article deals with the one of the issues of current importance –research culture in HEI. Specifically, the definitions of research culture given by different authors and resources are analyzed. In addition, the culture phenomenon is exposed in respective to research culture. Clear structure of research culture is provided. Obstacles to developing a research culture come in many forms and are reviewed. More important, solutions are identified and ideas given on how culture develops.
Why it is of vital importance to concern about research culture and should we be concerned? One could say that new Universities have a problem as they are new and need to build this culture from a lower base, but not only that, it is a matter not just of building but also of changing a culture; this is much more difficult. However, with the student numbers rising and the resourcing not keeping up, the pressure is on the staff and so teaching the service which we provide and forms the basis on which we are paid – becomes the Consequently research suffers to the extent that many universities now are concerned about very Research Culture in their institutions. If we add to that the fact that many universities are formerly essentially but not exclusively, teaching institutions, we have the issues of staff who have been here a long time, do not have research experience and indeed have never been part of a “Research Culture”. For such institutions this represents not only an issue of declining research culture but a significant culture shift. One of the questions is, given the changes in the societal context of the Higher Education sector, have we changed enough, quickly enough as the world has changed around us, or have we perhaps tried to cling on just a little too long to what we know, what we knew to our comfort zone. The pressure is still on – how should we be teaching the current content to the current students in the current context and how does this impact on research. Research is closely connected with teaching.
Teaching in a University is different; we use the same word in primary school, secondary school, TAFE, Teachers Colleges, CAEs etc. but it is not the same. One of the major differences is of course the extent to which it (the teaching) is interwoven with research and the research principles. We cannot, in 3 or 4 years, teach the entire content of a discipline (given the growth rate of knowledge this would be futile). So, we do not and we do not pretend to; we teach a spectrum of fundamental and advanced content in the context of the discipline and its application and we teach how to find, understand, contextualize, analyze, criticize, apply, describe, explain etc. This is where the link to research is the strongest. Sometimes these are referred to as “generic skills”; they are much more important, indeed vital, and much more integral to the idea of Higher Education to be given the simplistic tag of being generic, some of them are quite specific. Interestingly, as if to reinforce this, the University of Melbourne refers to the triple helix, an allegorical reference to the Watson and Crick descriptor, but in this case applied to the intertwining of Research, Teaching and Knowledge Transfer:
“Research is the first strand, embracing the systematic generation of new knowledge, development of new ideas and experiment with new techniques. These activities inform student learning and provide an intellectual platform for engaging in knowledge transfer. The second strand is Learning and Teaching. It explicates a body of ideas, is informed by available research, and instills habits of inquiry that reflect the provisional nature of knowledge. The final strand is knowledge transfer. It encompasses many dimensions of interaction between academia and the wider society – from the way public intellectuals use media platforms to participate in debate, to policy work for government, industry and communities, to contract research and education services, and to the complex and risky work of creating business ventures to distribute new knowledge. According to Professor Andrew Cheetham this model is enlightening, it interweaves the three strands which build staff (through research) – students (through the T&L) – and the community (through both). People often will say that without students there will be no university, but equally without good staff there won’t be one either [1].
So, there is a concern about a Research Culture because:
- Research is the basis of how a university education works;
- It is the intellectual life blood of teaching staff;
- It should be the fundamental support of teaching;
- It is a basis of our support for our
What then is a research culture, and would we recognize one if we saw one? Can it be seen? Let us start with research, what is it?
The OECD definition [2]:
“Research and experimental development comprises creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man (sic), culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications. The emphasis is given to creative work, systematic, increase the stock of knowledge. The DEST definition is a little more specific to satisfy their own agenda, which is still valid [3]: “The essential characteristic of research activity is that it leads to publicly verifiable outcomes which are open to peer appraisal. Research and experimental development comprises: creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humanity, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications, any activity classified as research and experimental development is characterized by originality; it should have investigation as a primary objective and should have the potential to produce results that are sufficiently general for humanity's stock of knowledge (theoretical and/or practical) to be recognizably increased. Most higher education research work would qualify as research and experimental development.
The other point of the term is culture. Culture (from the Latin cultura stemming from colere, meaning "to cultivate"), generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance [4]. Different definitions of "culture" reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity. Most general, the term culture denotes whole product of an individual, group or society of intelligent beings. It includes technology, art, science, as well as moral systems and characteristic behaviors and habits of the selected intelligent entities. In particular, it has specific more detailed meanings in different domains of human activities. It is a whole behavior that has essentially been learned or cultivated. Professor Andrew Cheetham: “You only have to think of our own cultures in music, art and science… the moment we stand still, that is fail to keep learning, fail to keep cultivating, our knowledge and experience falls behind the status quo. The fact that this “culture” has to be learned makes it all the more difficult to change a culture; especially if it has become entrenched, by that is meant a behavior that has remained static or uncultivated for some time”.
So what then is a research culture?
- Research is a learned behavior; it is started these days in secondary school and is enhanced as we progress through our degrees and careers;
- The research culture is the structure that gives that behavior significance and that allows us to understand and evaluate the research activity;
- In a university then, the culture is that structure, the cultural structure based around the behavior of the staff and students that allows us to transfer the knowledge gained through this systematic process to our students and to the community;
- We pass on this and other knowledge to our students in the context of today, not yesterday, but today, along with the ability to analyze the evidence in the context of tomorrow;
- That structure is the cultural context that we must strive to build on – the continuous development. We cannot afford to stop researching, learning or we run the risk that our teaching will decrease, gradually, almost imperceptibly but inexorably in its relevance to
Structure of research
The ‘ideal’ structure and culture for research is that it permeates academic work. As Pratt, Margaritis and Coy (1999, p. 44) describe it: Academics who are researching at the leading edge of their disciplines and are able to draw on this knowledge in their teaching. Graduate teaching programmes become a driving force for the development of the departments and the graduate students themselves help in developing new knowledge and exploring the frontiers of the discipline alongside their supervisors. Graduate students, a thriving research programmed, and publications in the recognized academic and professional journals and conferences are hallmarks of successful university faculties. Note however this description only relates to postgraduate students and does not address undergraduate education and the role of research there. Further, universities, faculties or schools do not always conform to this ideal type. In practice, at least five different models can be observed:
Independent researchers – there is no central research core in the unit and research is carried out by a few individuals, usually operating alone with little or no budgetary support;
Stars – most or all research is carried out by a very small number of ‘star’ performers. In this model research is limited to the scope and range of the stars’ interests.
Independent centralized model – a core group of academics carry out most of the research with other staff on the periphery and still others acting independently, but still no majority of research active staff.
Collaborative centralized – a core group of skilled academics promote research activity and gather others into the process, creating a critical mass at the central core.
Multi-core – several collaborative centralized groups can be found across the university (Shamai & Kfir 2002).
It can be seen that of the five models only the last two approach the ideal type outlined by Pratt et al. (1999). Why then is it that despite tacit acceptance that university staff should do research and that the mission of a university includes research, some academic staff, schools or faculties are not research active or less research active than others?
The literature reports a range of studies into obstacles to universities’ research performance:
1. Strategic issues:
- a university mission that emphasizes applied scholarship;
- university as a whole is struggling to remain viable.
2. Culture and values:
- a teaching focused culture;
- curricular development and delivery seem as more critical disciplines with a vocational orientation;
- resentment of staff who were not there for their students because they were
3. Limited institutional resources
- lack of staff whose research is of sufficient standard to succeed in top ranked
4. Lack of general research skills
- legacy staff from earlier teaching institutions who were not required or developed to do
5. Lack of specific individual skills and expertise in ‘playing the research game’
- lack of skills in interdisciplinary research including holistic thinking;
- creativity, intercultural competence and communication;
- no grant writing skills or confidence;
- no skills to manage projects, staff and budgets once funding is obtained;
- lack of skills and confidence in writing for ranked journals;
- lack of commitment to persist with drafting, redrafting, receiving rejections and revising papers for
6. No specific research budget or funding
- Workloads:
- high and exhausting teaching loads;
- high administrative demands;
- lack of
8. Industrial arrangements
- staff on casual, temporary, short term contracts for teaching-only
In theory, the solutions to improving research activity and culture include addressing the obstacles outlined, although removing obstacles is not necessarily the same as encouraging research and increasing output. The ideas for improving research performance are given. It can be seen that most of the recommendations fall under the ambit of standard management practices required bringing about change in an organization.
Developing research and a research culture High level focus:
- governments that recognize the regional mission of local universities;
- distinctive culture that embraces research as part of the academic’s role;
- the research culture is an item on important committee agendas;
- strategic alignment at all levels of the university;
- clear goals;
- participative
Specialized research leadership and administration unit:
- support from the Vice Chancellor, and a head of research with high status and power;
- a proactive and supportive research division or office that does more than ensure compliance;
- a centralized research office, promoting research clusters on which resources are expended;
- designated research positions;
- streamlined administrative procedures that make it easier to comply with government measurement and accounting
Local or sub-unit factors:
- strong leadership, with research and management skills;
- decentralized organizations which enable the school or faculty to direct resources to
Human resource management policy, procedure and processes:
- a raft of human resource management and development including retraining or replacing original teaching staff with research focused academics through recruitment;
- individual and organization performance indicators focused on research;
- rewards and value given to research;
- developing students to become research staff;
- specific assistance with grant applications and publications (including workshops);
- providing internal, unattached or open research funding;
- reducing teaching and administrative workloads;
- collegiality, networks and informal seminars and research method sessions mentoring;
- team research projects;
- frequent communication;
- positive group atmosphere [5].
Building the culture, something that is discussed at many forums. Firstly this cannot be accomplished either quickly or easily; progress is bound to be almost as slow as the decline would be if we do nothing. Over the past few years UWS has made admirable progress by implementing a series of strategies and policies designed to increase research culture and to provide incentives to increase research output. This has been based around focus and concentration; it is a technique being employed by many universities and research institutions. It meets with resistance from those not initially included, not surprisingly. However, when starting from a lower base and with limited resources, a system of prioritization is the only way that we can proceed. There will be times when things do not quite go according to plan, but there must be a plan, this will not work by a random process. The ultimate aim of course, the nirvana, is that all staff will be research active and will have access to a Research Centre, but that cannot be achieved in one hit.
In general these actions are aimed at raising the level of dissemination, discussion, interaction and mutual support. However there is one particular action of high priority and effectiveness that many other Universities, are doing correctly, uniformly or even at all, and that is mentoring. This activity of course goes far beyond just research, but it is vital to research as there are so many aspects of the research process that depend on propagation of experience, wisdom and that intangible tacit knowledge. Indeed the mentoring process starts with the supervisor-student relationship and should, must, then continue. A good mentoring program promotes understanding of the culture of the University and helps staff adjust to new or changing roles and situations. From the research perspective, mentoring networks are very significant contributors to a research culture. All senior staff ought to be mentoring several less experienced staff as well as having their own mentor. It is the intersection and interaction of these research mentoring networks that builds and strengthens the research culture, the symbolic structure mentioned earlier that will give the research its meaning in the institution. This type of academic activity is vital to the research [6].
In conclusion, it must be noted that until we understand what a research culture is and why it is important, that teaching and research are intertwined and should not be separated, it will be impossible to truly build and develop a homogeneous research culture.
- http://growingesteem.unimelb.edu.au/strategicplan/vision.html.
- OECD (2002), Frascati Manual: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development, OECD: http://www.oecd.org/document/6/0,2340,en_2649_34451_33828550_1_1_1_1,00.html
- 2007 Higher Education Data Collection Specifications for the collection of 2006 data page
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture.
- http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/32464/63376_1.pdf?sequence=1 http://www.uws.edu.au/ data/assets/pdf_file/0018/7119/Item_3.6_Building_a_Research_Culture pdf.